High Court · 2025

W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.11.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANW.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& REV.APLC(MD)No.247 of 2025& C.M.P.(MD)No.1967, 1968 of 2021 & 18616 of 2025W.A.(MD)Nos.467and 468 of 2021:1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.3.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District....Appellants in both appeals/Vs./The Correspondent,Senaithalaivar Higher Secondary School,Vickramasingapuram-627 425,Tirunelveli District....Respondent in both appealsCOMMON PRAYER:- Writ Appeals - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the orders made in W.P.(MD)No.11831 and 11834 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025of 2020 dated 16.09.2020 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.Rev. Aplc.(MD)No.247 of 2025:1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, St.Fort George, Chennai.2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai.3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,Tuticorin.4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District....Appellants/Vs./1.M.A.Stephen Sundar Singh2.The Correspondent, TDTA Primary and Middle School, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District....RespondentPRAYER:- Review Application - filed under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, to review the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in W.A.(MD)No.21 of 2019 on the file of this Court and set aside the same. In all:For Appellants: Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government PleaderFor Respondents: Mr.K.Prabhu2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)Heard Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.K.Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The issue in question relates to whether TET is mandatory for faculty of minority schools. We have earlier had an occasion to consider this issue in W.A.(MD)No.2592 of 2025, and by order dated 10.09.2025, we have stated as follows,10.As far as the issue of TET eligibility is concerned, the present position in law is that no faculty member in a minority institution is required to undergo the rigour of the TET, as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs. Union of India3 consistently followed by various Courts, including this Court. The operative portion of the Judgment is as follows:“55. When we look at the 2009 Act, we find that Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 2(n) (iii) provides that an aided school receiving aid and grants, whole or part, of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority has to provide free and compulsory education to such proportion of children admitted therein as its annual recurring aid or grants so received bears to its annual recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of 3(2014) 8 SCC 13/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025twenty-five per cent. Thus, a minority aided school is put under a legal obligation to provide free and compulsory elementary education to children who need not be children of members of the minority community which has established the school. We also find that under Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 2(n)(iv), an unaided school has to admit into twenty-five per cent of the strength of class I children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood. Hence, unaided minority schools will have a legal obligation to admit children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood who need not be children of the members of the minority community which has established the school. While discussing the validity of clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution, we have held that members of communities other than the minority community which has established the school cannot be forced upon a minority institution because that may destroy the minority character of the school. In our view, if the 2009 Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution will be abrogated. Therefore, the 2009 Act insofar it is made applicable to minority schools referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution. We are thus of the view that the majority judgment of this Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. (supra) insofar as it holds that the 2009 Act is applicable to aided minority schools is not correct.56. In the result, we hold that the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A of the Constitution do not alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and are constitutionally valid. We also 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025hold that the 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We, however, hold that the 2009 Act insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution. Accordingly, Writ Petition (C) No.1081 of 2013 filed on behalf of Muslim Minority Schools Managers’ Association is allowed and Writ Petition (C) Nos.416 of 2012, 152 of 2013, 60 of 2014, 95 of 2014, 106 of 2014, 128 of 2014, 144 of 2014, 145 of 2014, 160 of 2014 and 136 of 2014 filed on behalf of non-minority private unaided educational institutions are dismissed. All I.As. stand disposed of. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.”11.Mr.Ashok would cite a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust Vs. the State of Maharastra and others4 that dealt with a batch of appeals and raised, among other issues, the question of whether TET is mandatory for faculty members of minority institutions. The Bench has expressed a doubt as to whether the blanket exemption granted to minority institutions in Pramati's case (cited supra) is correct. Paras 177 & 186 to 191 are relevant and are extracted below:'177.We, therefore, have serious doubts as to whether Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) was justified in granting a blanket exemption to minority institutions falling under Article 30(1) from the applicability of the RTE Act. In our considered opinion, the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions, whether aided or unaided. As discussed, its implementation does not erode—let alone annihilate—the minority character protected under Article 30(1). On the contrary, applying the RTE Act aligns with the purposive 4(2025 INSC 104)5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025interpretation of Article 30(1), which was never meant to shield institutions from reasonable regulation in pursuit of constitutional goals. There is no inherent conflict between Article 21A and Article 30(1); both can and must co-exist mutually.On applicability of Section 12(1)(c), RTE Act to minority institutions...........186.Article 21A postulates primary education to be a 'public good' that must be accessible and available to all. The RTE Act is the State's legislative enforcement of this fundamental right.187. The Court in Pramati 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.188. Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra), ruling that RTE Act would not apply to minority institutions, in effect would offend the Article 21A right of students admitted in such institutions. They would stand denied of the various statutory entitlements and benefits that the RTE Act affords to all children between 6 and 14 years of age.189. The RTE Act does not alter the minority character of institutions set up under Article 30. The decision in 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) seems to us to be doubtful on various counts, in holding so. The decisions in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), and P. A. Inamdar (supra) hold that even the inclusion of non-minority students in a minority institution would not dilute the institution's minority character. Pertinently, none of these decisions interpret Article 21A, which is inserted subsequently, or pertain to institutions imparting primary education.190. Regulation in the form of norms and standards to ensure quality of education, does not dilute the minority character of an institution, and in fact is a necessary feature of the right to education, as understood both domestically, and internationally.191. In a scenario where the TET is held to be inapplicable to minority institutions, this would additionally result in a violation of Article 14 as differential eligibility criteria based on religious or linguistic character would be an impermissible classification, and a violation of the general right guaranteed under Article 21A.'12. The Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. In such an event, learned AGP would urge that the matter must await the decision of the larger Bench, once constituted, as according to him, the law is now in a flux. The question is, is there a vacuum created in law by reason of the reference, requiring us to await a further pronouncement of a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The answer is in the negative, and has been settled in a series of judgements. In Ashok Sadarangani and another Vs. Union of India and others5 the Supreme Court was concerned with the same question, answering in para 29, as follows:5(2012) 11 SCC 3217/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025'29.As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh case, the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Glan Singh case need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.' 13. The same view has been taken in Rajnish Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India and Others6. The Bench holds, at paragraph 4, as follows:4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [(2023) 2 SCR 59] in which the point of law laid down in the earlier judgment passed by this Court in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench. But so far as this Bench is concerned, we do not think judicial propriety permits ignoring the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) as no decision has come as yet from the larger Bench on the point of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in a similar context. If we were to take a different view, the only course open for us would have been to refer the petition to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for being adjudicated by a larger Bench, as has been done in the case of Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra). No argument has been raised before us that the decision in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) is per incurium.14. Thus, the prevailing view in Pramati's case continues to apply until modified in any way, and no legal vacuum is created as the State would urge. In the present case as well, the issue must be considered in light of the existing 6(2023) 14 SCC 7828/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025binding precedent and this issue is also concluded affirming the decision of the writ court. 15. Incidentally, the State has made reference to the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Rules 2023, stating that only those appointments made prior to 13.01.2023 are proposed to be approved, and that too subject to the outcome of the reference made to the larger Bench. The appointment made in the present case is prior to the cut-off date and hence the aforesaid caveats expressed by the State would, in any event, not apply. 16. Even otherwise, we have our reservations on whether at all there could be any caveats put in place in this regard, in light of the binding legal position that obtains as on date. We reserve a detailed examination of this issue in a more appropriate matter, one that involves an appointment made prior to the date of Notification of the 2023 Rules. 17. In light of the above discussion, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.3. In light of the identity of the issue and the discussion in the above matter, the writ appeals and review application are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 14.11.2025 NCC:Yes/NoIndex :Yes/NoInternet:Yessm9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025TO:-1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.3.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.4.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, St.Fort George, Chennai.5.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai.6.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin.7.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021& Rev.APlc(MD)No.247 of 2025DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.ANDC.KUMARAPPAN, J.smOrder made inW.A.(MD)Nos.467 and 468 of 2021andREV.APLC(MD)No.247 of 2025Dated:14.11.202511/11