Anith Priya v. The Director Elementary Education
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.NO.15904 OF 2020 Anith Priya ... Petitioner .Vs.
1. The Director Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 039.
2. The District Educational Officer, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Block Educational Officer, Perambur Zone, Villivakkam.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and consequently grant her with annual increment pursuant to the recommendation of the N.P.Devadas Primary School dated 07.08.2019 with effect from the year 2012 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner :
Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy For Respondents :
Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and consequently, grant her with annual increment pursuant to the recommendation of the M.P.Devadas Primary School dated 07.08.2019 with effect from the year 2012 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in one M.P.Devadas Primary School with effect from 19.09.2011. Her appointment was also approved with effect from 01.11.2011 by the Educational Authority. Despite her continuous work, after over a period of 9 years, she has not been granted annual increments. Since the date of her appointment, she has been drawing a basic salary of Rs.520020200 with the grade pay of Rs.2800 and personal pay of Rs.750/-.
3. According to the petitioner, she has been approaching the authorities concerned for grant of annual increments, but, no favourable action has been forthcoming from the respondents. The petitioner, reliably learnt that the inaction of the respondents is due to the fact that the condition of qualifying T.E.T., which has been mandated in G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 15.11.2011 is the reason for not regularizing the service of the petitioner till date.
4. The learned counsel Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner being appointed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.189 dated 15.11.2011, the T.E.T qualification was not to be made applicable to such teachers. According to her, the issue is no more res integra as this Court has rendered numerous decisions holding that the teachers appointed prior to the said G.O. were not required to qualify in T.E.T. The learned counsel would refer to one such decision dated 22.03.2019 in W.P(MD)Nos. 6348 and 6349 of 2019. The learned counsel would refer to paragraphs 4 to 7 of the order which are extracted hereunder 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court has extensively analysed the issue involved herein and held in favour of the petitioners therein, vide order dated 08.03.2019 in WP (MD) No.5626/2017 etc. batch. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced hereunder:
"9.From the aforesaid Government Orders and the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, it is manifestly clear that (i)TET shall be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in accordance with the guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education;
it has prescribed a set of guidelines for the conduct of TET in the Annexure;
it has also specified that the teachers working in unaided private schools are required to pass TET within a period of five years and the Secondary Grade Teachers should also pass TET forthwith, apart from the minimum qualifications;
and further, it is mandatory for all the State Governments to recruit Secondary Grade and B.T. Teachers only by conducting a TET.
(ii)As per the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.08.2016, G.O.Ms.No.181 is not applicable to the minority institutions;
and (iii)Another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1126/2016 etc. batch, vide order dated 24.01.2017, held that the teachers, who have been appointed subsequent to the issuance of the G.O., were granted one opportunity to appear for the TET to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board and in the event of their passing in TET, their appointments shall be approved, else they have no other option but to quit the service/ousted from service.
10.However, there is no cut off date specified in the said G.O.Ms.No.181, with regard to acquiring the qualification of pass TET to continue in service as B.T Assistants/Secondary Grade Teachers, who are working as such in the respondent Schools. In this regard, a cursory glance at Clause (5) of the notification dated 23.08.2010 and its amended notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE, the contents of which are reproduced at paragraph nos.8.2 and 8.4 above, would reveal that if the process of appointment of teachers was initiated prior to the date of notification by issuing advertisement, such appointments have to be made in accordance with NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 and the same was amended with effect from 29.07.2011. As per the said NCTE Regulations 2001, there
is no qualification prescribed with regard to possession of TET certificate, for appointment to the post of B.T Assistant and Secondary Grade Teachers. The qualification of passing TET was first introduced by the notification dated 23.08.2010 and it was amended vide notification dated 27.09.2011. Thus, it could be inferred that the cut off date for acquiring the TET qualification is 27.09.2011 and the teachers, who were appointed prior to that date need not pass TET and even in the case of the teachers who were appointed after that date, if the advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers was made prior to that date, then, their appointments also can be in accordance with the NCTE Regulations 2001 and they need not acquire the TET qualification.
11.In the above backdrop, the subject matter in issue to be determined is as to whether the petitioners were appointed before the cut off date and they are entitled to get exemption from passing TET. Concededly, some of the petitioners were appointed, after issuance of notification and prior permission was obtained from the Chief Educational Officers, whereas, some of the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned vacancies and the same was approved subsequently by the District Educational Officers/District Elementary Educational Officers and thus, the appointment of all the petitioners was approved by the competent authorities. To appreciate the same, the details of the appointment of the petitioners, as culled out from the materials placed on record, are tabulated as under:
xxx xxx xxx It is limpid from the above table that all the petitioners were appointed before the cut off date i.e, 27.09.2011. As such, they are entitled to seek exemption from acquiring TET qualification.
12.In the ultimate analysis, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are entitled to seek exemption from passing
TET, as they were appointed prior to the cut off date and the respondents are directed not to insist TET certificate from the petitioners as a pre-condition for their continuance in service as B.T. Assistants.
13.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." Placing reliance on the aforesaid order, the learned counsel prayed for a similar order in these writ petitions as well, as the petitioners herein were appointed on 15.06.2011 and 03.01.2011 respectively and their appointments was also approved by the respondent authorities, before the crucial date for acquiring TET certificate i.e., 27.09.2011.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid order cited on the side of the petitioners.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also following the aforesaid order dated 08.03.2019 passed in the batch of writ petitions, this Court is inclined to allow these writ petitions in the same lines as extracted in para 3, supra.
7.Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 14.12.2018 and 28.12.2018 issued by the third respondent are set aside. The respondents are directed not to insist TET certificate from the petitioners as a pre-condition for their continuance in service as Secondary Grade Teachers. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
5. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed resisting the claim of the petitioner herein. However, when the Court confronted the learned counsel for the respondents as to the issue being covered by the decisions of the Courts, the learned counsel did not dispute the same.
6. In view of the settled legal decision in favour of the petitioner herein, this Court has to necessarily allow the
present writ petition as well.
7. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to regularise the service of the petitioner and grant her annual increments as admissible to her as recommended by the School in which she was appointed and working.
8. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi/tri To 1.
The Director Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 039.
2.
The District Educational Officer, Chennai - 600 006.
3.
The Block Educational Officer, Perambur Zone, Villivakkam.
+1cc to Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, Advocate, S.R.No.69288 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.69751 W.P.NO.15904 OF 2020 SSV(CO) PBS/20/01/2022