THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION vs D. BUELA PRIYADHARSHINI

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.14899 of 2026
1. The Commissioner Of School Education
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Chennai District,
Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School
Campus,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The District Educational Officer
Chennai East Educational District, Triplicane,
Chennai 600 005.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. D. Buela Priyadharshini
W/o.Irwin Arthur Jesudoss, B.T.Assistant
(Tamil),
CSI Northwick Girls Higher Secondary School,
Royapuram,
Chennai 600 013.
2. The Diocesan Education Officer & Convener
CSI Diocese of Madras, The Diocean Office,
Post Box No.4914,
Chennai 600 086.
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
3. The Correspondent
CSI Northwick Girls Higher Secondary School,
Royapuram,
Chennai 600 013.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 14-12-2023 made in W.P.No.7536 of 2022 and allow this WA.
For Appellant(s): Dr.R.Gouri,
Govt. Counsel
For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Sankaran,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
for R1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
14.12.2023 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.7536 of 2022, approving the
petitioner’s appointment.
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the qualification of
Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for appointment of all teaching
staff and there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of educational
qualification amongst the teachers. In view of the fact that the Constitutional
Bench has taken a decision, the Two Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was not inclined to over rule the Constitutional Bench judgment and
referred the particular issue to the Constitutional Bench in respect of minority
Institutions. Thus, the issue is subjudice.
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
3. In prevailing circumstances, it would be improper to grant
approval of appointment in respect of teachers, who do not possess TET
qualification. If any such approval is granted in respect of teachers serving in
minority institutions, the said approval is subject to final outcome of the
Reference made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Constitution Bench.
4. In the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. The State
of Maharashtra & others reported in 2025 INSC 1063 , the qualification of
TET became held as mandatory and any discrepancy in prescription of
qualification amongst minority and non-minority Institutions are declared as
unconstitutional. The relevant paragraphs of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment is extracted hereunder:
“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 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.
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
...
...
172. One, however, has to appreciate that most
provisions of the RTE Act are regulatory in nature aimed at
ensuring a safe, inclusive, and meaningful learning
environment for children in the 6-14 age group. Requirements
such as trained teachers, adequate infrastructure, and
prohibition of corporal punishment are educational essentials,
not ideological impositions. Exempting minority institutions from
all these obligations, regardless of their relevance to minority
character is, in our opinion, neither justified nor constitutionally
required.
173. The danger of such a blanket exemption is that
Article 30(1) runs the risk of being reduced to a tool for evading
necessary and child-centric regulatory standards. The
constitutional guarantee under Article 30(1), we are inclined to
the view, was intended to preserve cultural and linguistic
identity and not to provide institutions unqualified immunity from
laws framed in the best interest of children.
…
...
175. However, later, Paramathi Educational and Cultural
Trust (supra) went on to grant a sweeping exemption to all
minority institutions, aided or unaided, falling under Article
30(1) despite what the Bench acknowledged earlier. With
respect, it essentially created a dichotomy between the right to
education under Article 21A and the collective rights under
Article 30(1). Despite insisting on harmony, Article 30(1) seems
to have been treated as an unqualified trump card, instead of
harmonizing both rights in a manner that minimally impairs
institutional autonomy while maximally fulfilling the State's
constitutional obligations to children, particularly those from
marginalized communities.
…
...
185. Thus, ultimately, a reconsideration of Paramathi
Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) seems unavoidable. The
minority status of an institution must be grounded in a genuine
commitment to serve its community, and not merely operate as
a vehicle for evading constitutional duties. If the object of Article
30 is to protect identity, then compliance with the RTE Act,
insofar as it does not annihilate that identity, ought not to be
viewed as an encroachment.
…
...

__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
187. The Court in Paramathi Educational and Cultural
Trust (supra) focused on Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act and
no other section and held the entirety of the RTE Act to be
inapplicable to an entire section of society. Thereby, such
section, so to say, has been totally excluded from the idea and
notion of nation building by providing education to children at
the grassroot level. Even if one were to accept that Section
12(1)(c) violated Article 30, the same could have been read
down by including at least the children of the particular minority
community who also belong to weaker section and
disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood. To hold that the
entirety of the RTE Act is inapplicable, with due respect, does
not appeal to us to be reasonable and proportionate.
…
…
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.”
5. After holding that the TET has become a mandatory
qualification in Chapter VII, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed an order of
reference for consideration by a Larger Bench. In the context of the reference
made, further observations were made in paragraph Nos.212, 214, 215, 216,
217, 218, which are extracted hereunder.
212. As regards Civil Appeal Nos. 6365-6367 of 2025,
we have already noted that the State of Tamil Nadu raised the
argument regarding the TET for the first time before this Court.
The appointment proposals of the concerned teachers were
rejected on grounds other than the TET, and the TET issue
was not raised before the High Court. We are mindful of the
settled legal principles that prohibit the introduction of new
grounds for the first time before this Court. Therefore, it would
have been appropriate to dismiss the civil appeals at the
outset on this basis alone. That said, we are conscious of the
fact that the institution in which the teacher/respondent seeks
appointment is a minority institution. As such, it falls within the
scope of the order of reference mentioned above.
…
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
…
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 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. 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
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
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.
6. A holistic reading of the above paragraphs would show that
approval of appointment granted in respect of teachers, working in Minority
Institutions during pendency of Reference made before Constitution Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is subject to the final outcome and the said
position has been reiterated by Government in G.O.Ms.No.300 dated
24.12.2025.
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court declared the Law that there cannot be
any discrimination in the matter of qualification and TET, being mandatory
qualification for appointment to teaching posts, there cannot be any exemption
only to Teachers appointed in Minority Institutions. Discrimination in
prescription of educational qualification to Teaching Staff would result in
unconstitutionality. However, Two Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, while declaring TET as mandatory qualification, found that Constitution
Bench has granted exemption to Teachers in Minority Institutions in
1
Paramathi’s case . Thus, Reference has been made to Constitution Bench,
which is pending. Authorities competent, while granting approval to Teachers
working in Minority Institutions, must clearly indicate the above position in
context of Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.300 dated 24.12.2025, by
stating that such approval of appointment is subject to the final outcome of
Reference pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
8. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
23-06-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VSI
Note: Issue order copy on 29.06.2026
1
(2014) 4 MLJ 486 (SC)
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
To:
1. D.Buela Priyadharshini
W/o.Irwin Arthur Jesudoss, B.T.Assistant
(Tamil),
CSI Northwick Girls Higher Secondary School,
Royapuram,
Chennai 600 013.
2. The Diocesan Education Officer and Convener
CSI Diocese of Madras, The Diocesan Office,
Post Box No.4914, Chennai 600 086.
3. The Correspondent
CSI Northwick Girls Higher Secondary School,
Royapuram, Chennai 600 013.
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )

2026:MHC:2298
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.
VSI
W.A.No.1624 of 2026
23-06-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 01:56:32 pm )