Madras High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Special Rules Excluding TET for Promotion to Headmaster Posts. TET Held Mandatory for All Appointments Including Promotion Under Section 23 of RTE Act, 2009.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 529
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, secondary grade teachers and B.T. assistants in Tamil Nadu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 30.01.2020 are illegal insofar as they prescribe a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) only for direct recruitment to the posts of Headmaster/Headmistress of Middle School and Primary School, and not for promotion. They argued that this violates Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and NCTE notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011, which mandate TET for all teaching appointments. The court noted that the issue is no longer res integra, as the Supreme Court has ruled that passing TET is mandatory for holding teaching posts. The court held that the Special Rules, to the extent they exclude TET for promotion, are ultra vires the RTE Act and NCTE notifications. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, declaring that TET is a mandatory eligibility criterion for appointment to the posts of Headmaster/Headmistress by promotion as well as direct recruitment, and directed the respondents to amend the Special Rules accordingly.

Headnote

A) Education Law - Teacher Eligibility Test - Mandatory for Promotion - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Section 23 - The court held that TET is mandatory for appointment to teaching posts including promotion, as per Supreme Court rulings and NCTE notifications. The Special Rules excluding TET for promotion were declared ultra vires. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service, insofar as they prescribe TET only for direct recruitment and not for promotion to Headmaster/Headmistress posts, are ultra vires the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and NCTE notifications.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 School Education (EE1(1)) Department dated 30.01.2020, insofar as they prescribe TET only for direct recruitment and not for promotion to the posts of Headmaster/Headmistress of Middle School and Primary School, are declared illegal and ultra vires the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the NCTE notifications. The respondents are directed to treat TET as a mandatory eligibility criterion for appointment to the said posts by promotion as well as direct recruitment and to amend the Special Rules accordingly.

Law Points

  • Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) mandatory for appointment to teaching posts including promotion
  • Section 23 of RTE Act 2009 overrides state rules
  • Special Rules ultra vires if they exclude TET for promotion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (06) 18

WP No. 30300 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.29889, 29890 & 29891 of 2023

2026-06-04

S. M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar

Mr.R.Ramachandran for Petitioner(s), Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel for R1 to R4

P.Vetrivel, Muthamizh Selvam, S. Vignesh, V. Kalaivanan

The State Of Tamilnadu, The Commissioner Of School Education, The Director Of School Education, The Director Of Elementary Education

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 30.01.2020, insofar as they prescribe TET only for direct recruitment and not for promotion to Headmaster/Headmistress posts, are illegal and ultra vires the RTE Act and NCTE notifications, and a consequential direction to hold TET mandatory for promotion as well.

Filing Reason

The petitioners, who are teachers, challenged the Special Rules that exempted promotees from the TET requirement, arguing that TET is mandatory for all teaching appointments under the RTE Act.

Issues

Whether the Special Rules excluding TET for promotion to Headmaster/Headmistress posts are ultra vires the RTE Act and NCTE notifications.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that TET is mandatory for all teaching appointments including promotion under Section 23 of RTE Act and NCTE notifications. Respondents did not contest the issue; the court noted the issue is no longer res integra.

Ratio Decidendi

Passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for appointment to teaching posts, including promotion, under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as upheld by the Supreme Court. State Special Rules that exclude TET for promotion are ultra vires the RTE Act and NCTE notifications.

Judgment Excerpts

The issues are no more res integra. In the context of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory to hold the teaching post in the Education Department.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 2023 and heard by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The court delivered its order on 04-06-2026, allowing the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Section 23
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Landlords' Petition for Eviction on Ground of Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Landlord's Own Witness Admitted No Need for Possession, Defeating Claim Under Rent Con...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Transfer of Domestic Violence Proceedings to Family Court and Holds D.V. Act Proceedings Are Civil in Nature. Family Court Can Grant D.V. Act Reliefs Under Section 26 in Addition to Magistrate Under Section 12, Rejecting J...