Madras High Court
R.Dhivya vs The Director Of School Education on 12 June, 2023
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 12.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
AND
C.M.P.No.10937 of 2023
R.Dhivya .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006
2.The Chief Educational Officer
Tiruvarur District
Tiruvarur
3.The District Educational Officer
Tiruvarur Education District
Tiruvarur
4.The Block Educational Officer
Valangaiman Block
Tiruvarur District
5.The Secretary
Saraswathi Aided Primary School
Eari 612 701
Valangaiman Taluk
Tiruvarur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
6.Teachers Recruitment Board
Rep. by its Chairman
College Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 006
7.Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Department of School Educational and Literacy
Ministry of Human Resource Development
217-C, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi 110 001
8.National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
Rep. by its Member Secretary
G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka
New Delhi 110 075 .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.23853 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For R1 to R6 : Mr.G.Ameedius
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
Challenging the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in
W.P.No.23853 of 2019, the writ petitioner has preferred this writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
2. According to the appellant / writ petitioner, she was appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher on 15.10.2011 against the vacancies that had arisen
as on 01.06.2010, in the fifth respondent school, which is an aided primary
school and her appointment was duly approved by the District Elementary
Educational Officer, Thiruvarur, by order dated 09.11.2011, in which, there was
no reference about passing of TET. While so, the appellant was denied the
benefit of annual increment and incentive increment and other service benefits
from December 2019 onwards, as per the oral instructions of the fourth
respondent insisting passing of TET by referring to G.O.(Ms).No.181, School
Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011. Therefore, she preferred
W.P.No.23853 of 2019 for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents from
insisting passing of TET and consequently directing them to continue to make
payment of salary including other service benefits. However, the learned Judge
dismissed the said writ petition, by holding that the appellant does not fall
under the exempted category as stipulated in clause 5(a) of the notification
dated 23.08.2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education and she
did not pass TET, within the time stipulated. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
3. It is submitted by both sides that the issue involved herein is
covered by a common judgment passed by this Bench earlier in The Director of
School Education D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai vs M. Velayutham
(W.A.No.313 of 2022 etc., batch decided on 02.06.2023). The key issues for
determination and also the resultant portion of the said judgment, read as under:
"1.The key issues that arise for determination in these batch of
writ appeals and writ petitions are:
(i) whether passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is
mandatory for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant/Graduate
Teacher, from the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher (already in
service).
(ii) whether non-possession/non-acquisition of a pass in TET by
a teacher appointed prior to 29.07.2011 would affect his/her
continuance in service and drawal of increment, without seeking for
further promotion to the post of BT Assistant/Graduate Teacher."
"74. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the upshot of
the above discussion is as under:
(a)Any teacher appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher or
Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in
service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not
possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional
prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant
as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates
of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing
which they will not be eligible for promotion.
(b)Any appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade
Teacher after 29.07.2011 must necessarily possess TET.
(c)Any appointment made to Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant,
after 29.07.2011, whether by direct recruitment or promotion from the
post of Secondary Grade Teacher, or transfer, must necessarily possess
TET. The principles laid down in this judgment will not have
application to minority schools both aided and unaided as explained
in paragraph no.71.1.
(d)The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational
Subordinate Service issued in GO (Ms.) No.13 School Education
(S.E3(1)) Department dated 30.01.2020 insofar as it prescribes “a pass
in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)” only for direct recruitment for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
post of BT Assistant and not for promotion thereto in Annexure-I
(referred to in Rule 6) is struck down, thereby meaning that TET is
mandatory/essential eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of
BT Assistant even by promotion from Secondary Grade Teachers.
(e)The language employed in G.O. (Ms) No. 181 dated
15.11.2011 is to be read and understood to the effect that for
continuance in service without promotional prospects, TET is not
mandatory."
4. A reading of the above judgment would make it clear that any
appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher after 29.07.2011,
must necessarily possess TET.
5. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case,
wherein, admittedly, the appellant was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher
only on 15.10.2011 i.e., after 29.07.2011, and she did not possess the
qualification of TET, this court is of the view that the order of the learned
Judge in rejecting the claim of the appellant seeking annual increment /
incentive increment and other service benefits, without insisting TET, does not
require any interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
12.06.2023
Internet : Yes
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
To
1.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006
2.The Chief Educational Officer
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur
3.The District Educational Officer
Tiruvarur Education District, Tiruvarur
4.The Block Educational Officer
Valangaiman Block, Tiruvarur District
5.The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board
College Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 006
6.The Secretary to Government
Union of India
Department of School Educational and Literacy
Ministry of Human Resource Development
217-C, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi 110 001
7.The Member Secretary
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka
New Delhi 110 075
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
W.A.No.1081 of 2023
12.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
