Dismissed¶27

The Chief Educational Officer v. M.Joyce Jemina

Madras HC30 Jan 2025WA(MD)/1692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TET qualification not mandatory for teacher in minority institution; annual increment withheld despite approved appointment; monetary benefits/financial grant to B.T. Assistant; Tamil Nadu education department officials; writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent dismissed; W.A.(MD).No.1692 of 2024; C.M.P.(MD).No.13095 of 2024; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; decision dated 30.01.2025; M.S.Ramesh and A.D.Maria Clete, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Possession of TET qualification for a teacher in a minority institution is not mandatory, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and several decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. ¶26

The Chief Educational Officer Vs M.Joyce Jemina — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal is sustainable against the learned Single Judge's order dated 12.10.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.22424 of 2023 directing conferral of monetary benefits on a teacher of a minority institution who does not possess TET qualification. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The appellants, having granted approval of the appointment, are not justified in insisting on TET qualification for the concerned teacher.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶26

Key takeaways

The consequential action of the appellants in withholding the financial grant cannot be justified.ratio¶26
There is no illegality or infirmity in the learned Single Judge's order dated 12.10.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.22424 of 2023, and the writ appeal lacks merit.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) by the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer (Secondary), Tenkasi, against the order dated 12.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.22424 of 2023, whereby the Single Judge, relying on earlier decisions of this Court, held that qualification in TET is not mandatory for a minority institution and directed the appellants to confer all monetary benefits on the first respondent, a B.T. Assistant of C.M.M.L. High School whose appointment the appellants had approved but whose annual increment was withheld for want of TET qualification. The Division Bench (M.S.Ramesh and A.D.Maria Clete, JJ.; judgment by M.S.Ramesh, J.) observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have consistently taken the stand that possession of TET qualification for a teacher in a minority institution is not mandatory; that the appellants, having approved the appointment, were not justified in insisting on TET qualification; and that withholding the financial grant was not justifiable. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal with no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD).No.13095 of 2024.

¶1

W.A.(MD).No.1692 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 30.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.A.(MD).No.1692 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).No.13095 of 2024

¶7

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi,

¶8

Tenkasi District.

¶9

2.The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶10

... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.M.Joyce Jemina, B.T. Assistant, C.M.M.L. High School, Vadamalapuram P.O.-627 755, Mullikulam Via, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District. ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶13

2.The Manager, C.M.M.L. High School, Vadamalapuram P.O.-627 755, Mullikulam Via, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District. ... 2^nd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

W.A.(MD).No.1692 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 12.10.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.22424 of 2023 on the file of this Court.

¶18

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R-1 : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶21

This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.22424 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023.

¶22

Having granted approval of the appointment made by the second respondent school, the proceedings of the appellants herein, refusing to release the annual increment on the ground that the concerned teacher is not qualified in TET, was challenged before the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on the earlier decisions of this Court and held that qualification in TET is not mandatory for a minority institution and accordingly, directed the appellants to confer all the monetary benefits to the first respondent herein, through the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.22424 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

W.A.(MD).No.1692 of 2024

¶26

The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as several decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have been consistently taking a stand that possession of TET qualification for a teacher in a minority institution is not mandatory. The appellants herein, having granted approval of the appointment, are not justified in insisting for TET qualification for the concerned teacher and therefore, the consequential action of withholding the financial grant cannot be justifiable. The earlier decisions taken by this Court in this regard have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. As such, there are no merits in this Writ Appeal.

¶27