The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy, delivered a detailed judgment affirming that TET is indeed applicable to minority-run institutions.
This case arose from an appeal filed by the respondent K. Bashiri, the correspondent of Melur Al Ameen Urdu Tamil Muslim High School, against an order dated 16 April 2024. The petitioner sought to quash the earlier order passed by the CEO, Madurai, on 1 February 2024. The petitioner had requested the court to direct the CEO to approve his promotion as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the said school with effect from 13 June 2022, along with all associated benefits including arrears of salary, allowances, and retirement benefits such as pension from the date of retirement on 30 April 2023.
In a 30-page order authored by Justice S. Srimathy, the court noted:
“It is seen that the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) had granted five years for serving teachers to acquire TET qualification, which was later extended by a further four years, making it nine years in total. Thereafter, appointments must be made solely based on TET qualification, and promotions should be granted only to teachers who possess this qualification.”
The Bench further observed: “Even if, for the sake of argument, it is contended that TET is not applicable to minority institutions, such a stance stands in direct contradiction to the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of eleven judges in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case. In that case, it was held that the State or other controlling authorities may prescribe minimum qualifications, salaries, experience, and other merit-based conditions for appointing teachers in educational institutions.”
The court held: “When the Constitutional Bench has declared that the government is empowered to prescribe educational qualifications for teachers in all schools, including minority institutions, and this continues to hold true, then the TET requirement is indeed applicable to all types of schools. In essence, TET applies to:
i. Schools run by the government or local bodies
ii. Private aided and unaided minority institutions
iii. Private aided and unaided non-minority institutions
iv. Schools belonging to specified categories.”
The Bench concluded: “This Court is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any contrary view regarding the educational qualifications prescribed for teachers. No institution, including minority institutions, is exempted from this requirement.”
The court added:
“If TET is mandated only for non-minority schools, and waived for minority institutions, it creates a clear case of discrimination. Teachers in non-minority institutions risk losing their jobs or promotions for not having TET, while their counterparts in minority institutions enjoy appointments, salary benefits, increments, and promotions without it. This constitutes discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The judgment further stated:
“After examining the facts, legal provisions, and relying on the precedents set in Pramati’s case and T.M.A. Pai Foundation, this Court is of the view that the government holds the authority to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers in all educational institutions, including those run by minorities. The government has designated NCTE as the ‘Academic Authority’ to set such qualifications, and NCTE has included TET as one of the prescribed requirements. Hence, TET is applicable to all institutions, without exception.”
In conclusion, the Bench stated: “In the present case, since the candidate lacks the TET qualification, the approval of his appointment cannot be granted. The Educational Department’s decision to deny approval is valid in light of TET requirements. Therefore, the order of the Writ Court is set aside, and the writ appeal is allowed.”
It is worth noting that the Madras High Court had previously ruled in May 2022 that TET was not applicable to minority institutions. That ruling was based on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment, which held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, does not apply to minority institutions. A Bench led by Justice V. Parthiban had reaffirmed that the TET requirement, as per the RTE Act, was not enforceable against minority institutions.
However, the present judgment clearly states: “This Court is of the considered view that the argument claiming that the entire RTE Act, 2009 is not applicable to minority institutions—and hence, TET, being part of that Act, is also not applicable—is absolutely incorrect.”
Comments