Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Saradha Vidyan Samajam Aided Up … vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors Had … on 27 February, 2026
Reserved on: 17.02.2025
Pronounced on: 27.02.2025
APHC010596972023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 30764/2023
Between:
1. SRI SARADHA VIDYAN SAMAJAM AIDED UP SCHOOL, 20TH
WARD, KADAPA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY-CUM-
CORRESPONDENT, O. JANARDHAN RAJU, S/O
SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. CHOWDESWARI DEVI ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL,
YERRAMUKKAPALLI, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS
CORRESPONDENT, G.MOHAN, S/O PEDDASUBBANNA, AGED
62 YEARS.
3. A.V.S.ORIENTALU.P.SCHOOL, VADHAVARAM, ONTIMITTA
MANDAL, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS
CORRESPONDENT, SMT.A.SUBBAMMA, W/O A. RAMA DAS,
AGED 65 YEARS.
4. G.V.S.ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL,, S. R. K. NAGAR, MAD
HAVARAM, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY AND
CORRESPONDENT, G.VENKATASUBBAIAH, SO G.V.SUBBA
RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
5. S.N.Y.S.SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, KONDAMACHUPALI,
VONTIMITTA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS
SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT, M.LAKSHMAMMA, W/O
M.SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
2
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR- 522237.
2. COMMISSIONER ET DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AP.
ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AP.
ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AT
KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue a writ or direction, more particularly, a writ of
Mandamus, i) declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing his
nominees nominated to the Staff Selection Committee for the petitioner
institutions (petitioners in CC.No.846/2020) to issue necessary instructions
to the petitioner schools on filling up of vacant aided posts to obtain
applications from the candidates who are qualified in TET examination, as
illegal, arbitrary, improper, mala fide and unconstitutional besides being
contrary to the provisions of A.P. Education Act, 1982 and rules made
there under, and consequently to set-aside the same and pass such other
order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to permit the petitioner schools to fill up aided vacancies as per
the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1 Edu (P.S-2) dated
01.01.1994 and Right to Education Act 2009 in view of the Government
Memo No.ESE01/46/2023-PS dated 09.08.2023 without insisting for TET
qualified candidates, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the
above writ petition, and pass such other order.
3
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim orders granted on dated 29.11.2023 made in
I.A.No.1/2023 WP.No.30764 of 2023 and consequently dismiss the Writ
Petition as devoid of merits and to pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N BHARAT BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 22515/2024
Between:
1. SRI C. M. V. N. AIDED ELE. HIGH SCHOOL,, REP. BY ITS
SECRETARY OR CORRESPONDENT, SRI. P. VENKATESWARA
RAO, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PRAKASH NAGAR,YSR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPT, OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT)
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL
EDUCATION, A.P. ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, YSR KADAPA, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, YSR
KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
4
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly in
the nature of writ of Mandamus, Declaring the action of the 3rd
respondent in directing his nominees nominated to the Staff Selection
Committee for the petitioner institutions to issue necessary instructions to
the petitioner schools on filling up of vacant aided posts to obtain
applications from the candidates who are qualified in TET examination
vide Rc.No.6217/B1/2017 Dated.01.02.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, improper,
mala fide and unconstitutional besides being d contrary to the provisions
of
A.P. Education Act 1982 and rules made there under, and consequently to
set-aside the same.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to permit the petitioner schools to fill up aided vacancies as per
the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S-2) dated
01.01.1994 and Right to Education Act 2009 in view of the Government
Memo No.ESE01/46/20 23-PS dated 09.08.2023 without insisting for TET
qualified candidates, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the
above writ petition, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate interim orders dt.04.10.2024 passed in WP.No.22515 of
2024 and to pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VALLEPU JAGADEESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
5
WRIT PETITION NO: 18672/2025
Between:
1. SRI RAJA COCK SHUTT UP SCHOOL, RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
DR.BR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. REP BY ITS
CORRESPONDENT CHEERLA VENKATA RATNAM.
2. C.B.M SIMPSON MEMORIAL AIDED UP SCHOOL, KAKINADA,
KAKINADA DISTRICT. REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT SRI CHEERLA
VENKATA RATNAM.
3. EAR AIDED HIGH SCHOOL,, KONTHAMURU,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP BY ITS
CORRESPONDENT KOLAMURI PRABHAKARA RAO.
4. EAR AIDED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,, KONTHAMURU,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP BY ITS
CORRESPONDENT KOLAMURI PRABHAKARA RAO.
