____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved onPronounced on

27.01.2026 04.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P. NO. 16397 OF 2025

AND

W.M.P. NOS. 18527, 18528 & 18536 OF 2025

1.M.Kalyanasundaram

2.M.Jayaprakash .. Petitioners

- Vs -

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Govt.

School Education Department

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director of School Education

DPI Campus, College Road

Cjhennai 600 006.

3.The Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB)

Rep. By its Member Secretary

DPI Campus, College Road

Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the

3

rd

respondent in publishing the revised provisional selection list dated 4.4.2025

1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

for the subject History and to quash the same as being illegal and unsustainable

in law insofar as it does not include the petitioners name and for a consequential

direction to the respondents to award 5 marks to the 1

st

petitioner and 3 marks

to the 2

nd

petitioner as weightage marks which they are eligible for as per G.O.

Ms. No.147, School Education (TRB) Department dated 22.08.2023 and

consequently include the petitioners in the final selection list and appoint them

as Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant in the subject History pursuant to the

recruitment notification dated 25.10.2023.

For Petitioners:Ms. N.Kavitha Rameshwar

For Respondents:Ms. Mythreye Chandru, Spl. GP

For RR-1 & 2

Mr. C.Kathiravan for R-3

ORDER

Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the petitioners name in the revised

provisional seniority list for the post of Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant by not

awarding marks for the TET qualification obtained by the petitioners inspite of

directions given in G.O. Ms. No.147, School Education (TRB) Dept., dated

22.8.2023, the present petition has been preferred before this Court, with a

prayer to quash the revised provisional seniority list and to include the names of

2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

the petitioners by granting the requisite marks as mandated in the aforesaid G.O.

Ms. No.147.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the notification dated

25.10.2023 issued by the 3

rd

respondent calling for applications for the post of

Graduate Teachers/Block Resource Teacher Educators (for short ‘BRTE’), the

petitioners applied for the said post by submitting their application for subject

History. Further, the 1

st

petitioner applied under the PSTM category.

3. The petitioners uploaded their application along with the requisite

documents, including the TET qualification certificate and attended the

competitive examination conducted on 4.2.2024 for which results were published

by the 3

rd

respondent on 18.5.2024. Both the petitioners obtained 80.50 marks

including weightage marks and they belong to MBC category. Thereafter the

petitioners participated in the certificate verification. During the process of

certificate verification, the petitioners produced the TET certificate obtained by

them in the year 2013 and 2017 by the 1

st

and 2

nd

petitioner and sought for award

of weightage marks as per G.O. Ms. No.147 as they are eligible to get 5 marks and

3 marks respectively.

3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 3

rd

respondent published

the provisional selection list on 1.8.2024 in which the petitioner’s name were not

found, which prompted the petitioners to approach the 3

rd

respondent,

whereupon, they were informed that since they had uploaded the TET certificate

of the year 2022 alone, they were awarded only 0.5 marks as weightage marks. It

is the further averment of the petitioners that persons like the petitioners, who

completed additional degree were granted marks as weightage as per G.O. Ms.

No.147 and, they sought for the same treatment, however, they were not

provided with the same.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that as per the recruitment

notification, weightage marks is envisaged for those who are qualified to be

appointed even in 2013. If the petitioners are awarded weightage marks as

provided for in G.O. Ms. No.147, they would have obtained 85 and 83 marks

respectively, which would be above the cut-off marks of 81 and, therefore, would

be qualified to be selected and included in the provisional selection list, as, as per

G.O. Ms. No.147, weightage marks are to be awarded from the date of the earlier

year of passing of TET.

4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

6. Alternatively, it is averred by the petitioners that even if the petitioners

are to be held that they became eligible for the post of BT Assistant in the subject

History only in 2019 and 2020 respectively when they completed their additional

degree, they would have to be given weightage atleast from the year 2019 when

they obtained the TET certificate and, therefore would have to be awarded

atleast 2 marks, which would also enable the petitioners to be above the cu-off

marks, but the not-grant of weightage marks as per the Government Order has

resulted in the petitioners losing their chance of appointment. Inspite of the

representation of the petitioners, they have not been considered and, therefore,

left with no alternative, they have filed the present writ petition before this

Court.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is

gross violation of right of equality of opportunity to the petitioners in public

employment, which is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as equal

treatment in the award of marks has not been meted out to the petitioners.

5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though the 1

st

petitioner had obtained his TET certificate in the year 2013 and once again, after

completing a degree in History, obtained another TET certificate in the year 2019,

while the 2

nd

petitioner had obtained his first TET certificate in the year 2017 and,

thereafter, obtained the 2

nd

TET certificate in the year 2019, however, both the

TET papers were one and the same, as the petitioners had taken the TET papers

relating to English & Social Science, which has a common TET paper and the fact

that the petitioners attempted TET twice was only to improve their score, which

would be of no significance as English and Social Science has a common TET

paper while Maths and Pure Science has another common TET paper. Such being

the case, the 3

rd

respondent ought to have granted the benefit of G.O. Ms.

