High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 17.04.2008Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAWrit Appeals No.1449 of 2007and 771 and 772 of 20071. The State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2. The Director, Teacher Education Research & Training, DPI compound, Chennai 6.Appellants 1 & 2 in / Respondentsall the appeals. In all WPS3. The Director, Government Examination, DPI compound Chennai 6.Appellants 3 in WA No.1449 of 2007/ 3rd Respondent in W.P.21578/043. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.Appellants 3 in / RespondentsWA No.771 of 2007 in W.P.11770/003. The District Elementary Appellants 3 in / Respondents Educational Officer, WA No.772 of 2007/ in W.P.13217/00 Erode, Erode Districtv.N.PurushothamRespondent in WA / Writ PetitionerNo.1449 of 2007 in W.P.21578/041.C.Salety Mary2. The Manager, T.Ariyalur, St.Mary's Church, Beach Road, Cuddalore.Respondents in WA / Writ PetitionerNo.771 of 2007 & 6th Respondent in W.P.11770/001. A.S. Kuppusamy2. S.S.V.Higher Secondary School, represented by SecretaryRespondents in WA / Writ Petitioner Kodumudi, Erode District.No.772 of 2007 & 5th Respondent in W.P.13217/00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Appeal No.1449 of 2007 is filed against the order dated27.07.2006 made in writ petition No.21578 of 2004 This W.P. Filedunder article 226 of the constitution of India praying for issue of“Writ of Certiorarified mandamus” calling for the records of the 3rdrespondent in Na.Ka.No.129337/C2//2004 dated 1.7.04 and quash thesame and direct the respondents to evaluate the petitioner'sKarnataka Teachers Training Certificate. W.P.No.11770/00 :1. ThisW.P.filed under article 226 of the constitution of India prayingfor issue of “Writ of Certiorarified mandamus” calling for therecords pertaining to the order passed by the 1st Respondent inG.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department, dated 17.9.1984 and quash thesame in so far as imposition of 50% mark in plus 2 examination anddirect the respondents to evaluate the certificates of thepetitioner and direct approve the appointment of the petitionerconsequently and confer all the consequential benefit and writappeals Nos.771 and 772 of 2007 are filed against the order dated20.02.2007 made in writ petitions Nos.11770 and 13217 of 2000W.P.No.13217/00 2.This W.P.filed under article 226 of theconstitution of India praying for issue of “Writ of Certiorarifiedmandamus” calling for the records pertaining to the order passed bythe 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department, dated17.9.1984 and the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent inDu.Mu.No.17002/C3/1999 dated 30.6.2000 and quash the same in so faras imposition of 50% mark in plus 2 examination and teacherstraining course and direct the respondents to evaluate thecertificates of the petitioner and direct approve the appointmentof the petitioner consequently and confer all the consequentialbenefits.For appellants:Mr.S.Rajasekaran,Additional Government PleaderFor Respondents:Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,in WA 771 & 772/07Senior Counsel, forMr.V.P.Sengottuvel – for R2Mr.G.Jermiah – for R1COMMON JUDGMENTK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.The Government, in these appeals, sought to assail the orderof the learned single Judge, passed in writ petitions filed by therespondents herein, directing the Government to evaluate theKarnataka Teachers Training certificates possessed by therespective respondents herein and to regularise their service fromthe date of their respective appointments. 2. Though the prayers in the writ petitions are differentlycouched, the sum and substance of their grievance is that theappellant-Department is not evaluating the respective respondents'Karnataka Teachers Training Certificates in spite of the fact thatthey have been appointed by the Tamil Nadu Government on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ premise that they have not possessed necessary qualification fixedby the Government Orders of State of Tamilnadu.3. The writ petitioners, who are the respondents herein, areholders of teachers training certificates from the Karnataka Stateand they have been appointed in Tamil Nadu. In order to regularisetheir services in the respective schools, the certificates soobtained from the Karnataka State have to be evaluated by theGovernment. In respect of these respondents/writ petitioners, asthe Government found that they are not possessing the requisitequalification of 45% or marks in aggregate in higher secondaryexamination, the certificates obtained from the Karnataka Statewere not evaluated. That is put in issue in writ petition No.21578of 2004, which is the subject matter of writ appeal No.1449 of2007. By filing that writ petition, the writ petitioner sought forissuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the recordsof the Director, Government Examination, DPI compound, Chennaidated 01.07.2004, whereby the application for evaluation ofKarnataka Teachers Training Certificate possessed by therespondent/writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that he hasnot secured the aggregate of 45% of marks in plus two. The prayerin the writ petitions which are subject matter in writ appealsNo.771 and 772 of 2007 is to quash the G.O. Ms. No.1236 EducationDepartment dated 17.09.1984 wherein the following qualificationshave been fixed :i. Teachers training certificate holders of Karnataka Stateshould have passed their SSLC in Tamil Medium with Tamilas I language or should have taken Tamil as I language inSSLC if they have studied in English medium.ii. They should have obtained 50% of marks in aggregate intheir SSLC as in the case of Teachers Trainingcertificate holders of Tamilnadu.iii. They should have obtained 5% of marks in each subjectin their Teachers Certificate as in the case of TeacherTraining Certificate holders of Tamilnadu.iv. If they studied in other than Tamil Medium in theirSSLC as well as Teacher Training certificate and satisfythe conditions 2 and 3 their certificates may beevaluated with a condition that they are eligible forappointment as Secondary Grade teachers in Tamil Naduonly in schools where medium of instructions is otherthan Tamil.4. The position that was prevailing of appointment of teachersin the Tamilnadu Private schools has to be stated in retrospectionfor better understanding of the case. The Tamil Nadu RecognisedPrivate School (Regulation) Act, 1973 came into force on01.12.1974. The Act was enacted for the purpose of regulation ofrecognised private school in Tamil Nadu. Prior to that enactment,the affairs of the educational institution in Tamilnadu werecontrolled by the Government of Tamilnadu in accordance with whatwas called Educational Rules made from time to time. TheEducational Rules prescribed qualifications for different kinds ofteachers. After the 1973 Act came into force, the appointment of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ teachers and their qualifications were mainly covered by theprovisions of section 19 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.Section 19 of the Act enables the Government to make the rulesregulating the number, qualifications and conditions of service(including promotion, pay, allowances leave, pension, providentfund, insurance, age of retirement and disciplinary matter, etc.,)of the teachers and other persons employed in private schools. TheRules were amended from time to time. Rule 15 of the Rules dealswith qualifications and conditions of service of teachers and otherpersons. By the amendment made in 1975, Rule 15(6) provided thatteachers and other persons employed in a private schools shallpossess the qualification specified in Annexure V. As far asSecondary grade teachers are concerned (1) SSLC (2) TSLC ofsecondary grade or its equivalent, was the specified qualification.Provided teachers who have passed the Nursery Montessori andKindergarten school leaving certificate examination of SecondaryGrade shall be employed to handle standards 1 to II only.5. In view of section 19 read with Rule 15 and Annexure V, thequalification for being appointed as a secondary grade teacher wasthat he should possess a secondary grade school leaving certificateand, in addition he must also possess a training school leavingcertificate for secondary grade or its equivalent.6. So far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, thetraining school leaving certificate was given after undergoing acourse of two years at the Teachers Training Institute, whether runby State Government or by private recognised institute. TheTraining School Leaving Certificate is now known as Diploma inTeachers Education.7. Prior to coming into force of the 1973 Act, the teacherswho had obtained a certificate from Karnataka Secondary School weregiven appointment in schools in Tamilnadu and for all intents andpurposes, the Karnataka certificate was equated with the TrainingSchool Leaving Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu. This state ofaffairs continued till 05.08.1981. Till that date, teachers whowere appointed at private schools had to get certificates approvedby the Director of School Education. These certificates wereapproved almost as a matter of course, because they were treatedas equivalent to Training School Leaving Certificate of SecondaryGrade, thereby satisfying the requirements of section 19 and Rule15. The approval is called evaluation. 8. On 05.08.1981 the Government, in the Education Department,issued an order G.O. Ms. No.1667. The order referred tocommunication from the Director of School Education dated27.03.1981 in which the Director indicated that the Karnatakacertificate is not equivalent to the certificate issued by theState of Tamilnadu. The Director, therefore, sought for orders ofthe Government for issuance of suitable instructions "to stop theappointment of teachers trained in Karnataka State in schoolssituated in Tamil Nadu until the number of unemployed SecondaryGrade teachers trained in Tamil Nadu is wiped out". The Director https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also requested the Government to permit him to stop the evaluationof Karnataka State certificates with immediate effect. By the saidG.O., the Government accepted the suggestions of the Director ofSchool Education, Madras and permitted him to defer the evaluationof the Teachers Training Certificate of Karnataka State withimmediate effect with the further direction permitting the Directorof School Education to issue necessary instructions to deferappointment of Karnataka State teachers certificates holders assecondary grade teachers in middle or higher secondary school tillthe candidates possessing secondary grade or senior basic gradetraining certificate issued by the Director of GovernmentExamination, Madras are appointed. Consequent upon this G.O.,teachers who had obtained Karnataka State Certificates and alsobeing given appointment in private school found that theircertificates were not being evaluated, filed large number ofpetitions in the High Court for mandamus requiring the authoritiesto approve with evaluation their appointments as secondary gradeteachers from the date of appointment. The said G.O. came to beassailed by the persons who were already in employment and thepersons whose certificates have already been evaluated asaforesaid and who were already in employment, but theircertificates were yet to be evaluated as aforesaid.9. In respect of the case of the persons whose certificateshave already been evaluated, this court took the view that on thedate of G.O. 05.08.1981 there was a valid evaluation made by theDirector of School Education under Rule 14 of the Educational Rulesof the Certificates issued by the Karnataka Board as equivalent tothe similar certificates issued by the State of Tamilnadu and solong as the evaluation continued to subsist, the petitioners wereentitled to be considered for appointment in the State of TamilNadu and their applications could not be rejected merely on theground that they were holders of Karnataka Teachers TrainingCertificates. It was further found that the G.O. Ms. No.1667 didnot specifically say that the evaluations already made would standrejected. 10. The above said development made the Director of SchoolEducation to seek for some modification to the G.O. Ms. No.1667.In view of the orders passed by this Court, the Government issuedG.O. Ms.No.1236 dated 17.09.1984 and permitted the Director ofSchool Education to evaluate the Karnataka State Teachers TrainingCertificates by prescribing certain qualifications. 11. As already stated, that Government Order was challenged onvarious grounds before this Court in a batch of writ petitions.Ultimately, this Court in the case of Anthony Savarimuthu v. TheDirector of School Education, 1985 WLR 175 upheld the validity ofthe same and that has become final. Technically speaking theprayer sought for in the writ petitions which are subject matter ofwrit appeals Nos.771 and 772 of 2007, praying to quash the G.O. Ms.No.1236 dated 17.09.1984 cannot be granted as the judgment citedsupra has become final. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Muthukumarasamy contended thatthough the G.O. Ms. No.1236 has already been upheld, but there arecertain subsequent developments which this Court has to take intoconsideration while considering the case of the respondents. Heargued that the G.O. 1236 came to be passed when the qualificationfor admission to teachers training course was SSLC and TSLC. Thewrit petitioners have passed higher secondary course, which is ahigher education than SSLC. Hence, the fixing of the qualificationas 50% marks in aggregate in SSLC is not applicable to the writpetitioners which is only applicable to those persons who enter theteachers training course after completion of their SSLCexamination. He further contended that having regard to the saidposition and innumerable representations given by the personsconcerned, the Government issued a Government Order in G.O. Ms.No.1196 Education (U1) Department dated 03.12.1992 modifying theconditions prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.1236 to the effect thatKarnataka Teachers Training Certificates obtained after 17.09.1984by candidates who had undergone the training course upto the end ofthe academic year 1984-85 including the candidates sitting in thesecond year in the academic year 1984-85, be evaluated asequivalent to the certificates issued in Tamilnadu in relaxation ofthe norms prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.1236, Education dated17.09.1984 as a special case, after due verification. Suchevaluation shall be done irrespective of the fact whether thecandidate is temporarily employed or unemployed. The TeacherTraining Certificates including the I year/II year certificatesissued by the Karnataka Board prior to 17.09.1984 showing thesubjects in which they had failed should be duly submitted to theauthority concerned for evaluation. The Government has alsoexamined the question of relaxing the age rules in respect of thecandidates whose certificates are ordered to be evaluated as aboveand who might have become overage for purposes of employment andhave decided to grant relaxation of rules relating to age. 13. He contended that such concession can be given to therespondents also as such a relief has been granted by a DivisionBench of this Court by its order dated 19.10.2005 made in W.A.Nos.930, 109, 1010 and 1011 of 1998.14. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submitted that theposition has not stopped with the issuance of the Government Orderreferred to by Mr.Muthukumarasamy. Subsequently, the Government byG.O. Ms. No.588 Education Department dated 21.05.1991, afterreferring to the G.O., with which reliance has been placed by therespondents, has prescribed the qualification. As per the G.O.,for admission of students to the diploma in Teacher TrainingInstitute in the said G.O., the minimum educational qualificationshall be a pass in higher secondary (plus two) examination with aminimum 50% of marks in aggregate. The said G.O., specificallyamended the guidelines for admission given in G.O. Ms. No.906 dated16.06.1987. The writ petitioners/respondents did not possess therequisite qualification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. In reply to the same, Mr.Muthukumarasamy, learned seniorcounsel contended that after coming into force of the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education Regulations, 2002, as per Regulation11, a person who is holding Teacher Training certificate with amere pass in class X could be given an appointment within the Statein which he obtained the certificates and fixing a higherqualification is against the resolution. Of-course, the Regulationcame into force in 2002. Hence suitable direction can be given tothe case of the writ petitioners.16. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused thematerials available on record.17. It is an admitted fact that a Division Bench of this Courtin its elaborate consideration with reference to the Constitutionalprovisions and the statutory provision and the rule making powerhas upheld the validity of G.O. Ms. No.1236 issued by theGovernment in the case of Anthony Savarimuthu, cited supra. Hence,there cannot be any dispute about the power of the Government inprescribing the qualification, of-course prior to the coming intoforce of the Regulation 2002.18. G.O. Ms. No.588 has prescribed qualification after takingnote of the earlier G.O. For the sake of clarity the said G.O. isreproduced :GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADUABSTRACTEducation – Teacher Education – Teacher trainingInstitutes – Admission of students from 91-92 –Stipulating of Minimum marks qualification for admissionorders issued.----------------------------------------------------------Education DepartmentG.O. Ms. No.588dated 21.05.1991Read :1. G.O. Ms. No.906, Education dated 16.06.1987.2. From the Director of Government Examinations Lr.No.132950/D1/89 dated 27.09.19893.From the Director of School Education, R.C.No.203784/M4/89 dated 26.02.1980.-----ORDER :According to the guidelines for admission of studentsto the Teacher Training Institute issued in the G.O. readabove the minimum educational qualification required foradmission to the diploma in Teacher Education course is asfollows :"A pass in Higher Secondary (Plus Two)examination both under General and Vocationalstreams other than Secondary Grade TeachersTraining under Vocational Course". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The question of prescribing minimum marksqualification for admission to the diploma in TeacherEducation has been under consideration of the Governmentfor sometime now. The Director of School Education, TheDirector of teacher Education, Research and Training andthe Director of Government Examinations, have suggestedthat minimum of 50% marks in the Higher SecondaryExamination may be prescribed as the requisitequalification for admission in Teacher Training Course sothat there will be qualitative improvement in TeacherEducation. They have also suggested that for ScheduledCaste and Scheduled Tribe candidates a pass in HigherSecondary Examinations existing hither to may continue tobe the qualification for admission.3. The Government, after careful Examination havedecided to accept the proposal in the interest ofimprovement of quality of Teacher Education. TheGovernment accordingly directs that for admission ofstudents to the diploma in Teacher Education course in theTeacher Training Institutes in the State, thequalification shall be a pass in Higher secondary (PlusTwo) Examination with a minimum of 50% of marks in theaggregate. The qualification for Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribe candidate shall however continue to be apass in Higher Secondary (Plus Two) Examination. Theseorders shall take effect from the year 1991-92.4. The guidelines for admission given in the G.O. Ms.No.906 Education dated 16.06.1987 as amended in Governmentletter No.65874/M1/89-2 Education, dated 21.07.1989 shallstand modified to the extent mentioned in paragraph 3above in so far as it related to the qualification foradmission.5. The Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining is requested to bring these orders to the noticeof all recognised Teacher Training Institute./By order of the Governor/V.Sankarasubbaiyan,Secretary to GovernmentHence, any contention against prescribing qualification in theabove said G.O., cannot be accepted in the light of the decision inthe case of Anthony Savarimuthu cited supra.19. Admittedly in all these cases, the respondents are nothaving basic qualification. This aspect of the G.O. 588 has notbeen taken into consideration by the Division Bench of this Courtin the decision relied on by the respondent dated 19.10.2005 madein W.A. No.930 of 1998 etc., and appears to be a concessional one. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Another Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 07.08.2006made in W.A. No.1596 of 2005, in a similar set of facts held asfollows :"The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant.She has approached this Court, seeking for a direction tothe respondents to evaluate the Teacher's TrainingCertificate as equal to the certificate issued by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu.2. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground thatthe petitioner did not possess even the minimumqualification for admission to the said course andtherefore the training certificate cannot be evaluated.Questioning the same, the present appeal has been filed.3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing forthe appellant and the learned Additional GovernmentPleader for the respondents.4. The learned Judge has rejected the request of theappellant on the ground that the appellant was foundineligible to be admitted to the Teachers' TrainingCourse. Once the appellant is found ineligible, theadmission itself cannot be ratified and consequently, theCertificate cannot be evaluated. In that view of thematter, no interference is called for in the impugnedorder. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed."20. In view of the G.O.Ms. No.588 dated 21.05.1991 and in thelight of the judgment dated 07.08.2006 made in writ petitionNo.1596 of 2005 and the decision in the case of AnthonySavarimuthu, cited supra, the writ appeals are allowed and theorders made by the learned single Judge are set aside. Thisorder would not preclude the respondents to approach theappropriate authority in the appropriate State to have the benefitconferred on them, if any under the National Council for TeacherEducation Regulations 2002.Sd/- Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarmfTo1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Director, Teacher Education Research & Training, DPI compound, Chennai 6. 3. The Director, Government Examination, DPI compound Chennai 6. 4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 5. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Erode, Erode District. + 1 CC to Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate, S.R.No.22055+ 1 CC to Government Pleader, S.R.No.22013, 22014+ 1 CC to Mr.G.Jeremiah, Advocate, S.R.No.22351+ 1 CC to Ms.T.Ramadevi, Advocate, S.R.No.22169Writ Appeals No.1449 of 2007and 771 and 772 of 2007CK (CO)SRA (24/04/2008)