5. NAV BHARAT AIDED HIGH SCHOOL, ANDREWS NAGAR, KAKINADA,
KAKINADA DISTRICT (ERSTWHIIE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). REP
BY ITS CORRESPONDENT J. ESTHER RANI
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY (EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. X
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, AMALAPURAM, DR.BR.
AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA
DISTRICT.
6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
6
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the
action of Respondents 4 to 6 in directing their nominees nominated to the
Staff Selection Committee of the petitioner institutions to issue instructions
for filling up the vacant aided posts by insisting upon applications only
from candidates possessing TET qualification, as illegal, arbitrary, and
unconstitutional, and as being contrary to the provisions of the
G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and consequently direct the
respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking
appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting
on TET qualification, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said
G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 as
arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O. and the provisions of the
Right to Education Act, 2009, and violative of the petitioners' fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification
for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner
schools without insisting on TET qualification and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to DIRECT the Respondents 4 to 6 to permit the petitioner
schools to fill up the said aided vacancies strictly in accordance with
G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, without imposing any condition such as
mandatory TET qualification and pass such other order.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate interim orders dt.22.07.2025 in WP No.18672 of 2025
and to pass such other order.
7
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 18879/2025
Between:
1. EMA UP SCHOOL, GINNEPALLI, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT) REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, SRI KOTHAPALLI
ABRAHAM PRASAD
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY (EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL
EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, IBRAHIMPATNAM,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT).
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALLURI
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the
action of 4th and 5th Respondents in directing their nominees nominated
to the Staff Selection Committee of the petitioner school to issue
8
instructions for filling up the vacant aided posts by insisting upon
applications only from candidates possessing TET qualification, as illegal,
arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and as being contrary to the provisions of
the G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and consequently direct the
respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking
appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting
on TET qualification, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said
G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 as
arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O. and the provisions of the
Right to Education Act, 2009, and violative of the petitioners fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification
for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner
schools without insisting on TET qualification and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the 4th and 5th Respondents to permit the petitioner
school to fill up the said aided vacancies strictly in accordance with
G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, without imposing any condition such as
mandatory TET qualification and pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 23140/2025
Between:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDU AIDED PETA COMMITTEE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 12TH WARD, NANDYAL, NANDYAL
DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, K. SURESH
KUMAR, S/O BHAJI RAO, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O 26-483-B, R S
ROAD, NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
9
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, , KURNOOL NANDYAL
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
6. THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
7. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to pass an order or a writ or a direction, more specifically
a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
Respondents 2 to 7 in directing the petitioner institution to issue
instructions for filling up the vacant aided posts by insisting upon
applications only from candidates possessing TET qualification, as illegal,
arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and as being contrary to the provisions of
the G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and consequently direct the
respondents not to insist upon TET qualification for applicants seeking
appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner schools without insisting
on TET qualification, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the said
10
G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 as
arbitrary. Illegal, unjust, contrary to the said G.O. and the provisions of the
Right to Education Act, 2009, and violative of the petitioners fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon TET qualification
for applicants seeking appointment to the aided posts in the petitioner
schools without insisting on TET qualification and pass such other orders.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 7 to permit the petitioner school to
fill up the said aided vacancies strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1,
dated 01.01.1994, without imposing any condition such as mandatory TET
Qualification and pass such other orders.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 02.09.2025 passed in W.P.
No.23140 of 2025.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HUGGIES SAI DINAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 23578/2025
Between:
1. NAMBURI RAJ KUSHAL, S/O DAVID RAJU, D. NO. 59-13-7,
P AND T COLONY, KORUKONDA ROAD, OLD POST OFFICE
STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
11
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATADRI TOWERS, OPP. DGP OFFICE BESIDES HAPPY
RESORTS ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR ANDHRA
PRADESH.
3. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, O/O
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, BESIDE DISTRICT LIBRARY,
MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. HEBRON RESIDENTIAL AIDED HIGH SCHOOL, REP BY ITS
CORRESPONDENT SRI. JALLI SAGAR D. NO. 11-194,
NAGARAJUPETA, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities of the
Respondents 3 and 4, in refusing to recommend the Petitioner's
candidature for appointment to the post of School Assistant (Mathematics)
in the aided vacancy, despite his being fully qualified and having secured
the highest marks in the selection process, solely on the ground of non-
qualification in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), as arbitrary, illegal,
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to
the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 8155 of 2024 as being
arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of
India and against the principles of natural justice and offending the
Provisions of Right to Education Act and the Rules framed there under
and consequently direct the Respondents herein to forthwith recommend
12
and issue appointment orders in favour of the Petitioner to the post of
School Assistant (Mathematics) in the said aided school, together with all
consequential benefits and issue such other writ or order or direction as
deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the Respondents herein to forthwith recommend and
issue appointment orders in favour of the Petitioner to the post of School
Assistant (Mathematics) in the 5th Respondent school, pending Writ
Petition, in the interest of justice and pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
13
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.30764 of 2023, 22515 of 2024,
18672, 18879, 23140 and 23578 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
1. The common issue in all the Writ Petitions is the requirement of
qualification of TET examination for filling up the vacant aided posts in
the Petitioner-schools.
2. The W.P.Nos.30764 of 2023, 22515 of 2024, 18672 of 2025,
18879 of 2025 and 23140 of 2025 were filed by the school
managements while W.P.No.23578 of 2025 was filed by an individual
aspiring for appointment in aided post in Respondent No.5-school.
3. W.P.No.30764 of 2023 is taken as lead case for narration of
facts;
The State Government had issued a Memo on 20.10.2004
banning the recruitment of aided posts. This ban was challenged by
private aided school managements in a batch of Writ Petitions and this
Court vide Common Order dated 30.07.2013 held the ban as illegal and
unsustainable, with a further direction to accord permission to fill up the
aided vacancies as per law.
14
4. The State had unsuccessfully challenged the said Common
Order in Writ Appeal before this Court and S.L.Ps before the Supreme
Court. As the said order was not being implemented, Contempt Cases
were filed. During pendency of the Contempt Cases, the State
Government had issued Memo ESE0/46/2023-PS, dated 09.08.2023
according permission to the Commissioner of School Education to
permit the Petitioner-schools to fill up the vacant aided posts by way of
direct recruitment fully following the procedure described in
G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994 and as
per norms and schedule prescribed under Right to Education
Act, 2009, the Commissioner of Secondary Education in turn had
issued orders on 10.08.2023 directing the Regional Joint Director,
Kadapa and the District Education Officer, Kadapa to take further
action as ordered by the Government without any deviation.
5. Thereafter, the District Education Officer, Kadapa on 18.08.2023
directed the Petitioner-schools to submit proposals for permission to fill
up the existing vacancies in schools and in response the Petitioner-
schools submitted their proposals vide respective representations.
While so, the District Education Officer directed the School
Managements to follow G.O.Ms.No.67, SE (Exams) Department,
dated 26.10.2018.
15
6. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.10.2018, has no
application to aided management institutions and the Petitioner-schools
had submitted their representations objecting to the Proceedings dated
17.10.2023. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued Proceedings in
Rc.No.561-B/A2/B1/2011, dated 03.11.2023 directing the nominees of
Respondent No.3 in the Staff Selection Committee of the Petitioner-
institutions to fill up vacant aided posts from candidates who have
qualified in TET examination. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Writ Petitions are filed.
7. The principal ground is that TET examination is not required for
filling up aided posts in private management schools and the same
applies to the Government Schools/Zilla Parishad, Mandal Praja
Parishad, Special Schools, Integrated Tribal Development Agency,
Ashram, Municipalities, Municipal Corporation Schools as per
G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.10.2018.
8. A Counter-Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents
stating that under the guise of permanent employment in aided posts,
several malpractices were being carried out by the private aided
institutions and therefore the Government had imposed a ban vide
Memo dated 20.10.2004. After the Judgments of this Court as well as
unsuccessful challenge up to the Supreme Court, the Government
16
issued Memo No.18836/PS/A2/2010-34, dated 30.06.2017, according
permission to private aided managements to fill up the vacant aided
posts.
9. Thereafter a three-member committee was constituted to
examine the backdoor appointments being made by the private school
managements and the said committee had submitted a report vide
letter Rc.No.912/PS1/2016, dated 11.04.2018. Upon examining the
report, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.43, School Education (PS)
Department, dated 09.08.2018 amending G.O.Ms.No.1,
dated 01.01.1994 by amending Rules 12 and 13 thereof. The said G.O
was further amended vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 16.02.2019.
10. Several aided school managements, including minority and
non-minority have filed Writ Petitions before this Court questioning the
validity of G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018. During the pendency of
Writ Petitions and pursuant to interim orders, the Government had
issued permission on a case-by-case basis subject to the outcome of
the Writ Petitions.