No.147 to the earlier TET certificate obtained by the respective petitioners in the

year 2013 and 2017 and given the weightage marks, which has been given to

similarly placed persons.

9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that online uploading

of documents, which has been mandated in the notification did not permit

uploading of dual TET certificates and, therefore, the petitioners had uploaded

only the recent TET certificate obtained by them, but nevertheless, the

6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the weightage marks, to which

they are eligible under G.O. Ms. No.147.

10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even if the 2013

and 2017 TET certificates of the petitioners are not taken into consideration for

giving the weightage, the petitioners would be entitled to weightage from the

date of completion of their History degree in the year 2019 in which case, the 1

st

petitioner and 2

nd

petitioner would be entitled for 3 marks each. However, the 3

rd

respondent has given weightage of only 0.5 marks to the petitioners, which is

grossly erroneous. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the present petition with a

direction to include the names of the petitioners in the revised provisional

selection list and consequently appoint the petitioners as Graduate

Teachers/BRTE.

11. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed

reliance on the decision of this Court in B.Kodeeswari – Vs – State of Tamil Nadu

& Ors. (W.P. No.26215 of 2024 – Dated 10.09.2024).

7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 3

rd

respondent submitted

that the petitioners did not submit the TET certificate obtained by them in the

year 2013 and 2017 respectively by uploading the documents while submitting

their application for the aforesaid posts. It is the further submission of the

learned counsel that there is a clear direction in the notification that all the

relevant documents, which the candidates rely on and which are required for

consideration of their candidature have to be uploaded while submitting the

application form online. However, the petitioners have uploaded the TET

certificate of the year 2022 and, therefore, they have been given 0.5 marks as

weightage based on the provisions in the notification.

13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners

have not uploaded their TET certificate of the year 2013 and 2017 and, therefore,

the weightage marks could not be given and moreover, the petitioners have

applied for History for which they have obtained TET certificate only in the year

2022 and, therefore, the TET certificate obtained by them in the year 2013/2017

would not be eligible for weightage marks, as it was obtained for English subject.

8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the eligible cut-

off for GT T is 83 and for MBC/DNC T is 81, but the petitioners have obtained only

80.5 marks and, therefore, they could not be considered for selection under

MBC/DNC T category. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the

recruitment for Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant for the subject History has

attained finality by way of publication pf provisional selection list on 4.4.2025

and, therefore, in the absence of any vacancy, even otherwise, the candidature of

the petitioners cannot be considered. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the

present writ petition.

15. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed

reliance on the following decisions :-

i)P.Uma Maheswari – Vs – The State of Tamil Nadu (W.P.

Nos.23143/2024 – Dated 22.8.2024); and

ii)T.G.Balaji – Vs – The State of Tamil Nadu (W.P.

No.15401/2024 – Dated 05.07.2024)

16. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

17. The fact that the petitioners had completed TET and obtained

certificate in the year 2013/2017 respectively, though they had completed

degree in History only in the year 2019. However, it is to be pointed out that the

petitioners had the basic degree in English Literature even in the year 2013, when

they completed their TET. Further, the obtainment of TET certificate is not

relatable to the degree obtained by the petitioners in the year 2013 or otherwise,

as the obtainment of TET certificate has no relevance to the completion of degree

as it is not as if the TET certificate should be obtained only upon completion of 10

+ 2 + 3 + 1 year. This is evident from the ratio laid down in Kodeeswari case

(supra). Therefore, the stand of the 3

rd

respondent that the petitioners had

completed degree in History only in the year 2019 and, therefore, the TET

certificate obtained in the year 2013/2017 would not have any relevance for

grant of weightage marks is grossly misconceived and, therefore, the said

contention deserves to be rejected.

18. It is also to be pointed out that though there are two streams, viz., one

for English/History and other is for Maths/Pure Science, however, TET

paper/exam for English Literature and History is one and the same. Therefore,

10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

the obtainment of TET certificate in the paper relating to English/History in the

year 2013 would not act as a deterrent with respect to the degree obtained by

the petitioner in History in the year 2019, more particularly, in view of the fact

that the TET certificate obtained by an individual from the date of coming into

force of TET would be a valid certificate as held by the National Council for

Teacher Education vide its communication dated 9.6.2021. Therefore, the TET

certificate obtained by the petitioners in the year 2013/2017 would be perfectly

valid.

19. It is not the case of the petitioners that while they had filled and filed

the online application for Graduate Teachers/BT Assistant in History, they had

uploaded the TET certificate obtained in the year 2013/2017. However, it is the

case of the petitioners that there was no provision for uploading the earlier TET

certificate obtained by them in the year 2013/2017 while filing and submitting

the online application and, therefore, they had produced the same at the time of

certificate verification, but the requisite weightage marks has not been provided

to them.

11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

20. Though such a contention is advanced on behalf of the petitioners, if

really, there was no option for uploading more than one TET certificate, the

petitioners ought to have approached this Court at the earliest instance and

sought for necessary direction. Based on the TET certificate uploaded by the

petitioners, pertaining to the year 2019, weightage marks have been granted by

the respondents.

21. On the basis of the documents uploaded by the petitioners weightage

marks have been granted to them. In this regard, calculation of weightage marks

has been provided for in Clause 11 of the Notification in which sub clause (vi)

clearly provides as under :-

“vi) In case, if a candidate has passed the TNTET – Paper –

II examination for more than one year, then the earlier year of

passing of TNTET – Paper - II examination with the specific

optional subject for which subject the candidates applied for

this recruitment shall be taken into account for the purpose of

awarding of weightage marks.”

22. In the present case, the petitioners have passed the TET examination

in the year 2013/2017, which is not disputed, but unfortunately, they have not

uploaded the said certificates while submitting their online application, but have

12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

only produced the same at the time of certificate verification, which has resulted

in the weightage marks not being granted to them. In this regard, sub-clause (vi)

of Clause 11 of the Notification, extracted supra, stands attracted, which though

provides that weightage marks would be given for the TET examination passed

for more than one year, however, harmoniously reading the same with the

Clause 8 of the Notification relating to Uploading the Documents/Certificates, it

could be safely held that such weightage marks would be given only for such of

the documents that have been uploaded along with the online application, which

is being verified in the certificate verification process. Only such a construction

would enable proper application of all the provisions.

23. Though it is the claim of the petitioners that they were unable to

upload their earlier TET certificates obtained by them in the year 2013/2017,

however, if really the petitioners had faced such difficulty, the petitioners ought

to have approached this Court seeking relief for uploading the said TET

certificates, since as early as on 9.6.2021, the TET certificates obtained since the

inception of TET have been given life time validity and, therefore, the petitioners

ought to have been more diligent in pursuing their remedy, moreso, when the

notification calling for application had prescribed for weightage marks for the

13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

earlier certificates obtained in TET. When the petitioners have not been diligent

enough and the whole recruitment process, more particularly for subject History

has attained finality and the provisional selection list has already been published

on 4.4.2025, which clearly transpires from the counter of the 3

rd

respondent,

which fact is not disputed by the petitioners, this Court cannot grant any relief to

the petitioners as they have approached this Court.

24. If really the petitioners had any difficulty in uploading the earlier TET

certificates obtained by them, they should have worked out their remedy and by

approaching this Court seeking the relief of uploading the earlier TET certificates

and the petitioners having miserably failed to do so, now cannot take a stand that

though they have completed TET in the year 2013/2017, but had uploaded only

the 2022 certificate, they should be permitted to rely on the earlier certificates to

claim the weightage marks. The petitioners having failed to agitate their rights at

the earliest point of time, cannot be permitted to have their grievance ventilated

at this distant point of time when the entire selection process has got over and by

now the persons, who have been selected have joined the said posts. If the

petitioners are permitted, then every other candidate can come back and raise

such a ground and the recruitment process would not see the end of the tunnel.

14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

Therefore, the plea of the petitioners cannot be granted and the writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

25. However, it is to be pointed out that when the earlier TET certificates

are held to be valid throughout the life time of an individual and weightage marks

is being provided for acquiring additional TET certificate, it is incumbent on the

3

rd

respondent to provide for uploading of the earlier TET certificates by providing

necessary provision in the online portal, while the candidates apply for the post

through the online portal. Though a marked question was put to the 3

rd

respondent by this Court on the said aspect, however, no clear answer was

forthcoming with regard to whether multiple TET certificates could be uploaded.

If multiple certificates cannot be uploaded, then applicants who are in possession

of dual TET certificates ought to be granted weightage marks for the earlier

certificate, which could not be uploaded. Further, when there is a gaping error in

the application process with regard to certificate uploading, it cannot always be

put on the head of the applicant to knock the doors of this Court to seek the

indulgence of this Court for giving weightage to the certificate which could not be

uploaded. This Court cannot act as a post office by entertaining every case of

such nature and issue direction to the respondents to do the thing in a clear and

15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

proper. It is the duty of the respondents/authorities to discharge their duties

properly and it cannot be thrusted on the head of this Court to see to it that the

authorities discharge their duties properly, which this Court finds, day-in and day-

out that matters of such nature are filed where this Court issues a slew of

directions to the authorities to discharge their duties, which only consumes

precious judicial time. Therefore, this Court directs the 3

rd

respondent to ensure

that provision is made in the online application portal for uploading multiple

documents relating to TET certificates so that the applicants do not suffer non-

uploading of earlier TET certificate disabling them to get the requisite weightage

marks.

26. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and the same is

dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

04.02.2026

Index : Yes / No

GLN

16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

To

1.The Principal Secretary to Govt.

School Education Department

Government of Tamil Nadu

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director of School Education

DPI Campus, College Road

Cjhennai 600 006.

3.The Member Secretary

Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB)

DPI Campus, College Road

Chennai 600 006.

17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.16397/2025

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

GLN

PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN

W.P. NO.16397 OF 2025

Pronounced on

04.02.2026

18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis