Reserved on: 17.02.2025 Pronounced on: 27.02.2025 APHC010596972023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30764/2023 Between: 1. SRI SARADHA VIDYAN SAMAJAM AIDED UP SCHOOL, 20TH WARD, KADAPA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY-CUM- CORRESPONDENT, O. JANARDHAN RAJU, S/O SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 2. CHOWDESWARI DEVI ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL, YERRAMUKKAPALLI, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, G.MOHAN, S/O PEDDASUBBANNA, AGED 62 YEARS. 3. A.V.S.ORIENTALU.P.SCHOOL, VADHAVARAM, ONTIMITTA MANDAL, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, SMT.A.SUBBAMMA, W/O A. RAMA DAS, AGED 65 YEARS. 4. G.V.S.ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL,, S. R. K. NAGAR, MAD HAVARAM, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT, G.VENKATASUBBAIAH, SO G.V.SUBBA RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 5. S.N.Y.S.SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, KONDAMACHUPALI, VONTIMITTA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT, M.LAKSHMAMMA, W/O M.SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR- 522237. 2. COMMISSIONER ET DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AP. ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AP. ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AT KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction, more particularly, a writ of Mandamus, i) declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing his nominees nominated to the Staff Selection Committee for the petitioner institutions (petitioners in CC.No.846/2020) to issue necessary instructions to the petitioner schools on filling up of vacant aided posts to obtain applications from the candidates who are qualified in TET examination, as illegal, arbitrary, improper, mala fide and unconstitutional besides being contrary to the provisions of A.P. Education Act, 1982 and rules made there under, and consequently to set-aside the same and pass such other order. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner schools to fill up aided vacancies as per the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1 Edu (P.S-2) dated 01.01.1994 and Right to Education Act 2009 in view of the Government Memo No.ESE01/46/2023-PS dated 09.08.2023 without insisting for TET qualified candidates, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass such other order. 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted on dated 29.11.2023 made in I.A.No.1/2023 WP.No.30764 of 2023 and consequently dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO: 22515/2024 Between: 1. SRI C. M. V. N. AIDED ELE. HIGH SCHOOL,, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY OR CORRESPONDENT, SRI. P. VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRAKASH NAGAR,YSR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT, OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, A.P. ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, YSR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, YSR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 4 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, Declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing his nominees nominated to the Staff Selection Committee for the petitioner institutions to issue necessary instructions to the petitioner schools on filling up of vacant aided posts to obtain applications from the candidates who are qualified in TET examination vide Rc.No.6217/B1/2017 Dated.01.02.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, improper, mala fide and unconstitutional besides being d contrary to the provisions of A.P. Education Act 1982 and rules made there under, and consequently to set-aside the same. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner schools to fill up aided vacancies as per the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S-2) dated 01.01.1994 and Right to Education Act 2009 in view of the Government Memo No.ESE01/46/20 23-PS dated 09.08.2023 without insisting for TET qualified candidates, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition, pending disposal of the above writ petition. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate interim orders dt.04.10.2024 passed in WP.No.22515 of 2024 and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VALLEPU JAGADEESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 5 WRIT PETITION NO: 18672/2025 Between: 1. SRI RAJA COCK SHUTT UP SCHOOL, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, DR.BR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT CHEERLA VENKATA RATNAM. 2. C.B.M SIMPSON MEMORIAL AIDED UP SCHOOL, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT SRI CHEERLA VENKATA RATNAM. 3. EAR AIDED HIGH SCHOOL,, KONTHAMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT KOLAMURI PRABHAKARA RAO. 4. EAR AIDED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,, KONTHAMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT KOLAMURI PRABHAKARA RAO. 5. NAV BHARAT AIDED HIGH SCHOOL, ANDREWS NAGAR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT (ERSTWHIIE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT J. ESTHER RANI ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. X 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, AMALAPURAM, DR.BR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents 4 to 6 in directing their nominees nominated to the Staff Selection Committee of the petitioner institutions to issue instructions for filling up the vacant aided posts by insisting upon applications only from candidates possessing TET qualification, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and as being contrary to the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting on TET qualification, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O. and the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting on TET qualification and pass such other order. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondents 4 to 6 to permit the petitioner schools to fill up the said aided vacancies strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, without imposing any condition such as mandatory TET qualification and pass such other order. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate interim orders dt.22.07.2025 in WP No.18672 of 2025 and to pass such other order. 7 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO: 18879/2025 Between: 1. EMA UP SCHOOL, GINNEPALLI, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, SRI KOTHAPALLI ABRAHAM PRASAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 4th and 5th Respondents in directing their nominees nominated to the Staff Selection Committee of the petitioner school to issue 8 instructions for filling up the vacant aided posts by insisting upon applications only from candidates possessing TET qualification, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and as being contrary to the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting on TET qualification, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O. and the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting on TET qualification and pass such other order. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th and 5th Respondents to permit the petitioner school to fill up the said aided vacancies strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, without imposing any condition such as mandatory TET qualification and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO: 23140/2025 Between: 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDU AIDED PETA COMMITTEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 12TH WARD, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, K. SURESH KUMAR, S/O BHAJI RAO, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O 26-483-B, R S ROAD, NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, , KURNOOL NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 6. THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or a writ or a direction, more specifically a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 2 to 7 in directing the petitioner institution to issue instructions for filling up the vacant aided posts by insisting upon applications only from candidates possessing TET qualification, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and as being contrary to the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting on TET qualification, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said 10 G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 as arbitrary. Illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O. and the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting on TET qualification and pass such other orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 7 to permit the petitioner school to fill up the said aided vacancies strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, without imposing any condition such as mandatory TET Qualification and pass such other orders. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 02.09.2025 passed in W.P. No.23140 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HUGGIES SAI DINAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO: 23578/2025 Between: 1. NAMBURI RAJ KUSHAL, S/O DAVID RAJU, D. NO. 59-13-7, P AND T COLONY, KORUKONDA ROAD, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 11 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VENKATADRI TOWERS, OPP. DGP OFFICE BESIDES HAPPY RESORTS ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, O/O DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, BESIDE DISTRICT LIBRARY, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. HEBRON RESIDENTIAL AIDED HIGH SCHOOL, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT SRI. JALLI SAGAR D. NO. 11-194, NAGARAJUPETA, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities of the Respondents 3 and 4, in refusing to recommend the Petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of School Assistant (Mathematics) in the aided vacancy, despite his being fully qualified and having secured the highest marks in the selection process, solely on the ground of non- qualification in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 8155 of 2024 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and offending the Provisions of Right to Education Act and the Rules framed there under and consequently direct the Respondents herein to forthwith recommend 12 and issue appointment orders in favour of the Petitioner to the post of School Assistant (Mathematics) in the said aided school, together with all consequential benefits and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to forthwith recommend and issue appointment orders in favour of the Petitioner to the post of School Assistant (Mathematics) in the 5th Respondent school, pending Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 13 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.30764 of 2023, 22515 of 2024, 18672, 18879, 23140 and 23578 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: 1. The common issue in all the Writ Petitions is the requirement of qualification of TET examination for filling up the vacant aided posts in the Petitioner-schools. 2. The W.P.Nos.30764 of 2023, 22515 of 2024, 18672 of 2025, 18879 of 2025 and 23140 of 2025 were filed by the school managements while W.P.No.23578 of 2025 was filed by an individual aspiring for appointment in aided post in Respondent No.5-school. 3. W.P.No.30764 of 2023 is taken as lead case for narration of facts; The State Government had issued a Memo on 20.10.2004 banning the recruitment of aided posts. This ban was challenged by private aided school managements in a batch of Writ Petitions and this Court vide Common Order dated 30.07.2013 held the ban as illegal and unsustainable, with a further direction to accord permission to fill up the aided vacancies as per law. 14 4. The State had unsuccessfully challenged the said Common Order in Writ Appeal before this Court and S.L.Ps before the Supreme Court. As the said order was not being implemented, Contempt Cases were filed. During pendency of the Contempt Cases, the State Government had issued Memo ESE0/46/2023-PS, dated 09.08.2023 according permission to the Commissioner of School Education to permit the Petitioner-schools to fill up the vacant aided posts by way of direct recruitment fully following the procedure described in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and as per norms and schedule prescribed under Right to Education Act, 2009, the Commissioner of Secondary Education in turn had issued orders on 10.08.2023 directing the Regional Joint Director, Kadapa and the District Education Officer, Kadapa to take further action as ordered by the Government without any deviation. 5. Thereafter, the District Education Officer, Kadapa on 18.08.2023 directed the Petitioner-schools to submit proposals for permission to fill up the existing vacancies in schools and in response the Petitioner- schools submitted their proposals vide respective representations. While so, the District Education Officer directed the School Managements to follow G.O.Ms.No.67, SE (Exams) Department, dated 26.10.2018. 15 6. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.10.2018, has no application to aided management institutions and the Petitioner-schools had submitted their representations objecting to the Proceedings dated 17.10.2023. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued Proceedings in Rc.No.561-B/A2/B1/2011, dated 03.11.2023 directing the nominees of Respondent No.3 in the Staff Selection Committee of the Petitioner- institutions to fill up vacant aided posts from candidates who have qualified in TET examination. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 7. The principal ground is that TET examination is not required for filling up aided posts in private management schools and the same applies to the Government Schools/Zilla Parishad, Mandal Praja Parishad, Special Schools, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Ashram, Municipalities, Municipal Corporation Schools as per G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.10.2018. 8. A Counter-Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents stating that under the guise of permanent employment in aided posts, several malpractices were being carried out by the private aided institutions and therefore the Government had imposed a ban vide Memo dated 20.10.2004. After the Judgments of this Court as well as unsuccessful challenge up to the Supreme Court, the Government 16 issued Memo No.18836/PS/A2/2010-34, dated 30.06.2017, according permission to private aided managements to fill up the vacant aided posts. 9. Thereafter a three-member committee was constituted to examine the backdoor appointments being made by the private school managements and the said committee had submitted a report vide letter Rc.No.912/PS1/2016, dated 11.04.2018. Upon examining the report, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.43, School Education (PS) Department, dated 09.08.2018 amending G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 by amending Rules 12 and 13 thereof. The said G.O was further amended vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 16.02.2019. 10. Several aided school managements, including minority and non-minority have filed Writ Petitions before this Court questioning the validity of G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018. During the pendency of Writ Petitions and pursuant to interim orders, the Government had issued permission on a case-by-case basis subject to the outcome of the Writ Petitions. 11. It is stated that the Government is providing salary grant, which comprises the salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff apart from maintenance and equipment grant, grants for maintenance expenses, purchase of equipment, furniture, appliances or games and sports 17 materials and the Petitioner-institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the Government cannot now take the ground that the answering Respondents cannot impose conditions for the recruitment of teachers mandated by the NCTE. 12. The G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018, was quashed by this Court in W.P.no.28912 of 2018 and batch. Thereafter, batch of Writ Petitions were filed vide W.P.Nos.7036 of 2025 and batch questioning the instructions to fill up teaching posts as well as imposition of TET for recruitment in aided posts. This Court in Common Order dated 09.05.2025 held that unless necessary amendments are made, Computer-Based Test (CBT) cannot be introduced for recruitment into aided posts. Taking note of the developments, the Government reviewed and issued G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 11.07.2025, amending G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 mandating TET in aided schools. 13. It is further stated that Section 23 of Right to Education Act, 2009 vests the Central Government with the power to designate an academic authority to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers. Pursuant to conferment of such, the NCTE was notified as the academic authority vide Notification dated 23.08.2010 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23(1) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The requirement to pass the TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with NCTE’s guidelines, 18 was made as a minimum qualification for teachers and the same was communicated to all the concerned. 14. It is stated that the rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher would bring national standards and benchmarks in the teacher recruitment and improve the teaching quality. It is stated that the TET is a mandatory condition for appointment of teachers in classes I to VIII in schools covered by Section 2(n) of the RTE Act and the same cannot be relaxed. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others1 was relied upon to substantiate that TET is a requirement for all teachers and therefore there is no merit in the Writ Petitions. 15. Heard Senior Counsel Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, assisted by Sri N. Bharat Babu, Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy and Sri H. Sai Divakar, learned counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the Respondents. 16. Reasoning: The NCTE in exercise of power conferred under Section 23(1) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 R/w Notification in S.O.750 (E), dated 31.03.2010, 1 (2025 Livelaw (SC) 861) 19 the NCTE laid down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher vide Gazette Notification dated 23.08.2011. (i) Classes I - V (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by wherever name known) (OR) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations, 2022. (OR) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with a least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.) (OR) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with a least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education) (OR) Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) AND 20 (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. 1) For sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely:- (ii) Classes VI-VII (a) Graducation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) (OR) Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) (OR) Graduation with at least 45% marks and 10year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. (OR) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.) (OR) 21 Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed. (OR) Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” 17. The rationale for including TET as a minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment for teacher is as under; “a) it would bring national standards and benchmarks of teacher quantity in the recruitment process; b) it would induce teacher education institutions and students from these institutions to further improve their performance standards; c) it would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality.” 18. The said notification does not make any distinction between a private aided school and the Government school. Nextly, the Rules for filling up the vacancies in private schools is governed by Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, 22 Administration and Control of Schools Under Private Managements) Rules, 1993, framed in exercise of power conferred under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. In the said Rules, there is nothing contrary to the requirement of qualification in TET. 19. In fact, vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 11.7.2025, amendments were made to Rule 12 thereof giving weightage to TET qualification in the selection process. “Education” being a subject of the concurrent list, the Union legislation would prevail unless a later amendment to the contrary in the State Rules is made and receives the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. In the present case, it is not the case of the Petitioner that there is any rule to the contrary or that the contrary part in the Rules of 1993 received presidential assent after 2011. 20. The reliance on G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.10.2018 i.e., The Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) for the posts of School Assistants (SAs), Language Pandits(LPs), Physical Education Teachers(PETs), Music Teachers, Craft Teachers and Arts & Drawing Teachers and Teacher Eligibility Test-cum- Teacher recruitment test(TET-cum-TRT) for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs) Scheme of Selection Rules, 2018 to contend that the Rules did not extend the requirement of TET to private schools is misplaced and misleading. These Rules prescribe TET as a qualification and eligibility for 23 recruitment to all the categories of teacher posts in Government, Zilla Praja Parishad, Mandal Praja Parishad, Special Schools, ITDA, Ashram, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. These Rules do not have any application to the schools under the control of private managements and the Rules that are applicable for the schools under private management are mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors had considered the requirement of TET in minority and non-minority institutions. After a detailed examination of contentions, RTE Act and the Constitution, doubted the correctness of previous Judgement of the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust insofar as it exempts the application of the RTE Act to minority schools, whether aided or unaided and referred the issue for consideration before larger bench (See; Paragraphs 207-213). As regards the applicability of TET for in-service teachers appointed prior to 2009 and the requirement of TET qualification for promotion, it was held that TET is a compulsory qualifying criterion. The Paragraph Nos.168 and169 are extracted below; “J. APPLICABILITY OF THE TET TO IN-SERVICE TEACHERS APPOINTED PRIOR TO 2009 AND REQUIREMENT OF TET QUALIFICATION FOR PROMOTION OF TEACHERS. 24 164…. 165… 166…. 167….. 168. NCTE’s notification also reinforces this requirement by stating that teachers working in unaided private schools, or those already in position as of 31st March, 2015, must qualify the TET within the stipulated period. The language of both the RTE Act and the notification leaves no room for ambiguity that even those teachers appointed prior to the RTE Act, if not qualified, must meet the TET requirement within the grace period granted. Only those appointed prior to 3rd September, 2001 in accordance with applicable recruitment rules, or those covered by specific exceptions (e.g., Special BTC or D.Ed. courses), were exempted. 169. Thus, read holistically, Section 23 of the RTE Act and the NCTE notifications together establish the TET as a compulsory qualifying criterion for all teachers appointed on or after 23rd August, 2010, and as a time-bound compliance obligation for those appointed earlier without the 25 requisite qualifications. The sole object is to ensure uniform teaching standards across institutions imparting elementary education. Viewed in this light, the TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A.” 22. Again at Paragraph Nos.204 and 205, it was reiterated that only on obtaining the qualification in TET, a person can be eligible for appointment. The Paragraph Nos.204 and 205 are extracted below; “N. ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS VERSUS ELIGIBILITY 202…. 203…. 204. We reiterate and hold that the TET is indeed a qualification, necessary to be held by a person seeking appointment as a teacher in a school. Only upon a person obtaining such qualification can he become eligible for appointment as a teacher. 205. Obfuscating the true import of the synonymous expressions would not lend assistance. What must be looked into is the consequence of such qualification. The eligibility criteria, among 26 other things, also prescribes the TET as a qualification. A person seeking appointment as a teacher must, as a qualification, pass the TET. Only by obtaining such qualification, he would be considered eligible to be appointed as a teacher.” 23. In conclusion and in exercise of power under Article 142, the teachers with less than 5 years of service in non-minority institutions and recruited prior to the advent of RTE Act, it was held that TET is not a requirement, unless promotion is sought by the Supreme Court. While teachers with more than 5 years of service and recruited prior to RTE Act, were required to qualify in TET within 2 years, and on failure, they were directed to be compulsorily retired and be paid retirement benefits subject to the Rules. The relevant part of the Judgment is extracted below; “VIII. ORDER ON APPLICABILITY OF THE TET TO IN- SERVICE TEACHERS 214. Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same, we hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above under section VII. Logically, it would follow that 27 in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in service. 215. However, we are mindful of the ground realities as well as the practical challenges. There are in-service teachers who were recruited much prior to the advent of the RTE Act and who might have put in more than two or even three decades of service. They have been imparting education to their students to the best of their ability without any serious complaint. It is not that the students who have been imparted education by the non-TET qualified teachers have not shone in life. To dislodge such teachers from service on the ground that they have not qualified the TET would seem to be a bit harsh although we are alive to the settled legal position that operation of a statute can never be seen as an evil. 216. Bearing in mind their predicament, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that those teachers who have less than five years’ service left, as on date, may continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET. However, we make it clear that if any such teacher (having less than five years’ service left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET. 217. Insofar as in-service teachers recruited prior to enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5 years to retire on superannuation are concerned, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order to continue in service. If any of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the time that we have allowed, they shall have to quit service. 28 They may be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they are entitled to. We add a rider that to qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers must have put in the qualifying period of service, in accordance with the rules. If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the appropriate department in the Government upon a representation being made by him/her. 218. Subject to what we have said above, it is reiterated that those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.” 24. To reiterate, the issue in the above Paragraphs was with regard to applicability of the RTE Act, 2009 to Teachers recruited prior thereto without TET qualification. No exemption was provided with regard to Teachers recruited after RTE Act, 2009. 25. The W.P.No.23578 of 2025 was filed by an individual aspiring for appointment in an aided post in Respondent No.5-school. Though argument was made that Respondent No.5-school is a minority institution and that the Judgment referred above, would not apply, but there is no plea in the Writ Affidavit to that effect. Even otherwise, the Petitioner being only an aspirant for the post does not have locus to 29 question the qualification of TET as a condition precedent for appointment as long as Respondent No.5 i.e., employer does not have any objection. There is no bar for the minority institution to adopt the requirement of TET qualification on its own accord and the non-applicability of RTE Act, 2009 comes into play only when the same is sought to be imposed as a regime requirement. 26. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, persons were appointed in the respective aided posts and as an alternative submission, sought for some time to be given to the appointees to qualify in the TET examination as was given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above quoted Judgment. This Court is of the opinion that the extracted Paragraphs of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court would leave none in doubt that the qualification in TET is eligibility requirement for appointment and no person can be appointed without this qualification after issuance of notification on 23.08.2010 by NCTE. The highlighted portions of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.169, 204 and 205 extracted above would leave little scope for this Court to meddle with the dictum. Hence, alternative submission of the Petitioners cannot be acceded to. 27. Therefore this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed. 30 28. No order as to costs. 29. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 27.02.2026 IS 31 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.30764 of 2023, 22515 of 2024, 18672, 18879, 23140 and 23578 of 2025 Dated: 27.02.2026 IS