11. It is stated that the Government is providing salary grant, which
comprises the salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff apart from
maintenance and equipment grant, grants for maintenance expenses,
purchase of equipment, furniture, appliances or games and sports
17
materials and the Petitioner-institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the
Government cannot now take the ground that the answering
Respondents cannot impose conditions for the recruitment of teachers
mandated by the NCTE.
12. The G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018, was quashed by this
Court in W.P.no.28912 of 2018 and batch. Thereafter, batch of Writ
Petitions were filed vide W.P.Nos.7036 of 2025 and batch questioning
the instructions to fill up teaching posts as well as imposition of TET for
recruitment in aided posts. This Court in Common Order dated
09.05.2025 held that unless necessary amendments are made,
Computer-Based Test (CBT) cannot be introduced for recruitment into
aided posts. Taking note of the developments, the Government
reviewed and issued G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 11.07.2025, amending
G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 mandating TET in aided schools.
13. It is further stated that Section 23 of Right to Education Act, 2009
vests the Central Government with the power to designate an academic
authority to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers. Pursuant to
conferment of such, the NCTE was notified as the academic authority
vide Notification dated 23.08.2010 in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 23(1) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009. The requirement to pass the TET to be conducted
by the appropriate Government in accordance with NCTE’s guidelines,
18
was made as a minimum qualification for teachers and the same was
communicated to all the concerned.
14. It is stated that the rationale for including the TET as a minimum
qualification for appointment as a teacher would bring national
standards and benchmarks in the teacher recruitment and improve the
teaching quality. It is stated that the TET is a mandatory condition for
appointment of teachers in classes I to VIII in schools covered by
Section 2(n) of the RTE Act and the same cannot be relaxed. The
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v.
State of Maharashtra and Others1 was relied upon to substantiate
that TET is a requirement for all teachers and therefore there is no
merit in the Writ Petitions.
15. Heard Senior Counsel Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, assisted by
Sri N. Bharat Babu, Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy and
Sri H. Sai Divakar, learned counsels for the Petitioners and the learned
Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the
Respondents.
16. Reasoning: The NCTE in exercise of power conferred under
Section 23(1) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 R/w Notification in S.O.750 (E), dated 31.03.2010,
1
(2025 Livelaw (SC) 861)
19
the NCTE laid down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible
for appointment as a teacher vide Gazette Notification dated
23.08.2011.
(i) Classes I – V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
wherever name known)(OR)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks
and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever
name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition
Norms and Procedure), Regulations, 2022.
(OR)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with a least 50% marks
and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.)(OR)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with a least 50% marks
and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)(OR)
Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known)AND
20
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for
the purpose.
1) For sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the
following shall be substituted, namely:-
(ii) Classes VI-VII
(a) Graducation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known)(OR)
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.)(OR)
Graduation with at least 45% marks and 10year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time
in this regard.
(OR)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks
and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.)(OR)
21Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks
and 4-year B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
(OR)
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed.
(Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for
the purpose.”
17. The rationale for including TET as a minimum qualification for a
person to be eligible for appointment for teacher is as under;
“a) it would bring national standards and benchmarks of
teacher quantity in the recruitment process;
b) it would induce teacher education institutions and students
from these institutions to further improve their performance
standards;
c) it would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the
Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality.”
18. The said notification does not make any distinction between a
private aided school and the Government school. Nextly, the Rules for
filling up the vacancies in private schools is governed by Andhra
Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition,
22
Administration and Control of Schools Under Private
Managements) Rules, 1993, framed in exercise of power conferred
under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. In the said Rules,
there is nothing contrary to the requirement of qualification in TET.
19. In fact, vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 11.7.2025, amendments were
made to Rule 12 thereof giving weightage to TET qualification in the
selection process. “Education” being a subject of the concurrent list,
the Union legislation would prevail unless a later amendment to the
contrary in the State Rules is made and receives the assent of the
President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. In the
present case, it is not the case of the Petitioner that there is any rule to
the contrary or that the contrary part in the Rules of 1993 received
presidential assent after 2011.
20. The reliance on G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.10.2018 i.e.,
The Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) for the posts of School Assistants
(SAs), Language Pandits(LPs), Physical Education Teachers(PETs),
Music Teachers, Craft Teachers and Arts & Drawing Teachers and
Teacher Eligibility Test-cum- Teacher recruitment test(TET-cum-TRT)
for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs) Scheme of
Selection Rules, 2018 to contend that the Rules did not extend the
requirement of TET to private schools is misplaced and misleading.
These Rules prescribe TET as a qualification and eligibility for
23
recruitment to all the categories of teacher posts in Government, Zilla
Praja Parishad, Mandal Praja Parishad, Special Schools, ITDA,
Ashram, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. These Rules do not
have any application to the schools under the control of private
managements and the Rules that are applicable for the schools under
private management are mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust
Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors had considered the requirement
of TET in minority and non-minority institutions. After a detailed
examination of contentions, RTE Act and the Constitution, doubted the
correctness of previous Judgement of the Supreme Court in Pramati
Educational and Cultural Trust insofar as it exempts the application
of the RTE Act to minority schools, whether aided or unaided and
referred the issue for consideration before larger bench (See;
Paragraphs 207-213). As regards the applicability of TET for in-service
teachers appointed prior to 2009 and the requirement of TET
qualification for promotion, it was held that TET is a compulsory
qualifying criterion. The Paragraph Nos.168 and169 are extracted
below;
“J. APPLICABILITY OF THE TET TO IN-SERVICE TEACHERS
APPOINTED PRIOR TO 2009 AND REQUIREMENT OF TET
QUALIFICATION FOR PROMOTION OF TEACHERS.
24
164….
165…
166….
167…..
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
25requisite 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
22. Again at Paragraph Nos.204 and 205, it was reiterated that only
on obtaining the qualification in TET, a person can be eligible for
appointment. The Paragraph Nos.204 and 205 are extracted below;
“N. ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS VERSUS ELIGIBILITY
202….
203….
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.
205. Obfuscating the true import of the synonymous expressions
would not lend assistance. What must be looked into is the
consequence of such qualification. The eligibility criteria, among
26other things, also prescribes the TET as a qualification.
A person seeking appointment as a teacher must, as a
qualification, pass the TET. Only by obtaining such
qualification, he would be considered eligible to be
appointed as a teacher.”
23. In conclusion and in exercise of power under Article 142,
the teachers with less than 5 years of service in non-minority
institutions and recruited prior to the advent of RTE Act, it was held that
TET is not a requirement, unless promotion is sought by the Supreme
Court. While teachers with more than 5 years of service and recruited
prior to RTE Act, were required to qualify in TET within 2 years, and on
failure, they were directed to be compulsorily retired and be paid
retirement benefits subject to the Rules. The relevant part of the
Judgment is extracted below;
“VIII. ORDER ON APPLICABILITY OF THE TET TO IN-
SERVICE TEACHERS
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
27in-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.
28
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 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.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.”
24. To reiterate, the issue in the above Paragraphs was with regard
to applicability of the RTE Act, 2009 to Teachers recruited prior thereto
without TET qualification. No exemption was provided with regard to
Teachers recruited after RTE Act, 2009.
25. The W.P.No.23578 of 2025 was filed by an individual aspiring for
appointment in an aided post in Respondent No.5-school. Though
argument was made that Respondent No.5-school is a minority
institution and that the Judgment referred above, would not apply,
but there is no plea in the Writ Affidavit to that effect. Even otherwise,
the Petitioner being only an aspirant for the post does not have locus to
29
question the qualification of TET as a condition precedent for
appointment as long as Respondent No.5 i.e., employer does not have
any objection. There is no bar for the minority institution to adopt the
requirement of TET qualification on its own accord and the
non-applicability of RTE Act, 2009 comes into play only when the same
is sought to be imposed as a regime requirement.
26. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioners
submitted that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, persons
were appointed in the respective aided posts and as an alternative
submission, sought for some time to be given to the appointees to
qualify in the TET examination as was given by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the above quoted Judgment. This Court is of the opinion that the
extracted Paragraphs of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
would leave none in doubt that the qualification in TET is eligibility
requirement for appointment and no person can be appointed without
this qualification after issuance of notification on 23.08.2010 by NCTE.
The highlighted portions of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court at
Paragraph Nos.169, 204 and 205 extracted above would leave little
scope for this Court to meddle with the dictum. Hence, alternative
submission of the Petitioners cannot be acceded to.
27. Therefore this Court does not find any merit in
the Writ Petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed.
30
28. No order as to costs.
29. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 27.02.2026
IS
31
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.30764 of 2023, 22515 of 2024,
18672, 18879, 23140 and 23578 of 2025
Dated: 27.02.2026
IS