Institute for Girlsrepresented by its Trustee and SecretaryK.K.Balaji Vasenth VeerachipalayamSankari West Post,Sankari v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.12.2007 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.5460 of 2007Rabindharanath Tagore Teacher Training Institute for Girlsrepresented by its Trustee and SecretaryK.K.Balaji Vasenth VeerachipalayamSankari West Post,Sankari Taluk, Salem District .. Petitioner vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Department of School Education Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 0092. The Director Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training DPI Campus, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 0063. The Director Directorate of Government Examination DPI Campus Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 009 4. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education Southern Regional Committee 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post Bangalore – 560 031 (R4 impleaded as per order, dated 27.4.2007 in M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.5460 of 2007) .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the secondrespondent to approve the admission list of candidates admitted in Pre-school Teacher Training course for the academic year 2006-2007 and directthe third respondent to conduct May 2007 Government the Examination forPre-school Teacher Training course for the academic year 2006-2007 for thestudents admitted in the petitioners Institutions. (List enclosed). For petitioner : Mr.B.Saraswathy for Mr.Javid KhanFor respondents : Mr.N.Kannadasan Additional Advocate General for R1 to R3 Mr.P.R.Gopinathan for R4O R D E RHeard Mr.B.Saraswathy, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.N.Kannadasan, the learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, thelearned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.2. It is submitted that the petitioner Institute is conducting aDiploma in Teacher Training Course approved by the National Council forTeacher Education, by its order, dated 1.9.2004. The admission of thestudents was done under the State Government Single Window System andpermission for additional intake of 50 students was issued by the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education, by its order, dated 23.9.2005. 3. It is further submitted that as per the Notification of theNational Council for Teacher Education, dated 8.1.2004, there is no needfor obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' from the State Government tostart a pre-School Teacher Training Course. By an order, dated 1.10.2005,the National Council for Teacher Education had granted approval andpermission for admission of 50 students for the Diploma in pre-SchoolTeacher Training Course for the academic year 2005-2006. Even though thepetitioner had sent a detailed letter, dated 20.1.2006, to the secondrespondent to issue necessary guidelines and permission to start the pre-School Teacher Training Course, no orders have been passed by therespondents till date. 4. It is further submitted that since no guidelines had been issuedby the first respondent and the second respondent, the petitionerInstitute had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11216 of 2006, before thisCourt for issuance of guidelines for the pre-school Teacher Training https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Course for the academic year 2005-2006. By an order, dated 21.4.2006, thisCourt had held that the petitioner Institute could start the Pre-schoolTeacher Training Institute by following the regulations of the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education which contained the norms and standards. 5. It is further submitted by the petitioner Institute that 50 Girlstudents had been admitted in the pre-School Teacher Training Course forthe year 2006-2007 and the classes had started from 4.8.2006. In itsletter, dated 10.8.2006, the petitioner Institute had sent the admissionlist to the second respondent for its approval, enclosing the necessarycertificates. 6. It is also submitted that the pre-School Teacher Training Courseis of one year duration, as per the regulations of the National Councilfor Teacher Education. The petitioner Institute had sent a detailedrepresentation, dated 12.1.2007, to the second respondent requesting forapproval of the admission list and to forward the same to the thirdrespondent for conducting the Examination to be held in the month of May2007. In spite of such request being made, no orders have been passed bythe respondents granting the relief prayed for by the petitionerInstitute. Hence, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writpetition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submittedthat the petitioner Institute has been approved by the National Councilfor Teacher Education and included in the Single Window System of theDirectorate of Teacher Education Research and Training, Chennai. Thepetitioner Institute has also obtained the staff approval from the saidDirectorate. As per the regulations of the National Council for TeacherEducation, there is no need for the petitioner Institute to obtain a 'NoObjection Certificate' from the State Government for starting the pre-School Teacher Training Course.8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had furthersubmitted that, based on the approval granted by the National Council forTeacher Education and the order passed by this Court, on 21.4.2006, thepetitioner Institute had admitted 50 Girl students in the one year pre-School Teacher Training Course for the academic year 2006-2007. Theclasses had commenced from 4.8.2006. The list of admitted candidates hadbeen submitted to the Directorate of Teacher Education Research andTraining, vide lr.4612/RTT1/DTRTE/2006, dated 10.8.2006. Though thestudents had completed the one year course in the month of May, 2007, thepetitioner Institute has not received any admission approval from thesecond respondent. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner Institute is that there is no necessity for the petitionerInstitute to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the StateGovernment, as the approval had been granted by the National Council forTeacher Education for starting the one year pre-School Teacher Training https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Course. Further, the State Government cannot have any objection withregard to the petitioner Institute for conducting the said Course.Therefore, it is the duty of the second respondent to approve theadmission list of candidates admitted in the one year pre-School TeacherTraining Course for the academic year 2006-2007, and it is for the thirdrespondent to conduct the Examinations for the said Course as prayed forby the petitioner Institute in the writ petition. 10. Mr.N.Kannadasan, the learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the respondents 1 to 3 had refuted the claims made on behalfof the petitioner Institute. He had submitted that the recognition hasbeen granted to the petitioner Institute by the Southern RegionalCommittee in exercise of the powers vested in it, under Section 14(1) ofthe National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, subject to thefulfillment of all the requirements as may be prescribed by otherregulatory bodies like the State Government. Therefore, the petitionerInstitute cannot claim that once the recognition has been granted to thepetitioner Institute by the National Council for Teacher Education forcommencing the pre-School Teacher Training Course, the respondents have nofurther say in the matter. He had also submitted that a High LevelCommittee had been constituted to go into the various aspects of thematters relating to the Teacher Training Institutes. Unless a finaldecision is taken by the State Government, based on the recommendations ofthe High Level Committee, it may not be possible for the respondents toconduct the Examinations for the students of the one year pre-SchoolTeacher Training Course for the academic year 2006-2007, as prayed for inthe writ petition. 11. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, it is submittedby the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Institute that, thoughthe prayer in the writ petition is for a larger relief, it would suffice,if the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of therepresentation of the petitioner, dated 12.1.2007, on merits, within aspecified period.12. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents had noobjection for such an order being passed by this Court. 13. Considering the limited prayer sought for by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner, without going into the merits ofthe case, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of therepresentation of the petitioner, dated 12.1.2007, on merits and inaccordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner Institute isdirected to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 12.1.2007, to thesecond respondent, enclosing the necessary documents, along with thecopy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo:1. The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Department of School Education Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 0092. The Director Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training DPI Campus Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 0063. The Director Directorate of Government Examination DPI Campus Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 009 4. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education Southern Regional Committee 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post Bangalore – 560 031 + one cc to Mr. P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate, SR.74812+ one cc to Mr. Javed khan, Advocate, SR. 74927+ two ccs to Mr. S. Balasundaramurthy, Advocate, SR.75036CU(CO)RP 20.12.2007. Writ Petition No.5460 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.12.2007