Tamil Nadu Commerce Institute Association v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 24-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.10168 of 2009 Tamil Nadu Commerce Institute Associationrep. by its President, No.16/20A Nandhi Kovil Street, Tiruchirapalli 620 002... Petitioner. Versus1.State of Tamil Nadurepresented by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai-600 009.2.The Chairman, Board of Examinations, Office of the D.T.E.,Guindy, Chennai-600 025... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the action of therespondent in insisting upon purchase of two computers for accordingrecognition/approval to Typewriting Institutes teaching Typewritingis contrary to G.O.Ms.No.229, dated 21.3.1995, and consequently, direct the respondents to strictly implement G.O.Ms.No.229, dated21.3.1995, in matter of according recognition to TypewritingInstitute teaching Typewriting. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan HaridassFor Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government AdvocateO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

With the consent of the parities concerned the writ petitionis taken up for final hearing and disposal.

This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the action of the respondents ininsisting upon the purchase of two computers for accordingrecognition/approval to Typewriting Institutes is contrary toG.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, and consequently to direct the respondents toimplement G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1)Department, dated 21.3.1995, in granting recognition to TypewritingInstitutes, teaching typewriting courses.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Tamil NaduCommerce Institute Association, which is a registered Association, with Registration No.212/2007 (42/73). It has been stated that thereare nearly 2700 Typewriting Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu, imparting technical education in the field of Typewriting, Shorthand, Accountancy, etc., They are the members of the petitionerAssociation.

The present writ petition has been filed against the actionof the respondents insisting that every Typewriting Institute shouldpurchase two computers, as a pre-condition for the grant ofrecognition. It has been stated that no such condition has beenprescribed by G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1)Department, dated 21.3.1995, for the granting of recognition to the Typewriting Institutes.

It has been further stated that the respondents have framedRules for granting recognition to the Typewriting Institutes. Typewriting Institutes are expected to comply with the requirementsprescribed in the Rules before the Government grants the formalrecognition. The rules for recognition of such Institutes have beencodified by the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995.

As per Rule-11 of the Recognition Rules, framed under the Government Order, dated 21.3.1995, the Institutes seeking recognitionshould have a minimum of Five English Typewriting machines, one TamilTypewriting machine (if the concerned Institute is seekingrecognition in Tamil Typewriting) and one Duplicator. They are theonly requirements for getting recognition for conducting coaching in Typewriting and for sending the students for the Typewritingexaminations, conducted by the second respondent. It has been furtherstated that the prospectus issued along with the application forapproval/recognition prescribes the minimum requirements for gettingthe approval. However, the respondents, while issuing the approval https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ orders from the year, 2008, have been insisting that the Institutesshould purchase two computers. It has also been stated that if theconcerned Institutes fail to purchase the computers, the approvalwould not be granted.

It has been further stated that the policy decision of therespondents, in insisting upon the purchase of computers by the Institutes seeking recognition/approval for conducting Typewritingcourses, is contrary to the existing Rules. It is arbitrary, as ithas no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules framedfor the recognition/approval. The main object for establishing suchInstitutes is to impart sound technical education in Typewriting etc. Knowledge in operating computers is not required. The said contentionof the petitioner is strengthened by the fact that the Government, while issuing G.O.Ms.No.422, Higher Education (B1) Department, dated30.9.2008, for introducing Pre-junior Grade Typewriting examinationfor the students who have passed the 6th standard examinations, hadclearly stated that the knowledge of Typewriting, when it is impartedin the Elementary School level, will increase the efficiency of thestudents in their use of computers at the High school level. Whileso, the policy decision taken to insist upon the purchase of twocomputers by the Typewriting Institutes would be without any legal orfactual basis.

It has been further stated that for conducting the OfficeAutomation Course, computers would become necessary, as the syllabusfor the said course prescribes, training in computer operations. However, it would not be relevant for teaching Typewriting courses. Even the number of students enrolled for the Office AutomationCourse is decreasing. Many of the Typewriting Institutes cannotafford to spend Rs.50,000/- in purchasing two computers beforeseeking for recognition/approval. Therefore, the decision of the Government to insist upon the purchase of two computers by the Typewriting Institutes, for the grant of recognition/approval, isarbitrary, illegal and void.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the secondrespondent, the allegations and averments made on behalf of thepetitioner Association have been denied. It has been submitted thatin the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, it has been stated thatthe regulations given in the Annexure to the said Government Orderhas to be followed for the purpose of granting approval/recognitionto the Typewriting Institutions. In the said Annexure it has beenstated that the Typewriting Institutions should follow the revisedconditions or additional conditions, if any, prescribed in thefuture. Further, in G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (B1) Department, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 20.2.2002, the Government had approved the introduction of acertificate course in Office Automation, from April/may 2002, onself-supporting basis. The draft rules and regulations and thesyllabus for the said certificate course had been prepared by the Directorate of Technical Education. Based on the standinginstructions, the Directorate of Technical Education had issuedinstructions to the newly established Typewriting Institutions thatthe grant of approval would be subject to the purchase of twocomputers by the Institutes for imparting training to the students. Since manual Typewriting is decreasing and the use of computers hasbeen on the increase it has become essential to introduce learning ofcomputer operations in the Typewriting Institutions. The purchase ofthe computers would be in addition to the other conditions already inexistence. The stipulation of the said condition is only forimparting the much needed training to the students in computeroperations.

