Hon’ble Court observed that the writ petition had been taken up at a very late stage, when the Special TNTET examination was scheduled to be conducted within a short time. In view of the imminent examination, the Court indicated that the present examination may proceed in accordance with the existing notification and that the petitioners should participate in the examination under the present scheme.
[02/07, 13:09] sekarreporter1:
[02/07, 15:33] sekarreporter1: [02/07, 15:30] Mythreye Chandru: former SGP education / A writ petition was filed by serving B.T. Assistant Teachers before the Hon’ble Madras High Court challenging only the examination pattern prescribed under Notification No.01/2026 for the Special TNTET-2026. The petition does not challenge the requirement that in-service teachers should qualify the Special TNTET.
Before the Hon’ble Court, it was submitted that every B.T. Assistant Teacher is recruited as a subject-specific teacher through the Teachers Recruitment Board. A Tamil teacher is appointed after acquiring the prescribed qualifications in Tamil and teaches only Tamil, an English teacher teaches only English, a Mathematics teacher teaches Mathematics, a Science teacher teaches Science, and a Social Science teacher teaches Social Science throughout their service.
It was argued that Paper-II of the Special TNTET consists of Child Development & Pedagogy, Language-II (English), and a 60-mark Subject Component, which carries the highest weightage. While the notification provides separate subject papers for Mathematics & Science and Social Science teachers, Tamil, English and other subject teachers are compelled to choose either the Mathematics & Science paper or the Social Science paper, despite those subjects being unrelated to their specialization.
It was further submitted that Social Science teachers are assessed in their own subject, while Mathematics and Science teachers are assessed within their own academic stream, though through a combined paper. In contrast, language teachers and other subject teachers are required to write examinations in subjects they neither teach nor were appointed to teach. This places them at a substantial disadvantage and defeats the objective of assessing teaching competency in the teacher’s own field of specialization.
The petitioners therefore requested that future Special TNTET examinations should provide a separate subject-specific 60-mark paper for every category of B.T. Assistant Teacher so that all teachers are assessed fairly and equally in the subjects for which they were recruited and are presently teaching.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the writ petition had been taken up at a very late stage, when the Special TNTET examination was scheduled to be conducted within a short time. In view of the imminent examination, the Court indicated that the present examination may proceed in accordance with the existing notification and that the petitioners should participate in the examination under the present scheme.
The Hon’ble Court further observed that the grievance raised by the petitioners regarding the subject-specific 60-mark component may be considered by the respondents while framing future Special TNTET notifications and conducting future examinations, so as to ensure a fair and rational method of assessment for all categories of in-service teachers.
[02/07, 15:32] sekarreporter1: 🙏
