Madras High Court
D.Jansi Rani vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 5 March, 2025
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
W.P.(MD).No.20497 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.(MD)No.20497 of 2024
and WMP(MD)No.17394 of 2024
D.Jansi Rani ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai - 600009.
2. The District Educational Officer, (Elementary Education),
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
4. The Correspondent,
R.C.Middle School,
Lingampatti, Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent Block Educational
Officer vide impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 254/A1/2022 dated --.
08.2022, quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent District
Educational Officer herein to approve forthwith the appointment of petitioner as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.20497 of 2024
Secondary Grade Teacher in the R.C.Middle School, Lingampatti w.e.f
02.07.2018 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowances
w.e.f., the said date with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Amala
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
For R4 : M/s.G.Karunya Lakshmi
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceeding issued
by the third respondent Block Educational Officer dated --.08.2022 and for
consequential direction to the second respondent to approve forthwith the
appointment of petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the R.C.Middle
School, Lingampatti w.e.f 02.07.2018 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her
salary and allowances with effect from the said date with all attendant benefits.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Secondary
Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school with effect from 02.07.2018 and
the school submitted a proposal to the second respondent through the third
respondent for approval of the appointment of the petitioner and to disburse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
grant-in-aid towards her salary. It is learnt that the third respondent forwarded
the proposal to the second respondent and the said proposal was returned
seeking certain documents. The third respondent forwarded the same to the
fourth respondent school. The school re-submitted the proposal to the second
respondent through the third respondent on 09.02.2019. Thereafter, no order
was passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction of the second
respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.7471 of 2019. the
said writ petition was clubbed with WA(MD)No.76 of 2019 and batch. The
Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal along with batch
by judgment dated 31.03.2021. But in the said judgment, there is no finding
with regard to the grievance raised in the petitioner's writ petition. The fourth
respondent school had communicated the order of the Division Bench to the
third respondent vide letter dated 04.08.2022. On receipt of the same, the third
respondent issued proceedings by returning the proposal stating that the
petitioner had not passed Teacher Eligibility Test and a case is pending before
the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on that aspect. Aggrieved by the said
order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.254/A1/2022 dated ... 08.2022 the
present writ petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
4.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent,
wherein it is stated that on perusal of the records proposal was re-submitted by
the fourth respondent school management on 10.08.2022 and the said proposal
was verified by the third respondent for the purpose of forwarding the same to
the second respondent. It is noticed that proposal submitted by the school did
not contain the certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test qualification possessed by
the writ petitioner and therefore it is intimated to the fourth respondent school
to enclose a copy of the Teacher Eligibility Test examination certificate to
forward the same to the District Educational Officer for passing appropriate
orders.
5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit the third respondent i.e Block
Educational Officer, is not competent authority for passing proposal submitted
by the school. At the same time, it is his duty to verify the proposal submitted
by the school before forwarding the same to the District Educational Officer as
per the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, dated
30.11.2009.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent
is not competent authority to issue the impugned order as admitted by the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
respondent in his counter. In the present case, the fourth respondent school is
being minority school, the Teachers to be appointed in that school need not
possess TET qualification. In addition to that, the third respondent returned the
proposal submitted by the school on the ground that a case is pending before the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is not correct. WP(MD)No.7471 of 2019
filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 31.03.2021. As such, no case is
pending before any court pertaining to the proposal sent by the fourth
respondent school with respect to the appointment of the petitioner. The learned
counsel further contends that without any authority or without following the
factual position and without following the procedure contemplated under law
the third respondent erroneously returned the proposal sent by the school and as
such it is liable to be quashed.
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
would submit that as per the direction on 25.02.2025, the first respondent has
considered the issue and after coming to the conclusion that the third
respondent is not competent authority to return the proposal submitted by the
fourth respondent without forwarding the same to the second respondent, the
disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him under 17(b) of Tamil Nadu
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is an
admitted fact that the fourth respondent school is an aided minority school and
the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in that school with
effect from 02.07.2018. The fourth respondent school sent a proposal to
approve the appointment of the petitioner. But the said proposal was not
considered yet by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner did not
acquire qualification of TET. Now it is settled law that pass in TET examination
is not mandatory for appointment of teachers in the minority schools.
9. The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in a judgment reported
in 2023-3-LW-112 ( The Director of School Education D.P.I. Campus,
College Road & others Vs. M.Velayutham & another) in Paragraph No.74(c)
has categorically held that a post in TET examination is not mandatory for
being appointed in the minority institution.
10. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench stated supra, the
petitioner is entitled for appointment in the fourth respondent school as
Secondary Grade Teacher though she did not pass TET qualification.
Accordingly, the second respondent has to grant approval for appointment of
the petitioner as the Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
as per the proposal sent by the fourth respondent school. Keeping the said
proposal for several years on one pretext or another is not justified.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed with the
following directions:
i)The impugned order is hereby quashed.
ii)The second respondent is directed to approve forthwith the
appointment of the petitioner as the Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth
respondent school with effect from 02.07.2018 and disburse the grant-in-aid
towards her salary and allowances with effect from the said date with all
attendant benefits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
CM
To
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai - 600009.
2. The District Educational Officer, (Elementary Education),
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
05.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:53:31 pm )
