Madras High Court
M.Maharani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 2019
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
WP(MD)Nos.5626 to 5630, 5070 to 5474, 5455, 7296 to 7302 and
12727 to 12732 of 2017
and connected Miscellaneous Petitions
WP(MD)No.5626 of 2017
M.Maharani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai -600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Secretary,
Kshatriya Nadar Higher Secondary School,
Kamuthi,
Ramanathapuram District -623 603. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
herein to forebear from insisting upon the petitioner to pass Teachers
Eligibility Test (TET) for her employment as BT Assistant (History) in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
5th respondent school namely, Kshatriya Nadar Higher Secondary School,
Kamuthi.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, SC for
Mr.T.Cibi Chakkaravarthi
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Nos. 1 to 4 Special Government Pleader
For Respondent :Mr.T.Lajapathiroy
No.5
COMMON ORDER
The relief sought in these writ petitions is to forbear the respondents from insisting upon the petitioners to pass 'Teachers Eligibility Test' (TET) for continuing their service as B.T. Assistants in the respondent Schools.
2.Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of, by this common order.
3.The facts in brief germane for the disposal of these writ petitions, are as follows:
(i)The petitioners are eligible for the post of B.T. Assistants, as per the qualifications prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules made thereunder. After following necessary formalities, the respondent Schools appointed the petitioners in the sanctioned vacancies arisen out of promotion, deployment, retirement, transfer, etc. Thereafter, they submitted proposals to the District Educational Officers concerned, for approval of the appointments of the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 petitioners, so as to receive the grant-in-aid towards their salary and allowances. The District Educational Officers, in turn, approved the appointments of the petitioners as B.T. Assistants, with effect from their respective dates of appointment. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have been continuing to work as such and receiving salary.
(ii)While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, (for brevity, G.O.Ms.No.
181) wherein, it was specified that the teachers, who do not possess the minimum qualification of pass in TET, shall acquire the same, within a period of five years. Consequently, as per the proceedings of the second respondent/ Director of School Education, Chennai, in Na.Ka.No. 3416/D1/2013, dated 01.03.2017, the District Educational Officers insisted the petitioners to get qualified in TET, in order to continue in the said post of B.T. Assistants. Further, they instructed the respondent Schools to submit a list of teachers, who are employed without the qualification of pass in TET and if they do not get qualified in the next TET, they would be relieved from their services. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court with the present writ petitions with the aforesaid prayer.
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners emphatically contended that the petitioners possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as B.T. Assistants as prescribed under the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act; they were appointed as such, in the sanctioned posts; and their appointments were also approved by the concerned District Educational Officers; the petitioners were appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.181; the Chief Educational Officers, while granting permission to fill up the posts, have not imposed any such condition i.e., pass in TET; and there was no such qualification prescribed either in the notification issued to fill up the said posts or at the time of appointment and as such, the condition to pass in TET imposed on the petitioners for continuing their service as B.T Assistants is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for appropriate direction to the respondents, not to insist the petitioners to pass in TET for continuing their service.
5.Repudiating the contentions so made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities submitted that when the Teachers, who have not qualified themselves with a pass in TET, have been appointed in violation of G.O.Ms.No.181, the direction issued by the respondent authorities to the petitioners through the competent authorities to get qualified in TET, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, particularly, when G.O.Ms.No.181 made it clear that the Teachers to be appointed after the issuance of said G.O., must be qualified with a pass in TET and the Teachers, who were appointed prior to the said http://www.judis.nic.in 5 G.O., have to acquire the qualification of a pass in TET within a period of five years. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances on the administrative side, the Teachers Recruitment Board could not conduct the Teacher Eligibility Test after 2013; they are taking steps to conduct the TET in the near future; and the same cannot be taken advantage of by the Teachers, who were appointed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.181 by seeking exemption from passing TET.
6.This Court paid its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the documents filed in the form of typed set of papers.
7.By this medium of writ petitions, the petitioners sought a direction to the respondent authorities not to insist them to pass TET/exempt them from passing TET, for serving as B.T. Assistants in the respondent Schools. According to them, they possess the requisite qualification as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules; they were appointed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.181 and at the time of appointment, there was no such qualification prescribed by the respondent authorities to pass in TET. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1126/2015 etc. batch, held that the teachers, who were appointed after issuance of http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.O.Ms.No.181, need to pass TET in the next examination in order to continue in service; there is no mention with regard to acquiring TET certificate to the teachers, who were appointed prior to the issuance of the said G.O.; and the Teachers Recruitment Board has not conducted TET examination in regular intervals and hence, they sought exemption from passing TET examination. The relief sought for in these writ petitions has been refuted on the side of the respondents.