It has been further stated that the Typewriting Instituteswhile applying for recognition have given an undertaking that theywill abide by the rules and regulations of the Board. Hence, imposingof the condition for the purchase of the computers is neitherarbitrary and unreasonable, nor it is contrary to the rules andregulations applicable to the Typewriting Institutes, who are said tobe the members of the petitioner Association. In fact, manyTypewriting Institutes are satisfied and enthusiastic about theproposal to introduce the computer operations and they have not shownany dissent or resistance against the conditions imposed by therespondents. The Government has the power to introduce suchconditions in the general interest and the welfare of the studentsand the community at large and therefore, it would not be said to becontrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The secondrespondent had imposed the condition only on the newly started 123Commercial Technical Institutes. Therefore, it would be open to thepetitioner Association to contend that its members, said to benumbering about 2700, would be adversely affected by the impositionof the said condition. In fact, there are nearly 3900 CommercialTechnical Institutes and 123 newly started Commercial TechnicalInstitutes functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu, with the approvalof the second respondent. The Certificate Course in computers on Office Automation, from the year, 2002, introduced by the GovernmentOrder, in G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (B1) Department, dated20.2.2002, on self-supporting basis, could be started in all the Commercial Technical Institutes and therefore, purchasing ofcomputers by the said Institutes would only be useful to them inconducting the said course. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It has been further stated that the Government Order issuedin G.O.Ms.No.130, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S)Department, dated 22.7.2008, states that the Certificate Course incomputers on Office Automation would be useful to the candidatesapplying for the post of typists and steno typists in Governmentdepartments. Thus, it would be useful both for the Commercial, Technical Institutes, as well as to the students of such Institutesto learn a course in computers.

It has been further contended that the petitionerAssociation has no locus standi to file the present writ petition, since the additional condition prescribed would only be in respect of123 newly established, Commercial Technical Institutes. Theadditional condition imposed by the second respondent would not beadversely affecting the other members of the petitioner Association. In fact most of the newly established Institutes welcomed the move tointroduce a course in computers for the benefit of the students. Further, the petitioner Association has not submitted a list of itsmembers, while filing the writ petition.

In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner ithas been submitted that the petitioner Association has the locusstandi to file the writ petition, as it affects all its members. Fromthe records it is clear that the petitioner Association has beenconsulted by the second respondent at every stage, on the earlieroccasions. Since the members of the petitioner Association areaggrieved by the introduction of the new condition for the approvalof the Institutes it is the duty of the petitioner Association toespouse the cause of its members by way of filing the present writpetition. When the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, specifiescertain conditions, such conditions cannot be modified by way ofexecutive directions issued by the second respondent. The claim madeby the respondents that the power to issue such directions is basedon the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.463, Education Department, dated 25.3.1988, cannot be justified. Further, the claim made by therespondents that it would be useful for the Institutes to purchasethe computers for conducting the Office Automation course, is alsoerroneous, as no recognition is granted for the said course. It isnot obligatory on the part of the Commercial Technical Institutes toconduct the said course. Therefore, it becomes optional for the Institutes to purchase computers, as it may be necessary for thoseInstitutes which have decided to introduce the Office Automationcourse. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended thatthe action of the respondents in insisting that the CommercialTechnical Institutes, who are members of the petitioner Association, should purchase two computers for being granted recognition/approval, is contrary to the rules relating to recognition and the rules framedin G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995. Further, computers would not be necessary forlearning typewriting. The purchase of computers do not, in any way, help the Institutes in imparting Typewriting courses.

It has been admitted by the respondents that learning of Typewriting skills at the Pre-junior grade would help the students inimproving their skills in operation of computers during their HighSchool studies, as found from G.O.No.422, Higher Education (B1)Department, dated 30.9.2008. The insistence by the respondents thatthe Commercial Technical Institutes should purchase two computers, asa pre-condition for recognition/approval, does not serve the objectsought to be achieved.

The conditions imposed by the respondents would be contraryto Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Theintroduction of additional conditions, contrary to the GovernmentOrder, in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1)Department, dated 21.3.1995, by way of the impugned proceedings, dated 8.10.2007, is arbitrary and illegal. The said condition issought to be introduced behind the back of the Technical CommercialInstitutes, which are members of the petitioner Association. Noopportunity had been given to them to put forth their case. Since itis a policy decision of the respondents the petitioner Associationhas a right to challenge the same. The Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, which had been approved by an order of a DivisionBench of this Court, in W.A.No.1537 of 1994, cannot be altered by wayof a letter issued on behalf of the respondents. For the purpose ofteaching the skills of Typewriting, the computers are not necessary. There is no nexus between the proposal to introduce the condition andthe object sought to be achieved. Though the petitioner Associationis not against computers, in general, it is against the introductionof the pre-condition imposed by the respondents to purchase twocomputers for granting of recognition/approval. Computers may benecessary only for the Certificate Course in Computer on OfficeAutomation. However, computers would not be necessary for theconducting of the Typewriting courses. More than 65 thousand studentsare appearing for the examinations in Typewriting, every year. Whereas, only 500 candidates are learning the computer course. Infact, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued orders, in G.O.Ms.No.50 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Higher Education (B1) Department, dated 24.2.2004, prescribing theminimum education qualification for admission to the certificatecourse in computer on Office Automation.

It has been further stated that the reliance placed by thelearned counsel for the respondents on Clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.463,Education Department, dated 25.3.1988, granting certain powers to the Board of examinations to make new regulations is unsustainable, as ithas been stated in Para-2 of the said Government Order that the saidpowers had been vested in the board only for a period of three years. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has not been in aposition to show as to whether the powers have been extended for afurther period. In the usual course, a committee of experts isconstituted for making decisions to review the curriculum. However, in the present case no such committee had been constituted beforeintroducing the new condition. The power to amend the existing ruleslaying down the condition can only be by way of a Government Orderand it shall be based only on the existence of a real necessity tomake such amendments. When the course content and the syllabi havenot been challenged, there is no necessity for the introduction ofthe new condition. Further, the respondents cannot expect the Commercial Technical Institutes to spend a large sum of money on thepurchase of computers, as it would be imposing a condition impossibleof performance.

Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had questioned the locus standi of the petitioner tomaintain the writ petition. She had contended that the order issuedby the second respondent, insisting on the purchase of two computers, would be only in respect of 123 newly established TypewritingInstitutes and it would apply only for fresh Institutes forrecognition or approval. Since the petitioner Association is notprejudiced, in any way, it cannot maintain the writ petition, especially, when individual orders have been issued to the Institutesconcerned. The condition had been introduced only in the interest ofthe students and the Institutes concerned. In fact many of the Institutes have shown their enthusiasm for implementing the saidcondition, requiring them to purchase the computers. However, itwould be open to the members of the petitioner Association to maketheir representations to the authorities concerned for exempting themfrom the condition for a specified period. Since the TechnicalCommercial Institutes are introducing the course in computer in Office Automation, it becomes necessary for the Institutes topurchase the computers. Further, there is a clear nexus between theproposal to introduce the condition and the object sought to beachieved. Many of the Government departments and other public sectorcompanies are prescribing knowledge in computer applications as apre-condition for recruiting candidates to join the service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

According to G.O.No.463, Education Department, dated25.3.1988, the Government has delegated the power to the Director of Technical Education and the Chairman of the Board of Examinations, toexercise the powers, without reference to the Government, on thefunctions of the Board of examinations. Therefore, it cannot be saidthat the respondents have no powers to impose such conditions on the Commercial Technical Institutes. Further, it is a policy decision ofthe Government to introduce computer courses to impart the knowledgefor the students of Commercial Technical Institutes, who areundergoing training in the Commercial Technical Institutes. In suchcircumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Associationis devoid of merits.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents andon a perusal of the records available, this Court is of theconsidered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause orreason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Association thatthe respondents do not possess the powers for introducing thecondition on the Commercial Technical Institutes, for the purchase oftwo computers, for the grant of approval to such Institutes, cannotbe countenanced.

From the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, it is clearthat additional conditions could be prescribed by the authoritiesconcerned for the grant of recognition/approval of CommercialTechnical Institutes. Introduction of computers for training thestudents in computer applications and Office Automation coursescannot be said to be onerous in nature. Such a policy decision hasbeen taken by the Government and the authorities concerned in theinterest of the students, as it would help them in being recruited in Government service, as well as in public and private sectorundertakings. As it has been stated by the respondents thatindividual communications have been sent to 123 CommercialInstitutes, imposing the condition to purchase two computers for thegranting of approval, it cannot be stated, as a general proposition, that a substantial number of members of the petitioner Associationwould be adversely affected.

Further, in view of the fact that the newly establishedCommercial Technical Institutes have not resisted the introduction ofthe condition, it would not be appropriate for the petitionerAssociation to take a stand contrary to the interests of such newInstitutes. Even if the petitioner Association had not been consultedbefore the condition had been imposed, it would not give rise to acause of action for the petitioner Association to agitate the matter. In view of the fact that most activities in the present day scenario https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are computer based and when heavy reliance is placed on computers, both in commercial and non-commercial activities, it would not beopen to the petitioner Association to contend that knowledge incomputer operations would not be useful to the students and the Commercial Technical Institutes, even though the core content of suchInstitutes would have a greater emphasis on imparting skills in Typewriting. In such view of the matter, the contentions raised onbehalf of the petitioner Association are not sustainable, as they aredevoid of merits. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, State of Tamil NaduSecretariat, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai-600 009.2.The Chairman, Board of Examinations, Office of the D.T.E.,Guindy, Chennai-600 025.1 cc To Mr.Balan Haridoss, Advocate, SR.34364.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.34416.Writ Petition No.10168 of 2009 RSM(CO)RVL 07.08.2009