WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA WP No. 16934 of 2026 and WMP Nos. 18241 & 18244 OF 2026 1. S.Gopi 2. N.Senthil Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3. The Joint Director (Personnel), School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006 4. The Chief Educational Officer, Viluppuram District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct promotion counselling for the post of High School Headmaster from the eligible TET passed candidates by preparing year wise panel from the year 2022 and to consider the petitioners for promotion as High School Headmaster from the panel year 2022 (crucial date 01.01.2022) with all consequential service and monetary benefits. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 12 For Petitioner(s): Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Gokulraj Government Advocate ORDER Aggrieved over been kept waiting for others to qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test Exam (hereinafter referred to as TET) in order to be considered for promotion, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the recruitment and promotion to the post of High School Headmaster are regulated by the Tamil Nadu Educational Service Rules and the feeder category for this post is B.T.Assistant (Graduate Assistant). The statutory rules which qualify the person for promotion are as follows: (a) a minimum service of five years in the feeder category and (b) the successful completion of the mandatory Administrative and Accounts Tests conducted through the Departmental Examinations. 2.1. The petitioners would submit that they fully satisfy the above criteria and having qualified the TET on the respective crucial dates. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 12 petitioners possess the requisite academic and educational qualifications which includes an Under Graduate Degree in respective subjects and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) Degree in addition to the TET qualification. The petitioners had also cleared the mandatory Administrative and Accounts Tests. 2.2. In the year 2022, the Commissioner of School Education issued a proceedings dated 30.06.2022, proposing to conduct promotion counselling for the posts of B.T.Assistant (from Secondary Grade Teachers) and High School Headmaster (from B.T.Assistants), without insisting upon the TET qualification as a prerequisite. This proceedings were challenged in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.17895 of 2922, etc., batch. This Court, ultimately held that the TET is an essential qualification even for teachers appointed prior to the notification of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as RTE Act) and also for promotion and consequently, the proceedings dated 30.06.2022 was quashed. 2.3. This judgment was taken up on appeal in W.A.No.313 of 2022 etc., batch and the Division Bench of this Court had also upheld the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 12 of the Single Bench by contending that the TET requirement is essential even for the promotional vacancies to the posts of B.T.Assistant, High School Headmaster and other equivalent cadres. A further appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2025 also went against the State. The Apex Court, apart from confirming the order, had held that even teachers currently in service are required to qualify in the TET and granted a period of two years for qualifying the same. 2.4. The petitioners would submit that by reason of pendency of these proceedings, the promotion process from the category of B.T.Assistant to High School Headmaster remained pending from the year 2022 and therefore, no promotion counselling has taken place in the panel years 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025. The respondents have also failed to initiate any promotion counselling. 2.5. Though the respondents have been conducting the general transfer counselling, no steps have been taken to conduct the promotion counselling. After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State appears to have taken a decision to conduct a special Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for working teachers. However, it is the contention of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 12 petitioners that this cannot be a ground for stalling the promotion counselling. The petitioners would contend that there are about 1000 vacancies in the cadre of High School Headmaster and there are nearly 20,000 TET qualified B.T.Assistants which includes the petitioners who are fully eligible and awaiting promotion. 2.6. The petitioners putting all these facts into perspective had submitted the representations seeking conduct of the promotion counselling to the post of High School Headmaster from the post of B.T.Assistant by preparing a year-wise panel in accordance with law. 3. Though a counter has not been filed by the respondents, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had made his submissions since the issue involved is purely legal and based on earlier orders and therefore this Court has proceeded to pass orders. 4. The National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as CNCTE) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act had issued a notification dated 23.08.2010, prescribing minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 12 appointment as a Teacher in Class I to III in a school with effect from the date of notification. The minimum qualification is a pass in TET for appointment as Teacher for Classes I to V and VI to VIII. But, Clause 5 of the NCTE Regulations provided that where the initiation of process for appointment of teachers was made prior to the date of this notification, the same has to be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001. 