TET Not Mandatory For Teachers In Minority Institutions: Madras High Court Reiterates

In light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pramti Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and ors. (2014), the court ordered the educational institutions to grant appropriate annual increment and medical benefits to the petitioner teacher and refund of any amount recovered from the teacher merely on the ground that she has not cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).

Background

The petitioner was appointed as the B.T Assistant (Maths) in the year 2012. Her appointment was duly approved on the condition that she had to complete the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) within five years. Later, when the school was upgraded to High School in 2016, the petitioner was absorbed as BT Assistant (Maths) which was duly approved by the District Elementary Educational Officer (4^th respondent herein). The petitioner had also received yearly increments since 2013, duly endorsed by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer (5^th respondent herein). The fifth respondent had also endorsed the maternity leave granted to the petitioner by the management.

While so, the District Educational Officer (3^rd respondent) by way of proceedings directed recovery of annual increments and maternity leave salary paid to the petitioner. The same was challenged in the writ petition.

The petitioner submitted that the school being a minority institution and the petitioner being employed in the school, the impugned action for recovery of increments and discontinuance of further grant of two annual increments was not proper in law. The counsel relied on the decision in Pramti and other subsequent decisions holding that TET qualification cannot be made applicable to the minority institutions.

He further submitted that Similar challenge by the petitioners in various writ petitions have been allowed by this Court, periodically. For this, he relied on a recent decision of the Madras High Court in M.Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of School Education, Chennai and ors (2021) which also discussed the judgements in Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Educational Department, Fort St.George, Chennai Vs., S.Jeyalakshmi (2016).

The counsel for respondents agreed with the established position of law and did not dispute the submissions of the petitioners. Thus, considering the factual narrative and the settled legal position, the court ordered accordingly.

"This Court has to come to an inevitable consideration that the impugned action of the third respondent is patently illegal and unconstitutional and cannot be sustained in law. The above decision of this Court, following the earlier legal precedent on the subject-matter, would be squarely applicable to the present case as well. In the said circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein," it finally ordered.