WP(MD)/6067/2026 of M.Prema Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 7 August 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner herein was appointed, on 19.10.2011, as a B.T.Assistant (Science) in the fifth respondent – School, which is a Private Aided Non-Minority Institution, in a vacancy that arose due to the promotion of the incumbent of the said post, and her appointment was approved by the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated 05.07.2012 with effect from 19.10.2011, without imposing any condition, especially with reference to the passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) etc. However, in the service register of the petitioner, an entry was made prescribing that the petitioner should clear the TET within a period of five years. The petitioner passed TET on 04.02.2023. For want of passing the TET, annual increments were not released to the petitioner and it is only after the petitioner passed TET on 04.02.2023, the petitioner was allowed to draw the annual increments. However, for the period prior to the passing of TET, the petitioner was not allowed to draw the annual increments. Hence, the petitioner made a claim for release of annual increments for the service rendered by her from the date of her initial appointment on 19.10.2011 till she acquired the TET qualification.

2. Accordingly, the Secretary of the fifth respondent – School submitted a proposal dated 18.08.2025 to the fourth respondent and the said proposal was rejected by the fourth respondent vide proceedings bearing O.Mu.No.4467/A1/2025, dated Nil.10.2025 (signed on 03.11.2025) stating that TET qualification is mandatory for the appointments made after 01.04.2010.

3. It is aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition contending that her appointment was approved by the fourth respondent unconditionally and there was no mechanism to conduct TET at the relevant point of time, though it was mandated that TET is required to be conducted twice in a year and thereby, making it impossible for the petitioner to acquire the TET qualification. Thus, it is contended that once the petitioner acquired the TET qualification in the year 2023, she shall be entitled for release of annual increments for all the years of service rendered by her.

4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit and there is no dispute on the factual aspects of the matter. Further, it is stated that TET is a mandatory qualification for all the teachers, who were appointed after 01.04.2010 in terms of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011 and also stated that the Teachers Recruitment Board was designated as a Nodal Agency to conduct TET and first of such examination was conducted in the year 2012. It is also further stated that in terms of the orders passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.313 of 2022 and batch, vide Judgment dated 02.06.2023, the teachers appointed after 29.07.2011 must necessarily pass TET for continuation in service and for claiming service benefits, including annual increments etc., and also stated that the said decision was affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861. Thus, it is contended that TET is a mandatory qualification for appointment of teachers after 01.04.2010 and the petitioner being the one appointed on 19.10.2011, her appointment was without possessing the requisite qualification and therefore, she cannot claim for awarding of annual increments for the service rendered by her without possessing the requisite qualification. In other words, it is contended that the petitioner's appointment was illegal and mere approval granted by the authority concerned will not operate as estoppel against the statute, which mandates the TET qualification as mandatory.

5. Heard Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Despite service of notice and printing the name of the fifth respondent – School in the cause list, none appeared on their behalf.

6. Before considering the case on merits, it would be relevant to refer to certain background facts with reference to TET.

6.1. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, “RTE Act”) was enacted by the Union of India and in terms of Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, the National Council for Technical Education (NCTE) was appointed as the Academic Authority. The NCTE issued a Notification dated 23.08.2010 prescribing educational qualifications for the teachers taking classes to Standards I to VIII and one of the qualifications being pass in TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government.

6.2. It was thereafter, NCTE issued another notification on 27.09.2011 amending the earlier notification dated 23.08.2010. As per the said amended notification, passing of TET, conducted by the appropriate Government, has to be considered as one of the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of teachers taking classes to Standards I to VIII.

6.3. It was pursuant to the said notification issued by NCTE, the State of Tamil Nadu issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011, appointing the Teachers Recruitment Board as the Nodal Agency to conduct TET.

6.4. The litigation with regard to the passing of TET, which was prescribed as one of the eligibility criteria by the NCTE, has been subject matter of a series of litigations before this Court as well as before the Honourable Apex Court. Finally, the matter came to be considered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in detail in W.A.No.313 of 2022 and batch and in the said batch of matters, the learned Division Bench, after having considered the entire matter in elaborate, recorded it's findings at Paragraph No.74 vide Judgment dated 02.06.2023, which read as under: “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 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.”

6.5. So also, identical issues have come up for consideration before various High Courts and ultimately, the matter landed before the Honourable Apex Court. The Honourable Apex Court, having consolidated all the matters, disposed of the said matter in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust's case (supra) and laid down certain principles in connection with the applicability of TET to the in-service teachers in Paragraph Nos.214 to 218 of it's decision, which read as under: “214. 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.

215. However, we are mindful of the ground realities as well as the practical challenges. There are in-service teachers who were recruited much prior to the advent of the RTE Act and who might have put in more than two or even three decades of service. They have been imparting education to their students to the best of their ability without any serious complaint. It is not that the students who have been imparted education by the non-TET qualified teachers have not shone in life. To dislodge such teachers from service on the ground that they have not qualified the TET would seem to be a bit harsh although we are alive to the settled legal position that operation of a statute can never be seen as an evil.

216. Bearing in mind their predicament, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that those teachers who have less than five years’ service left, as on date, may continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET. However, we make it clear that if any such teacher (having less than five years’ service left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET.

217. Insofar as in-service teachers recruited prior to enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5 years to retire on superannuation are concerned, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order to continue in service. If any of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the time that we have allowed, they shall have to quit service. They may be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they are entitled to. We add a rider that to qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers must have put in the qualifying period of service, in accordance with the rules. If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the appropriate department in the Government upon a representation being made by him/her.

218. Subject to what we have said above, it is reiterated that those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature.”

7. From the above, it is evident that the teachers appointed prior to 29.07.2011 are entitled to continue in service and also to receive annual increments and incentives even if they do not possess / acquire the pass in TET. But, they are not entitled to claim future promotional prospects and it was made clear that any appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher / B.T.Assistant after 29.07.2011 must necessarily possess the TET qualification. Therefore, any appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher / B.T.Assistant after 29.07.2011, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, must necessarily possess the TET qualification.

8. It is also clear that in respect of the in-service teachers recruited prior to the enactment of RTE Act and having more than five years to retire from service for attaining the age of superannuation, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within a period of two years from the date of the decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E- Taleem Trust's case (supra) i.e., 01.09.2025 in order to continue in service and incase of their failure to qualify the TET within the time prescribed, they shall have to quit their service. Whatever protection granted by the Honourable Apex Court is only for in-service candidates as on the date of enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 / date on which TET was prescribed as qualification. Thus, it is evident that for all the teachers, including B.T.Assistants, who were appointed after 29.07.2011, pass in TET is mandatory and without such qualification, no teacher can be appointed.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner herein was appointed as a B.T.Assistant (Science), on 19.10.2011, in the fifth respondent – School and her appointment was approved by the fourth respondent on 05.07.2012, much after 29.07.2011. Therefore, on the date of appointment of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (Science), pass in TET is a mandatory qualification and without the said qualification, the petitioner ought not have been appointed as a B.T.Assistant in the fifth respondent – School and fourth respondent ought not to have approved the said appointment of the petitioner in the fifth respondent – School.

10. It is not as if TET was not conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board till the year 2023. But, as contended by the fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, the first examination was conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in the year 2012 and thereafter, till 2023 several such examinations were conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board. It is not as if the petitioner is not aware of the necessity of acquiring the TET qualification, as admittedly appropriate entry was made in the service register of the petitioner requiring her to acquire the TET qualification within a period of five years. But, the petitioner admittedly could not acquire the said qualification till the month of February, 2023. For the reasons best known, the petitioner has not disclosed as to how many attempts she has made to acquire the TET qualification from the year 2012 till 2023, except stating that the petitioner has passed the TET conducted in the month of February, 2023.

11. As seen from the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court referred to above, the teachers, who were appointed prior to 29.07.2011, were allowed to continue in service and to draw annual increments, without acquiring the TET qualification, while restricting their promotional prospects until they acquire the TET qualification. But, the learned Division Bench of this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court have made it clear that no teacher can be appointed after 29.07.2011 without TET qualification. Merely because the fourth respondent has approved the appointment of the petitioner as a B.T.Assistant (Science) in the fifth respondent – School, the same cannot operate as estoppel against the statutory requirement of possessing TET qualification.

12. From the perusal of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust's case (supra), it is also evident that in case if the teacher, who was in service prior to 29.07.2011, failed to acquire the TET qualification within the time prescribed under the notification issued by the NCTE or within a period of two years from the date of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust's case (supra) i.e., from 01.09.2025, such teachers have to quit their service.

This itself exhibits the rigour of the requirement of possessing the TET qualification.

13. Taking into consideration the above aspects, now the issue to be considered is as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner herein, without possessing the requisite qualification to hold the post of B.T.Assistant (Science), would entitle her to make a claim for grant of annual increments, selection grade etc., or not?

14. It is not the case of the petitioner that she possess the TET qualification at the time of her appointment. Her contention is that her appointment in the fifth respondent - School was approved unconditionally by the fourth respondent. Therefore, she is entitled for grant of annual increments. But, the fact remains that the services that were rendered by the petitioner prior to February, 2023, is all without possessing the mandatory qualification of pass in TET. Admittedly, the petitioner lacked the qualification of pass in TET till the month of February, 2023. Approval of appointment by the authority concerned cannot dispense with the possessing of statutory qualifications, which are mandatory. Hence, the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to the acquiring TET qualification cannot ordinarily be counted for annual increments unless there is a specific order or statutory provision granting such benefits. Whatever the protection, that is extended by this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court in the above referred decisions, is only for the teachers, who were appointed prior to 29.07.2011 and absolutely appointment of any teacher after 29.07.2011 without TET qualification was not in contemplation at all. On the other hand, it was held that no teacher should be appointed after 29.07.2011 without possessing TET qualification. Therefore, any appointment made after 29.07.2011 to the post of teacher without pass in TET cannot be recognized as the appointment in the eye of law. The very appointment and continuation of the petitioner in service without TET qualification itself is contrary to law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit in respect of the service that was rendered by her till she acquired the TET qualification in the month of February, 2023.

15. In the light of the above and taking into consideration the statutory mandate and the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court, this Court has no other option except to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to seek award of annual increment / selection grade etc., by taking into consideration the unqualified service rendered by the petitioner till she acquired the TET qualification.

Hence, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent. No doubt, it would be too harsh on the part of the petitioner to deny the benefit of about ten long years of service rendered by her, but the sympathy is never a guiding factor for this Court, especially in a matter like the one before this Court. The petitioner has to blame herself for not acquiring TET qualification till 04.02.2023. But, it is for the State to take an appropriate decision in its wisdom and at its discretion on this aspect, though the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

16. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking Order

krk

To:

1. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Nungampakkam, College Road, Chennai-6.

3. The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Office, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

4. The District Educational Officer (Secondary), O/o.The District Educational Office, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. krk

ORDER

IN W.P.(MD) No.6067 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.5100 of 2026 07.08.2026