5. By notification dated 29.07.2011, an amendment was brought to the notification dated 23.08.2010. However, Clause 5 of the notification dated 23.08.2010 was retained as Clause 5(a). Accepting the above recommendation and notification issued by the NCTE, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011. However, while issuing the aforesaid government order, the first respondent failed to take note of the Clause 5 of NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 was retained as Clause 5(a) by the amendment dated 29.07.2011 and thus, its benefit was extended to the teachers appointed prior to the notification dated 29.07.2011. The NCTE Regulations, 2001, did not make TET compulsory and therefore, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 12 teachers appointed prior to 29.07.2011 did not have to pass TET. 6. The first respondent had issued a government order G.O.Ms.No.12, School Education [EE1(1)] dated 30.01.2020 framing Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service in supercession of the Rules contained in the Tamil Nadu Services Manual, 2016. The mode of appointment was specified by (i) Promotion, (ii) Transfer and (iii) Direct Recruitment. This was followed by G.O.Ms.No.13, School Education [S.E.3(1)] Department, dated 31.01.2020, where Special Rules for Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service were framed. This related to the appointment of several classes and categories of service. One among the said categories of service is the post of Graduate Teacher Tamil and other subjects constituting the Classes II, III and IV and the mode of appointment are by Direct Recruitment or by Promotion. The Schedule for the conduct of the promotion counselling was also issued by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 30.06.2022, where TET was not made compulsory for appointment by Promotion. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 12 7. Thereafter, the amendment was brought about to the RTE Act vide RTE Amendment Act, 2017, and the period of acquiring the minimum qualification was extended by further period of four years ie., before 31.03.2015. Therefore, it is clear that possessing the TET qualification was mandatory. Thereafter, the Commissioner of School Education had issued proceedings dated 30.06.2022 proposing to conduct the promotion counselling without insisting on TET. This proceedings was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.17895 and 19587 of 2022. By an order dated 20.10.2022, this Court had held that as per the RTE Act, 2009, RTE Amendment Act, 2017, RTE Rules, 2011 and the Notifications of NCTE, TET is mandatory for all the teachers who are in service on the date of commencement of the Act. This judgment was confirmed by order dated 02.06.2023 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.313 of 2023 etc batch and confirmed by order dated 01.09.2025 by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2025 batch. 8. Despite the above, it is seen that the respondents have not proceeded to hold the promotion counselling. Since the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have not been complied, papers would reveal that the contempt petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in batch https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page9 of 12 of cases in CONMT. PET.(C).No.404 of 2022 in CONMT.PET. (C).No.638 of 2017 in C.A.No.4954 of 2016. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to complete the exercise of finalising the seniority lists of selection processes conducted after 10th March, 2003 and seniority shall be reckoned only on the basis of merits as determined by the TNPSC in the selection process. The State was further directed to complete the said exercise within a period of three months from that day. This order also appears to have been observed in the breach. 9. In the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust vs State of Maharastra reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the time for qualifying for TET by a period of two years from 1st September 2025.This order was sought to be reviewed in Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.53434 of 2025. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:
“33. Appreciating that the TET examination must be conducted by the relevant authorities expeditiously as well as the time and resources required for the same are limited, we alter and extend the timeline granted in paragraph 217 of Anjuman (supra) for in~service teachers to acquire the TET qualification from 2 (two) to 3 (three) years, i.e., the qualification has to be obtained by 31st August, 2028 instead of 31st August, 2027, as originally directed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page10 of 12 34. Needless to observe, it shall also be the endeavour of the respective States and the competent authorities to conduct the TET periodically, and preferably twice every year, interspersed with an approximate period of six months between the successive examinations, so as to afford eligible teachers a reasonable opportunity to comply with the statutory requirement.”
10. Despite this order also, no steps appears to have been taken by the respondents. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the review is pending. The operative portion of the order would read as follows: “,t;thwhd epiyapy;. muR cah;epiyg;gs;spfspy; fhypahf cs;s jiyik Mrphpah; gzpaplj;jpw;F gjtp cau;t[ tH';FtJ bjhlu;ghd nkw;fhz; rPuha;t[ tHf;Ffs; (Review Petition) g[Joy;yp cr;r ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; cs;s fhuzj;jpdhy; jw;rkak; muR cah;epiyg;gs;spfspy; fhypahf cs;s jiyik Mrphpah; gzpaplj;jpw;F gjtp cau;t[ tH';FtJ bjhlu;ghf vt;tpj bjhlu; eltof;iffSk; nkw;bfhs;s ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ/ vdnt/ kDjhu;fs; ghu;it 5y; fhz; kDtpy; nfhupa[s;s nfhupf;ifapid Vw;f ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ vd;w tptuk; bjuptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/” 11. In the light of the order dated 29.05.2026 passed in Review Petition (D) No.53434 of 2025 absolutely there is no impediment for proceeding with the promotion counselling. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to notify and conduct the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page11 of 12 promotion counselling in strict compliance of orders in W.P.No.46150 of 2025 dated 28.11.2025 and W.P.No.17985 of 2022 dated 20.10.2022 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 12. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. No costs. 23-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No drm/SRN To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, School Education Department, Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 4. The Joint Director (Personnel), School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006 5. The Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 16934 of 2026 __________ Page12 of 12 P.T.ASHA J. drm/SRN WP No. 16934 of 2026 23-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis