(Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Muu. Mu. No 2590 / AA4 / 2025 dated Nil. 01. 2026 and quash the same and consequently direct, the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner, as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school, w.e.f. 22.02.2023 with all consequential monetary benefits.)

The writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

             ‘To issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Muu. Mu. No 2590 / AA4 / 2025 dated Nil. 01. 2026 and quash the same and consequently direct, the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school, w.e.f. 22.02.2023 with all consequential monetary benefits.’

2. The petitioner, having acquired a Diploma, was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school on 20.02.2023 and joined duty on 22.02.2023. The 4th respondent school is a Religious Minority Institution. Pursuant to her appointment, the 4th respondent, by proceedings dated 10.03.2023, submitted a proposal to the 2nd respondent seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher. However, the 2nd respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated Nil.06.2026, rejected the proposal on the grounds that the petitioner’s post was surplus and she had not passed the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Teacher Eligibility Test [TET] is not applicable to the Aided Minority Institutions. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn reference to the judgments of this Court to The Secretary to Government Vs S.Jayalakshmi & Another reported in 2016(4) CTC 841, and W.A.No.313 of 2022 & batch etc., dated 02.06.2023.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgement reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4513 S.Halen Raja Soundari vs. District Elementary Educational Officer and others, has held as follows:

             “b) Not qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET): 8. It is a well settled proposition that a qualification in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), is not a pre-requirement for appointment of a teacher in a private minority educational institution. Following this proposition, this Court in the case of T.Sahayam Vs. The District Educational Officer, Tiruchendur and others, passed in W.P.(MD)No.24902 of 2019, dated 05.07.2022, had placed reliance on other decisions of this Court, upholding this proposition, in the following manner:

             “7. Insofar as the reason assigned by the respondent that the proposal cannot be accepted for want of TET qualification is concerned, this reasoning has also been dealt with by this Court in several writ petitions, wherein it was held that the pre requirement of TET qualification for a teacher in a Minority Institution, is not mandatory.

             8. In one such decision of this Court in the case of J.D.Christopher Asir Vs. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai and others in W.P. (MD).No.13935 of 2018, dated 29.06.2018, this preposition was held in the following manner:

             “9.The issue of requirement of TET qualification for any teacher employed or appointed in a school run by the minority management can no longer be res integra as in a number of cases, the said requirement directed not to be insisted upon. In this regard, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the issue has been decided in a judgment of Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in the matter of Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department and others Vs. S.Jeyalakshmi and another reported in (2016) 7 MLJ.

             10. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench has made it clear that the requirement of TET qualification cannot be insisted upon from the teacher working in minority institutions and in this regard a view expressed by the Division Bench and the law held thereon are extracted hereunder:-

             “58. In our opinion, non qualifying in TET by the Teachers already in service should not defeat the object of the Government to provide quality and standard education and therefore, the Government may, in the alternative, conduct a refresher course and also some interactive sessions during annual vacation, in order to ensure and enhance the quality of education.

             59. Insofar as minority institutions are concerned, the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the minority Schools is that when Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 received the assent of the President of India and it is still in force, it cannot be supplanted by an Executive Order, namely, by G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011. Further, the Apex Court has clearly held in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust V. Union of India (Supra) that RTE Act, 2009 is not applicable to the minority institutions. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the right conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution cannot be abrogated. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011, which was issued pursuant to the directions of NCTE, cannot be made applicable to the minority institutions.

             60. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the Government cannot insist upon the minority institution, both aided or unaided, to abide by any Regulation framed under the provisions of the RTE Act. Therefore, we hold that G.O.Ms.No. 181, School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is not applicable to the minority institutions. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 18.03.2015 issued by the Government of Puducherry, is also not applicable to the minority institutions.”

             11. Following the said judgment of the Division Bench, a number of orders have been passed in similar situations, where the teachers appointed in minority institutions / schools sent for approval to the authorities, where the said approval had been rejected on the ground that those teachers did not have the TET qualification.”

             Thus, the respondents may not be legally justified in insisting that the petitioner, who is a teacher in Minority Institution, should have passed the TET.”

             9. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, rejection of the proposals for appointment of the teachers in a minority educational institutions in these writ petitions, wherever applicable, on the ground that TET is a per requirement for appointment of a teacher cannot be sustained.

Therefore, as on date, TET is not a pre-requisite / mandatory qualification for the teachers who have been qualified for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the minority Schools.

6. This Court in a similar case in W.A(Md) No.1716 of 2024 dated 26.09.2024 had that if a person is appointed in sanctioned post, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post become surplus, after granting approval of the post, the said teacher along with post could be transferred / deployed to a needy school.

7. The above judgement squarely applies to the facts of the instant case and accordingly the impugned order dated Nil.01.2026 is quashed. The respondents are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school w.e.f, 22.02.2023 with all consequential monetary benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.