TET qualification is not mandatory for appointment as Headmaster in a minority institution.

L. Mariappan was appointed as Headmaster of CMS Evangelical Primary School, Pattankadu, Tirunelveli District, an aided minority institution, with effect from 04.02.2022.

The School Management forwarded his appointment proposal for approval, but the authorities kept it pending.

In an earlier writ petition, the Court directed the District Educational Officer to consider the proposal and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

The proposal was thereafter rejected on the grounds that Mariappan had not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and that surplus teachers had not first been redeployed.

The learned Single Judge quashed the rejection, held that TET was not mandatory for appointment in a minority institution, and found that redeployment of surplus teachers could not be insisted upon for the singular post of Headmaster.

During the appeal, they additionally contended that Mariappan had not actually functioned as Headmaster and therefore could not claim salary or attendant benefits.

The Court examined the original attendance registers, including a separate register countersigned by the District Educational Officer, which established that he had attended the School and functioned as Headmaster.

Whether passing the TET was mandatory for Mariappan’s appointment as Headmaster in an aided minority educational institution

Whether approval of his appointment could be denied on the ground that surplus teachers had not first been redeployed

Whether Mariappan had actually functioned as Headmaster and was consequently entitled to approval, salary, and attendant benefits from 04.02.2022

The Court applied the principle that, as the law stood on the date of decision, passing the TET was not mandatory for appointment as a teacher in a minority institution, relying on The Director of School Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai v. Velayutham, reported in 2023 (3) LW 112; although the issue was pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, the existing legal position remained applicable.

The Court further held that redeployment of surplus teachers could not be insisted upon in relation to a singular Headmaster post, particularly where the appointee’s qualification was not disputed.

Entitlement to attendant and monetary benefits depended on whether the appointee had in fact discharged the duties of Headmaster, which could be established through the relevant attendance records.

The Court affirmed the finding that TET could not be used to reject the appointment because the School was a minority institution and the binding legal position, pending reconsideration by the Supreme Court, exempted such appointments from the TET requirement.

The objection regarding redeployment was also rejected because the appointment was to the single post of Headmaster, and the appellants did not dispute Mariappan’s eligibility for that post; consequently, the requirement of redeploying surplus teachers was not applicable.

Although the State argued that Mariappan had not worked as Headmaster, the original attendance register produced by him had been countersigned by the District Educational Officer.

Verification by the authorities confirmed that the register was genuine and recorded his attendance and functioning as Headmaster. The Court therefore rejected the State’s additional objection and upheld his entitlement to consequential benefits.

The appellants were directed to approve Mariappan’s appointment as Headmaster of CMS Evangelical Primary School with effect from 04.02.2022 and to grant him all attendant benefits from that date.

The exercise was directed to be completed within six weeks from the date of uploading the judgment. No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.