Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.Suriyakala on 15 June, 2023
2023/MHC/3056
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
and C.M.P. (MD) No.6058 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Mandapam @ Ramnad,
Ramnad District. ... Appellants/1 to 4 Respondents
Vs.
1.M.Suriyakala,
B.T.Assistant (Science),
Sri Sethumanikam High School,
Melaseethai,
Mallal Post,
Ramnad District. ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
2.The Secretary,
Sri Sethumanikam High School,
Melaseethai, Mallal Post,
Ramnad, Ramnad District. ... 2nd Respondent/5th Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this
Court to set aside the order dated 08.03.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.5629 of
2017 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramesh
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the Writ
Court dated 08.03.2019, made in W.P.(MD) No.5629 of 2017.
2. The first respondent M.Suriyakala was appointed as B.T.
Assistant on 15.06.2011 at the second respondent school. Subsequently, the
appointment was approved by the competent authority on 14.07.2011.
3. However, it is to be noted that under the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Teachers Eligibility Test
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
was made mandatory to be acquired by the teacher to be appointed either as
a Secondary Grade Teacher or B.T. Assistant and a cut of date has been
fixed as 27.09.2011, as on or after that date, if any appointment is made to
the said two posts, those teacher must have completed the TET
qualification, otherwise they should not be appointed.
4. Insofar as the first respondent is concerned, admittedly, she did
not possess the TET qualification, despite that, she was appointed as such
and her appointment was also approved by the competent authority.
However, subsequently, it seems that, the appellants insisted upon or
requiring the first respondent to qualify herself with the TET so as to
continue in the said post as B.T. Assistant. Only at that juncture, the first
respondent moved the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.5629 of 2017, seeking
for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the appellants not to insist the first
respondent herein to pass TET for her continuous employment as B.T.
Assistant. Along with the said Writ Petition, some similarly placed Writ
Petitions were grouped together and heard by the Writ Court, where the
learned Judge by common order dated 08.03.2019 allowed all those Writ
Petitions, wherein in paragraph No.12, the learned Judge has stated the
following:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
“12.In the ultimate analysis, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the petitioners are entitled to seek
exemption from passing TET, as they were appointed prior to
the cut off date and the respondents are directed not to insist
TET certificate from the petitioners as a pre-condition for their
continuance in service as B.T. Assistants.”
Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been directed.
5. Heard Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants, who would submit that, though the teacher
concerned was appointed prior to 27.09.2011, the date on which it was
become mandatory to have the qualification of TET, and her appointment
was also approved by 14.07.2011 that would not ipso facto entitle her to
make a claim by the teacher to continue the post without even having the
qualification of TET by acquiring such qualification.
6. He would also submit that, for the purpose of acquiring such
qualification, the Government time and again extended the period almost for
9 years i.e., up to 2019, even within the 9 years period if the teacher
concerned could not acquire qualification she should be sent out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
7. However, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 would submit that, this kind of conflict had been there
before the Court of law for all these years from 2011 onwards till date and
recently, this issue had engaged a Division Bench, before which, number of
Writ Appeals of similar nature have been placed for disposal.
8. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 02.06.2023 in Writ
Appeal No.313 of 2022 etc., batch in the matter of the Director of School
Education and others v. M.Velayutham and another has given the
following conclusion on those issues, which were considered by the
Division Bench:-
“CONCLUSION
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
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 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.
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
9. Relying upon this judgment, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents would contend that under clause 74(a) of the judgment any
teacher appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher or Graduate Teacher / B.T.
Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive
increments and incentives, even if they do not possess or acquire a pass in
TET. However, only for future promotional prospects like promotion from
Secondary Grade Teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to
Headmaster etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they
must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for
promotion.
10. Relying upon this dictum of the Division Bench, the learned
counsel for the respondents would condent that, since the first respondent
has been appointed well prior to the 29.07.2011 and her appointment was
also approved accordingly, the insistence of TET qualification to be
acquired by the said teacher may not be justifiable in view of the
authoritative pronouncement given by the Division Bench in the said
judgment, of course, it is a latest decision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
11. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this
Court.
12. As has been rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the issue raised in this Writ Appeal is squarely covered by the
said decision of the Division Bench dated 02.06.2023 in WA.No.313 of
2022 etc., batch (cited supra).
13. In this case, the first respondent since was appointed on
15.06.2011, which is well before the cut of date i.e., 27.09.2011 and her
appointment was also approved on 14.07.2011, as per para 74(a) of the
Division Bench judgment, she can continue in the post where she was
appointed i.e., B.T. Assistant, however, without the TET qualification, she
is not entitled for any promotional avenue like Headmaster etc.,
14. The word ‘etc.,’ means P.G. Assistant also, for which the
feeder category is B.T. Assistant. Therefore, insofar as continuance of the
teacher concerned as a B.T. Assistant, for which she was originally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
appointed without TET qualification, there is no impediment and she can
continue as such till her superannuation.
15. However, if she seek for any promotion either as a Headmaster
or as a P.G. Assistant, she should have acquired the TET qualification
without which such a promotional avenue is not available to the teacher
concerned and such kind of promotion could be denied.
16. It is needless to mention that, since the continuance of the
teacher concerned as a B.T. Assistant is not impeded, her other service
benefits, including the regular annual increments also can very well be
extended to the teacher concerned and therefore, the insistence made on
behalf of the appellants to the teacher concerned to complete the TET
qualification even to hold the post of B.T. Assistant or to continue the said
post may not be required and therefore, to that extent, the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is to be approved. Hence, this Writ Appeal is
disposed of with the following order:-
(i) That the first respondent can continue as a B.T. Assistant since
she was appointed on 15.06.2011 and approved on 14.07.2011, prior to cut
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
of date i.e., 27.09.2011.
(ii) However, the teacher concerned is not entitled to get any
promotional avenue including Headmaster, P.G. Assistant etc., without
acquiring the qualification of TET.
(iii) So long as the teacher concerned does not qualify herself with
the TET qualification, she is not entitled for any further promotion. This has
been made clear by the said Division Bench judgment in paragraph 74(a). It
is further made clear that insofar as all pay benefits, including the annual
increments is concerned, the teacher is entitled for the same to the post of
B.T. Assistant.
17. With these directions and observations, this Writ Appeal is
disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) & (K.K.R.K, J.)
15.06.2023
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
SJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Mandapam @ Ramnad,
Ramnad District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
SJ
W.A.(MD)No.1475 of 2021
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
