The District Educational Officer Vs S.Sutha Parvathi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The District Educational Officer Vs S.Sutha Parvathi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to either side beyond the recorded observation: writ appeal disposed of with the observation that implementation of the Single Judge's incentive-increment order is conditional on the writ petitioner clearing TET within the Supreme Court's two-year window period; ordered no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.4631 of 2023) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, given that the writ petitioner does not possess TET qualification (which, per the Additional Government Pleader with reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Anjuman Ishaat-e-taleem Trust, places her very appointment in question), and given the two-year window period granted by the Supreme Court to in-service candidates to clear TET, the Single Judge's order conferring the incentive increment can or should now be implemented by the department.

Court's answer

The writ appeal is disposed of with the observation that if the writ petitioner clears TET during the two-year window period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for in-service candidates, the department has to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge; till then, the question of implementing the Single Judge's order does not arise at all.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (G.R.SWAMINATHAN and R.KALAIMATHI, JJ.), 13.02.2026 - W.A.(MD)No.432 of 2023 (with C.M.P.(MD)No.4631 of 2023): District Educational Officer and Block Educational Officer, Tirunelveli appealed against the Single Judge's order in W.P.(MD).No.5932 of 2022 dated 22.07.2022 conferring incentive increment on S.Sutha Parvathi, B.T.Assistant (Science) in Manivasagar Arulneri Middle School, a non-minority institution. Noting (per the Addl. Government Pleader) that the writ petitioner lacks TET qualification - which, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Anjuman Ishaat-e-taleem Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025) puts even her appointment in question - and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted in-service candidates a further window period of two years to clear TET, the Bench disposed of the appeal observing that if the writ petitioner clears TET during this window period the department has to comply with the Single Judge's order, and till then the question of implementing that order does not arise at all. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. (Filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent.)

W.A.(MD)No.432 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 13.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.A.(MD)No.432 of 2023 and

C.M.P.(MD)No.4631 of 2023

1.The District Educational Officer,

Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, Earlier as The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Block Educational Officer, Palayamkottai Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

... Appellants

Vs.

1.S.Sutha Parvathi

2.The Secretary, Manivasagar Arulneri Middle School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.5932 of 2022 dated 22.07.2022 on the file of this Court.

1/4

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

W.A.(MD)No.432 of 2023

For Appellants : Mr.A.Baskaran, Addl. Government Pleader.

For Respondents : Ms.A.Amala for R1

JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.Sudha Parvathi was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Science) in the second respondent school. It is a non-minority institution. She approached the Writ Court seeking conferment of incentive increment. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader points out that the writ petitioner is not having TET qualification and that therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 (Anjuman Ishaat-e-taleem Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others), the writ petitioner's appointment itself in question. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner points out

2/4

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

W.A.(MD)No.432 of 2023

that for all in-service candidates, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted further window period of two years. If the writ petitioner clears TET during this window period, the department has to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Till then, the question of implementing the order of the learned Single Judge does not arise at all.

4.With the aforesaid observation, this writ appeal is disposed of.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,) 13.02.2026

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

To:

1.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, Earlier as The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Block Educational Officer, Palayamkottai Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

3/4

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

W.A.(MD)No.432 of 2023

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.KALAIMATHI, J.

ias

W.A.(MD)No.432 of 2023

13.02.2026

4/4

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