8.For an effective and efficacious adjudication of the controversy centering around the present writ petitions, the background to the Government Order i.e., G.O.Ms.No.181 is to be looked into, which is as follows:
8.1 The Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short the “RTE Act”) came into force with effect from 01.04.2010, as per Section 23(1) of which, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has been appointed as the Academic Authority by Government of India, to lay down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
8.2 The said Academic Authority viz., NCTE, by notification dated 23.08.2010, laid down the minimum qualification as a pass certificate in TET for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher for the classes I to VIII in “School” referred to in Clause 2(n) of the RTE Act. However, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Clause (5) of the said notification dated 23.08.2010 made it clear that if the process of appointment of Teachers was initiated prior to the date of notification by issuing advertisement, such appointments to be made in accordance with NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001.
(Emphasis Applied) 8.3 The NCTE also issued a set of Guidelines, by their Memorandum dated 11.02.2011, for the conduct of the TET and Paragraph 9 of the said Guidelines is apposite to be extracted:
"9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc. In accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment."
8.4 Subsequently, by notification dated 29.07.2011, the NCTE amended its earlier notification dated 23.08.2010. Clause (5) of the said amended notification reads as under:
“5(a). Teacher appointed after the date of this http://www.judis.nic.in Notification in certain cases:-8
Where an appropriate Government or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time)
(b) The minimum qualification norms referred to in this Notification apply to teachers of Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for Physical Education, the minimum qualification norms for Physical Education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulation dated 3rd November, 2001 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable. For teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Word Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State Government and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualifications in respect of such teachers. As far as we are concerned, Clause 5(a) is relevant for these cases.
(Emphasis Applied) 8.5 Accepting the aforesaid recommendation and the notification issued by the NCTE, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.Ms.No. 181, as per which, the persons, who were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers or B.T. Assistants, prior to the said G.O., have to pass the TET, within http://www.judis.nic.in a period of five years and the Teachers Recruitment Board is 9 designated as the Nodal Agency for conducting of TET and recruitment of Teachers.
8.6 In the meantime, the Supreme Court, in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 MLJ 486 (SC)] held that the RTE Act itself is not applicable to the Minority Educational Institutions. Following the same, a Division Bench of this Court in the Secretary to Government v. S.Jeyalakshmi [2016 (5) CTC 639], by judgment dated 24.08.2016, quashed G.O.Ms.No.181 insofar as its applicability to Minority Educational Institutions, holding that the teachers appointed in Minority Educational Institutions need not possess the TET qualification.
8.7 Thereafter, another Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 24.01.2017 in WA.No.1126 of 2016 etc. batch, extensively dealt with the issue involved herein and observed in paragraph Nos.33 to 36 and 41 to 43 as follows:
“33. Undoubtedly, the intention of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011 is to ensure the quality of education imparted to the children and to maintain uniformity in teaching. In other words, G.O.Ms.No.181 has been issued only to standardise the quality of education imparted to children across the various types of institutions. Thus, it is evident that the policy decision of the Government is not to compromise on the quality http://www.judis.nic.in 10 of Teachers, but to appoint quality Teachers and therefore, the same cannot be found fault with.
34. But, the Government, before issuing G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011, lost sight of one important fact, namely imposition of a condition on the Teachers, who were appointed prior to the issue of G.O., in non minority and minority Schools, both aided and unaided, to qualify themselves with TET within a period of five years, in order to continue in service, would cause great hardship to them. Moreover, if the Teachers who have put in more number of years of service, could not pass TET within a period five years, their continuation in service would be in jeopardy. Further, it is seen that the percentage of pass in the TET examination conducted in 2012 and 2013 was very minimal.
35. Indisputably, the Teachers Recruitment Board did not conduct Teachers Eligibility Test after 2013, till now, though the State Government was directed to conduct such test from time to time to enable the Teachers already working to become eligible to continue in services. However, for certain appointments which have been made by the institutions in the interregnum, this Court granted an interim order directing the Government to pay the salary to such appointees, since work has been extracted from them and also allowed them to continue in service for a period of five years, subject to their qualifying themselves in TET.
36. An important point to be noted now is that large number of vacancies were then existed in the http://www.judis.nic.in aided education institution and the same could not be 11 filled up due to the non availability of persons with the qualification of a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test, leading to a disruption in fulfilling the object of quality compulsory education to the children. Therefore, in order to fulfill the object of the RTE Act and to meet out the need for imparting education to the children, the persons without the qualification of a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test have been appointed.
XXX XXX XXX
41. As held by this Court in the case of minority Schools, there is no embargo in appointing persons possessed with Teachers Training Course or Diploma in Teachers Education for appointment as Teachers, as they were qualified for appointment either as B.T. Assistants or Secondary Grade Teachers. However, further to the Government Order, it is trite that appointments have to be made in consonance with the said order. But the Government having not conducted TET examinations regularly, a piquant situation has arisen, where a mandate is made for inducting persons with TET qualification, but the mandate being not fulfilled by the Government, i.e., there being no TET exams conducted regularly, except for the years 2012 and 2013, in such a scenario, shifting the burden on the persons alone would not be justified, as non-conduct of TET exams regularly would reflect on the debit side of the Government as well. The fact that persons have been appointed against the vacancies as existed in order http://www.judis.nic.in to impart education to the children, but, however, 12 without passing the TET examination, but otherwise qualified, prior to the issuance of the said Government Order, such a contingent situation will also have to be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at a just decision.
42. This Court, on an overall consideration of the factual matrix of the matter, is of the considered view that in the absence of conduct of regular TET examination further to the issuance of the Government Order, the Teachers, in the instant case, who were holders of either a Diploma or Degree in Teacher Education and who were waiting in the rolls of the Employment Exchange for decades, particularly those who were possessed of the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of a Teacher, prior to the issuance of the Government Order, cannot be left in lurch on the only ground that they have not passed the TET examination as mandated by the Government Order, they having put in quite a number of years of service. This Court feels that the ends of substantial justice would be met that if those persons, who have been appointed subsequent to the issuance of the Government Order, be given one opportunity to appear for Teacher Eligibility Test and to qualify themselves, taking into consideration the services rendered by them at the time of exigency. Any other course than the one directed above would be detriment both to the career of the students as also the livelihood of the persons, who have all along been in employment, the crux of the issue being that the Teachers Recruitment Board had http://www.judis.nic.in not conducted the Teacher Eligibility Test after 2013.13
43. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, the writ appeals and the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions :
(i) The Teachers herein, who have been appointed subsequent to the issuance of the Government Order, are granted one opportunity to appear for the Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board and in the event of their passing in the Teacher Eligibility Test, their appointments shall be approved else, they have no other option but to quit the service/ousted from service;
(ii) Till the results are published, the Government shall pay the salary to the Teachers, who are in service of the aided institutions, for the services rendered by them and in the cases where salary was not paid the same shall be paid along with arrears, if any, forthwith;
(iii) Learned Advocate General submitted that salary has been paid to most of the Teachers and only a few were not paid, for want of particulars. In such a case, the Teachers whose salary have not been paid for want of particulars, they shall furnish the requisite particulars immediately, so to enable the Government pay the salary immediately;
(iv) Insofar as W.P.No.7593 of 2015 is concerned, though the writ petitioner has qualified with a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test during 2013, she has not been paid the difference of salary from the date of appointment, till the date of passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test. In view of the discussions aforesaid, the Government is directed to pay the difference of salary http://www.judis.nic.in 14 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(v) The Teachers Recruitment Board is directed to take note of the above observations and to issue notification for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test on or before the end of February 2017, indicating the date of exam to be either in the last week of March 2017 or in the first week of April 2017.
In the result, the writ appeals and the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 8.8 Pursuant to the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Director of School Education issued the proceedings dated 01.03.2017 to the Chief Educational Officers and the District Educational Officers, whereby, the teachers, who were appointed without qualification of TET, were directed to get pass in TET scheduled to be held on 30.04.2017, in order to continue in service. Based on the said proceedings, the petitioners were insisted to qualify themselves with TET. Hence, these writ petitions.
9.From the aforesaid Government Orders and the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, it is manifestly clear that (i)TET shall be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in accordance with the guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education; it has http://www.judis.nic.in 15 prescribed a set of guidelines for the conduct of TET in the Annexure; it has also specified that the teachers working in unaided private schools are required to pass TET within a period of five years and the Secondary Grade Teachers should also pass TET forthwith, apart from the minimum qualifications; and further, it is mandatory for all the State Governments to recruit Secondary Grade and B.T. Teachers only by conducting a TET.
(ii)As per the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.08.2016, G.O.Ms.No.181 is not applicable to the minority institutions; and (iii)Another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1126/2016 etc. batch, vide order dated 24.01.2017, held that the teachers, who have been appointed subsequent to the issuance of the G.O., were granted one opportunity to appear for the TET to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board and in the event of their passing in TET, their appointments shall be approved, else they have no other option but to quit the service/ousted from service.
10.However, there is no cut off date specified in the said G.O.Ms.No. 181, with regard to acquiring the qualification of pass TET to continue in service as B.T Assistants /Secondary Grade Teachers, who are working as such in the respondent Schools. In this regard, a cursory glance at Clause (5) of the notification dated 23.08.2010 and its amended notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE, the contents of which are reproduced at paragraph nos.8.2 and 8.4 above, would reveal that if the http://www.judis.nic.in 16 process of appointment of teachers was initiated prior to the date of notification by issuing advertisement, such appointments have to be made in accordance with NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 and the same was amended with effect from 29.07.2011. As per the said NCTE Regulations 2001, there is no qualification prescribed with regard to possession of TET certificate, for appointment to the post of B.T Assistant and Secondary Grade Teachers. The qualification of passing TET was first introduced by the notification dated 23.08.2010 and it was amended vide notification dated 27.09.2011. Thus, it could be inferred that the cut off date for acquiring the TET qualification is 27.09.2011 and the teachers, who were appointed prior to that date need not pass TET and even in the case of the teachers who were appointed after that date, if the advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers was made prior to that date, then, their appointments also can be in accordance with the NCTE Regulations 2001 and they need not acquire the TET qualification.
11.In the above backdrop, the subject matter in issue to be determined is as to whether the petitioners were appointed before the cut off date and they are entitled to get exemption from passing TET. Concededly, some of the petitioners were appointed, after issuance of notification and prior permission was obtained from the Chief Educational Officers, whereas, some of the petitioners were appointed against the http://www.judis.nic.in 17 sanctioned vacancies and the same was approved subsequently by the District Educational Officers/District Elementary Educational Officers and thus, the appointment of all the petitioners was approved by the competent authorities. To appreciate the same, the details of the appointment of the petitioners, as culled out from the materials placed on record, are tabulated as under:
Sl. Case No. Name of the Prior Date of Approval No. petitioner Permission appoint- granted by granted by ment the CEO/DEEO competent authority 1 WP (MD) G.Selvakumar Mu.Mu.No.5759/ 15.09.2011 D.Dis.No. No. Aa1/ 2011 dated 8246/A4/2011 5070/201 21.06.2011 dated 7 26.11.2011 2 WP (MD) R.Kala Mu.Mu.No.5760/ 15.09.2011 D.Dis.No. No. Aa1/2011 dated 8145/A4/2011 5071/201 21.06.2011 dated 7 21.11.2011 3 WP (MD) K.Mani- Mu.Mu.No.5762/ 15.09.2011 D.Dis.No. No. kandan Aa1/2011 dated 8146/A4/2011 5072/201 21.06.2011 dated 7 21.11.2011 4 WP (MD) N.Mahesh Mu.Mu.No.5761/ 15.09.2011 D.Dis.No. No. Aa1/2011 dated 8247/A4/2011 5073/201 21.06.2011 dated 7 26.11.2011 5 WP (MD) S.Pulamuthu Mu.Mu.No.5763/ 15.09.2011 D.Dis.No. No. Boothalingam Aa1/2011 dated 8147/A4/2011 5074/201 21.06.2011 dated 7 21.11.2011 6 WP (MD) M.Maharani Mu.Mu.No.10137/ 28.02.2011 Na.Ka.No. No. Aa2/2010 dated 1263/Aa4/201 5626/201 28.01.2011 1 dated 7 18.03.2011 7 WP (MD) A.Bavani Mu.Mu.No.1739/ 25.08.2011 Ni.Mu.No. No. Aa2/2011 dated 4803/ A4/2011 5627/201 15.03.2011 dated http://www.judis.nic.in 7 16.09.2011 18 Sl. Case No. Name of the Prior Date of Approval No. petitioner Permission appoint- granted by granted by ment the CEO/DEEO competent authority 8 WP (MD) G.Guna- - 17.12.2010 Ni.Mu.No. No. sekaran 1172/ A2/2011 5628/201 dated 7 11.04.2011 9 WP (MD) M.Suriyakala Mu.Mu.No.1838/ 20.04.2011 Ni.Mu.No. No. Aa2/2011 dated 2128/ A4/2011 5629/201 15.03.2011 dated 7 14.07.2011 10 WP (MD) P.Ananda Mu.Mu.No.5845/ 07.03.2011 Mu.Mu.No. No. kumar A1/ 2010 dated 1089/A1/2011 5630/201 23.02.2011 dated 7 18.03.2011 11 WP (MD) K.Karthigai Mu.Mu.No.4200/ 29.09.2011 Pa.Mu.No. No. Ramu Aa2/2011 dated 1062/A1/2012 12727/20 09.08.2011 dated 17 23.02.2012
12 WP (MD) M.K.Pitchai Mu.Mu.No.10167/ 03.03.2011 Pa.Mu.No. No. Manickam Aa2/2010 dated 1490/A1/2011 12728/20 09.02.2011 dated 17 15.09.2011 13 WP (MD) B.Vimala Mu.Mu.No.4199/ 29.09.2011 Pa.Mu.No. No. Aa2/2011 dated 420/A1/2012 12729/20 09.08.2011 dated 17 13.02.2012 14 WP (MD) A.Vijaya Mu.Mu.No.10167/ 03.03.2011 Pa.Mu.No. No. lakshmi Aa2/2010 1325/A1/2011 12730/20 dated ...02.2011 dated 17 14.06.2011 15 WP (MD) R.Shyamala Mu.Mu.No.4198/ 29.09.2011 Pa.Mu.No. No. devi Aa2/2011 dated 1061/A1/2012 12731/20 09.08.2011 dated 17 23.02.2012 16 WP (MD) P.Thenmozhi Na.Ka.No.10167/ 03.03.2011 Pa.Mu.No. No. Aa2/2010 dated 1415/A1/2011 12732/20 09.02.2011 dated 17 21.07.2011 17 WP (MD) V.Sekar O.Mu.No.4035/ 03.09.2010 O.Mu.No. No. Aa5/ 2010 dated 4468/Aa5/201 5455/201 24.08.2010 0 dated http://www.judis.nic.in 7 13.09.2010 19 Sl. Case No. Name of the Prior Date of Approval No. petitioner Permission appoint- granted by granted by ment the CEO/DEEO competent authority 18 WP (MD) R.Lenin - 01.04.2011 Na.Ka.No.Aa3/ No. 3372/2011 7296/201 dated ...
7 06.2011
19 WP (MD) S.Rajangam - 01.12.2010 Mu.Mu.No.
No. 4472/Aa5/201
7297/201 0 dated
7 08.11.2010
20 WP (MD) K.G.Jayapriya - 03.01.2011 19.04.2012
No.
7298/201
7
21 WP (MD) T.Rajam - 01.06.2011 07.03.2012
No.
7299/201
7
22 WP (MD) D.Chandra Rc.No.6863/A3/ 23.02.2011 Rc.No.1281/
No. sekaran 2010 dated A3/2010 dated
7300/201 03.02.2011 04.08.2011
7
23 WP (MD) S.Geetha Rc.No.5528/A3/ 22.10.2010 Rc.No.1436/
No. 2010 dated A3/2011 dated
7301/201 27.09.2010 18.08.2011
7
24 WP (MD) S.Subanadevi Rc.No.6865/A3/ 23.02.2011 Rc.No.1280/
No. 2010 dated A3/2010 dated
7302/201 03.02.2011 04.08.2011
7
It is limpid from the above table that all the petitioners were appointed before the cut off date i.e, 27.09.2011. As such, they are entitled to seek exemption from acquiring TET qualification. http://www.judis.nic.in 20
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.
13.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 08.03.2019 Internet : Yes / No To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai -600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Secretary, Kshatriya Nadar Higher Secondary School, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District -623 603.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21 R.MAHADEVAN, J.
dsk/rk ORDER MADE IN WP(MD)Nos.5626 to 5630, 5070 to 5474, 5455 and 12727 to 12732 of 2017 08.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in