Dismissed¶38

The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.Revathi

Madras HC1 Apr 2025WA/1305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.A.No.1305 of 2023, Madras High Court, decided 01.04.2025 (R. Suresh Kumar & A.D. Maria Clete, JJ.): approval of appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher in aided school (Thiruvannamalai); 200 point roster inapplicable to post-29.04.2009 vacancies per G.O.Ms.No.241 P&AR (K) Dept 29.10.2007; TET qualification acquired in 2013 sufficient under Section 23, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (five-year window); relies on S.Shanmugapriya, W.P.No.28058 of 2017 (29.01.2019); appeal under Clause 15 Letters Patent against order dated 07.03.2022 in W.P.No.18011 of 2013; writ appeal dismissed, no costs, C.M.P.No.12951 of 2023 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; C.M.P.No.12951 of 2023 closed; the Writ Court's order quashing the rejection of approval and allowing W.P.No.18011 of 2013 stands.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M.Revathi — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; C.M.P.No.12951 of 2023 closed; the Writ Court's order quashing the rejection of approval and allowing W.P.No.18011 of 2013 stands.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether approval of the writ petitioner's appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher could be refused on the ground that the 200 point roster was not followed at the time of appointment. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Approval of the appointment cannot be denied on the ground that the 200 point roster was not followed, because a vacancy arising after 29.04.2009 filled under the roster prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.241 cannot attract that roster (as per S.Shanmugapriya, relied on by the Writ Court).

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The TET ground cannot be sustained because the writ petitioner became TET-qualified in 2013; under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, a teacher who completes and holds the TET qualification within five years of the cut-off date is entitled to the post for which he or she has already been considered.

¶31

Key takeaways

On both grounds, the approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner ought not to have been rejected.ratio¶37
No error is found in the conclusion reached by the Writ Court; consequently the writ appeal is dismissed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court Division Bench (R. Suresh Kumar, J.) dismisses the State's intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the learned Single Judge's order dated 07.03.2022 in W.P.No.18011 of 2013, which had quashed the refusal to approve the appointment of a Secondary Grade Teacher in an aided middle school. Held: (i) the 200-point roster prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department dated 29.10.2007 cannot be applied to a vacancy arising after 29.04.2009 (following S.Shanmugapriya, W.P.No.28058 of 2017, decided 29.01.2019); (ii) denial of approval for want of TET qualification cannot stand where the teacher cleared TET in 2013, within the five-year window under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Writ appeal dismissed; no costs; C.M.P.No.12951 of 2023 closed.

¶1

W.A.No.1305 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.04.2025

¶4

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶5

W.A.No.1305 of 2023

¶6

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Principal Secretary to Government School Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶7

The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶8

The District Elementary Education Officer Thiruvannamalai District.

¶9

The Assistant Elementary Education Officer Kalasapakkam.

¶10

Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

M.Revathi

¶13

S.Muthukumarasamy Aided Middle School Rep. By its Secretary Thenmagadevamangalam Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 07.03.2022 in W.P.No.18011 of 2013.

¶16

For the Appellants : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Government Pleader

¶17

For the Respondents : No Appearance (served)

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.A.No.1305 of 2023

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This intra court appeal has been directed against the order

¶23

passed by the Writ Court dated 07.03.2022 made in W.P.No.18011 of 2013.

¶24

The respondent M.Revathy was the writ petitioner, who approached the Writ Court challenging the proceedings issued by the District Elementary Education Officer dated 02.01.2013, where, the appointment of the writ petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher was not approved and therefore, sought a direction to approve the appointment with effect from 16.05.2012 with consequential benefits.

¶25

The approval was not given to the appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner on two grounds; the first ground was that the 200 point roster was not followed at the time of appointment and the second ground was that the respondent/writ petitioner had not completed the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) qualification.

¶26

These issues have been dealt with by the learned Judge in

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A.No.1305 of 2023

¶30

the impugned order dated 07.03.2022. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, the learned Judge has relied upon a decision of this Court made in W.P.No.28058 of 2017 dated 29.01.2019 in the matter of S.Shanmugapriya vs. The District Elementary Educational Officer & Ors. , where, as per G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department dated 29.10.2007, if the vacancy arise after 29.04.2009 and if it is filled by the 200 point roster prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.241, the same cannot be made applicable. The relevant portion of the order has been extracted in the impugned order itself by the Writ Court. Therefore, on that ground, approval cannot be denied.

¶31

Insofar as the second ground of acquiring the TET qualification is concerned, the writ petitioner has become qualified in TET in the year 2013. Therefore, that ground also cannot be sustained. As per Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, within five years from the date of the cut-off date under which the provision has been brought, making the TET qualification as a mandatory one for appointment as Teacher, if the Teacher completes and holds the TET qualification, he or she will be entitled to the post, where he or she has already been considered. This aspect has been considered by the learned

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A.No.1305 of 2023

¶35

Judge in the impugned order.

¶36

Therefore, on both grounds, the approval of the

¶37

appointment of the writ petitioner ought not to have been rejected. Result of which, the order impugned before the Writ Court was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

¶38

In light of that, we do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the Writ Court. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.12951 of 2023 is closed.

¶39

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶40

drm

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.A.No.1305 of 2023

¶44

To: