W.A.No. 296 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No. 296 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos. 2267, 2268 & 2269 of 2025 Suriyakala ... Appellant Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagapattinam. 4.The District Educational Officer, Myladuthurai. 5.The Secretary, Thiruvengadu SST Higher Secondary School, Nagapattinam District, Sirkalai Taluk. ...Respondents 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 296 of 2025 Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 04.08.2023 made in W.P.No.31973 of 2013. For Appellant : Mr.Kavitha Nithyanandan For Respondents : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran Special Government Pleader J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The order cancelling the approval that was granted for appointment of the appellant as BT Assistant in the 5th respondent School was under challenge before the writ Court. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as BT Assistant after 29.07.2011, the date on which, the NCTE prescribed a pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test as a qualification for appointment as Teachers. A Division Bench of this Court in the Director of School Education and Others Vs. M.Velayutham & Another had considered the issue relating to the qualification in the Teacher Eligibility Test and had held that a Teacher appointed prior to 29.07.2011 shall be allowed to continue in service de hors the acquisition of TET qualification. Any Teacher appointed after the cut off 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 296 of 2025 date sans the qualification, is bound to be removed from service. The Writ Court has only followed the judgment of the Division Bench. 3. We have heard Mrs.Kavitha Nithyanandan, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite her efforts, she is unable to persuade us to take a different view from the view taken by the Division Bench in Velayudham's case. We therefore, do no not see any reason to entertain the appeal. This Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Needless to state that if the appellant has served the School, she will be paid salaries till he had worked in the 5th respondent School by the School themselves and no claim can be made against the Government. (R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 11.03.2025 kkn Index:No Speaking order Neutral Citation : No To: 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 296 of 2025 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagapattinam. 4.The District Educational Officer, Myladuthurai. 5.The Secretary, Thiruvengadu SST Higher Secondary School, Nagapattinam District, Sirkalai Taluk. R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 296 of 2025 and G. ARUL MURUGAN, J. KKN W.A.No. 296 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos. 2267, 2268 & 2269 of 2025 11.03.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis