Allowed¶7

P.Vijitha Thaneswari v. The Director of School Education

Madras HC23 Oct 2025WP(MD)/25042/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TET not mandatory for PG Assistant appointment; approval of appointment as PG Assistant (English); grant-in-aid salary and allowance disbursement; deletion of Paragraph 6 imposing TET condition; mention petition; writ petition allowed; four-week compliance timeline; fresh order copy by Registry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as PG Assistant in English in the fourth respondent school with effect from the date of initial appointment; disbursement of grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowance from that date with all attendant benefits, within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; Registry directed to issue a fresh order copy to the parties after carrying out the corrections. ¶7

P.Vijitha Thaneswari Vs The Director of School Education — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) is a necessary qualification for appointment to the post of PG Assistant. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

TET is not a necessary qualification for appointment to the post of PG Assistant; the Court recorded this as rightly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel and acknowledged by the Additional Government Pleader.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Paragraph No.6 of the earlier order stands deleted and is replaced by the modified direction approving the appointment without the TET requirement.

¶6

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as PG Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school from the date of initial appointment and to disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowances with all attendant benefits within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Correction ('for being mentioned') order in WP(MD)No.25042 of 2025, K. Kumaresh Babu J., 11.11.2025: On being mentioned, the Court recorded that TET is not a necessary qualification for appointment to the post of PG Assistant, a position acknowledged by the Additional Government Pleader. Paragraph No.6 of the Court's earlier order, which had insisted on TET qualification for the petitioner's appointment, was deleted and replaced. The substituted direction allows the writ petition and directs the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as PG Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school from the date of initial appointment and to disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowances with all attendant benefits within four weeks. The Registry was directed to issue a fresh order copy after carrying out the corrections.

P.Vijitha Thaneswari v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vijitha Thaneswari v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Monykumar Vs The General Manager

A.Inbaraja, Vs The Managing Director

R.Sivakumar Vs The Director of Elementary Education

K.Kalidasan, (Staff No.95TH3003) Vs The Managing Director

Ethiyas alias Imthiyas Vs P.Ganesan

S.Kalaivanan Vs The Secretary to Government