WA/1126/2026 of P.Sudha Rani, Vs Smt. Kopelli Srilatha, on 24 September 2026

JUDGMENT:

This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant/7th respondent, aggrieved by the interim order dated 31.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.23713 of 2026.

2. While considering the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, having taken into consideration the relevant aspects, passed the following interim directions: “i) Respondents Nos.2 and 5 shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Headmistress before Respondent No.7 assumes the office of Headmistress of Respondent No.5-School.

ii) Till such time, the appointment of Respondent No.7 by Respondent No.5-School shall be kept in abeyance.”

3. The primary contention raised by the appellant is that the writ petitioner is not fully qualified for appointment to the post in question, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others1.

4. According to the observations made in the said judgment, a teacher is required to possess the TET qualification either prior to appointment or, in the case of teachers already appointed, to acquire the said qualification within the stipulated period.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, in the present case, without examining the question of qualification and eligibility of the writ petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the interim order and directed that the appointment of the appellant be kept in abeyance. It is therefore contended that the issue relating to the qualification and eligibility of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered before granting such interim relief.

6. Per contra, Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, contended that the requirement relating to TET qualification, as referred to in the aforesaid judgment, would not apply to minority educational institutions. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman 1 (2026) 7 SCC 690

Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra), particularly paragraph 220 thereof, which reads as follows: “Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same we hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority—whether religious or linguistic—till such time the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above under Section VII. Logically, it would follow that in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in service.”

7. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, in view of the aforesaid observation, the requirement of TET qualification under the provisions of the RTE Act would not apply to minority educational institutions. At the same time, he fairly submitted that the protection available under Article 30 of the Constitution of India to a minority institution does not confer an unfettered right to act arbitrarily or dispense with the applicable service rules and other requirements governing appointment.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court is not inclined, at this stage, to go into the merits of the case or record any finding with regard to the eligibility or entitlement of either the appellant or the writ petitioner.

10. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 31.08.2026, has only directed Respondent Nos.3 and 6 to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Headmistress before the appellant assumes charge, and has directed that the appointment of the appellant be kept in abeyance till such consideration.

11. Since the learned Single Judge has not recorded any final finding with regard to the eligibility or entitlement of either the writ petitioner or the appellant, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Appeal with a direction to Respondent Nos.3 and 6 to consider the respective claims of the appellant as well as the writ petitioner in terms of the interim order dated 31.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.23713 of 2026.

12. Respondent Nos.3 and 6 shall hear both the appellant and the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after duly considering all relevant aspects, including the eligibility and entitlement of the appellant and the writ petitioner.

13. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH

__________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

25th September, 2026

Note: Issue C.C. by 28.09.2026 B/o cbn/cst

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

WRIT APPEAL No.1126 of 2026

25th September, 2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 28.09.2026 B/o cbn/cst