Christina Teacher Training InstituteFor Women v. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training Government of Tamil Nadu

13.V.Hemavathi14.S.Savitha15.K.Deepa16.M.Deepa17.U.Kavitha18.D.P.Dhanalakshmi19.K.Kalpana20.N.Kayalvizhi.. PetitionersVs.1. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training D.P.I.Compound, Nungambakkam Chennai.2. The Principal District Institute for Education and Training Dharmapuri.3. The Director Directorate of Government Examination, D.P.I.Campus, College Road Chennai.4. The Christina Teacher Training Institute rep. by its Principal Vetrilaikaran Pallam Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District... Respondents PRAYER in W.P.No.11200 of 2009: Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamusto call for the records in respect of the impugned order issued bythe first respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3335/E1/2007,dated 5.5.2009, to quash the same and to direct the firstrespondent to approve the list of faculty members submitted by thepetitioner on 9.3.2007 from the academic year 2006-2007 andconsequently direct the respondents to publish the results of thestudents of the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 batches of the petitionerinstitute and award diplomas on their successful completion oftheir course.PRAYER in W.P.No.11670 of 2009: Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for issue of writ of Mandamus to directrespondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioners students of D.T.Ed.Course admitted by the fourth respondent institute in 2006-2007batch to take up their second year arrear exams as scheduled byrespondents 1 to 3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner:Mr.R.Suresh Kumarin WP:11200/09 and 4th respondentin WP:11670/2009For Petitioners :Mr.E.Vijay Anandin WP:11200/09For Respondents:Mrs.Dhakshayini Reddy1 to 3 in bothGovernment Advocate writ petitions ORDERWhile W.P.No.11200 of 2009 is filed by the institutechallenging the order of the first respondent dated 5.5.2009 bywhich the first respondent has rejected the claim of thepetitioner/institute to approve the appointment of Mr.G.Anbazhaganas the Principal and Mrs.J.Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer for theacademic year 2006-2007, W.P.No.11670 of 2009 has been filed by 20students of the said Teacher Training Institute (petitioner inW.P.No.11200 of 2009) for a direction against the respondents topermit them to complete their Diploma in Teacher Education(D.T.Ed.) course by taking up their second year arrearsexaminations.2.1. It is stated that the petitioner/institute inW.P.No.11200 of 2009 was recognised by the National Council forTeacher Education (NCTE) on 9.1.2007 to conduct Diploma in TeacherEducation (D.T.Ed.) course with an annual intake of 50 students.It is stated that, after the recognition, the said institutesubmitted a list of faculty members for approval to the firstrespondent/Director of Teacher Education Research and Training,through the second respondent/Principal, District Institute ofEducation and Training, Pulikarai on 21.2.2007.2.2. It is the case of the petitioner/institute that since thesecond respondent has expressed some doubt about the qualificationof the Mrs.G.Ranganayagi proposed for the post of Principal andMrs.P.Nirmala proposed for the post of Maths Lecturer, the proposalwas replaced with a new list with Mr.G.Anbazhagan as Principal andMrs.J.Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer on 9.3.2007, being the last dayfor submission of staff proposal for the year 2006-2007. It isstated that the said list was verified and forwarded withrecommendation of the second respondent on 9.3.2007 itself.2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that as against theproceedings dated 26.4.2007 of the first respondent rejecting theproposal for appointment of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi as Principal and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mrs.P.Nirmala as Maths Lecturer, the institute filed W.P.No.25164of 2007. The said writ petition came to be disposed on 7.2.2008 bysetting aside the said order dated 26.4.2007, directing the firstrespondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner dated9.3.2007 and pass appropriate orders regarding approval of teachingstaff for the year 2006-2007 to enable the students admitted in theyear 2006-2007 to take up the examinations for the first year.2.4. It is stated that thereafter the students stated to havebeen admitted in the petitioner/institute for the year 2006-2007,who are petitioners in W.P.No.11670 of 2009, were permitted towrite their first year D.T.Ed. Examinations held on 18.2.2008.After permitting the students, it is stated that the firstrespondent has filed Writ Appeal No.278 of 2008 against the aboveorder dated 7.2.2008, which was disposed of by the Division Benchalong with batch of cases on 1.4.2008, holding that unless anduntil staff list is approved, even if students write theexaminations, they are not entitled to have the results declared.It was based on the common judgment of the Division Bench, thefirst respondent has informed that in respect of those students whohave written first year examinations, the results will not bereleased. 2.5. The petitioner/institute has filed a Special LeavePetition in S.L.P.No.14873 of 2008 before the Supreme Court againstthe judgment in W.A.No.278 of 2008 and the Supreme Court hasgranted interim order on 16.6.2008 on the peculiar facts of thecase permitting the students of the petitioner/ institute for thesession 2006-2007 to undergo practical training. It is stated thatthereafter the first year students were permitted to undergopractical training called "Teaching Practice" and practicalexamination called "Commission Work".2.6. It is stated that, in the meantime, thepetitioner/institute has admitted another batch of 50 students inthe first year of D.T.Ed. Course for the academic year 2007-2008and the students thus admitted were not permitted by the firstrespondent to take up the examinations and the petitioner/institutefiled W.P.No.14913 of 2008 to approve the said 50 students statedto have been admitted for the year 2007-2008. By order dated25.6.2008 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.14913 of 2008, thesaid 50 students were permitted to write their first year D.T.Ed.Examination, which was scheduled to commence on 26.6.2008 and it isstated that those students of 2007-2008 have also taken their firstyear D.T.Ed. Examinations. 2.7. In the meantime, the appeal filed against the judgment ofthe Division Bench before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14873 of2008 came to be disposed of on 22.9.2008, by which the matter wasremanded to the High Court to hear afresh. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.8. Since the students admitted for the year 2006-2007 haveby that time completed their two years course, thepetitioner/institute filed W.P.No.20781 of 2008 for a direction toapprove students list for the academic year 2006-2007 to enablethem to complete their course. In the said writ petition, thepetitioner has filed an interim application for a direction to therespondents to permit 48 students of 2006-2007 batch to write theirsecond year examination which was scheduled to commence on25.8.2008. In the order dated 24.8.2008 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2008in W.P.No.20781 of 2008, this Court has issued the said directionin respect of the students of 2006-2007 batch, however directingthat the results should be withheld. Thus, the students of 2006-2007 batch have completed their two years examinations. However,in respect of the students admitted in 2007-2008, who have writtentheir first year examinations as stated above, the respondentsrefused to conduct practical examination and ultimately, inM.P.No.3 of 2008 in W.P.No.14913 of 2008 filed by thepetitioner/institute, this Court, by order dated 8.12.2008, hasdirected the respondents to permit the 50 students of 2007-2008batch to take part in the practical training (Teaching Practice)and practical examination (Commission Work), subject to furtherorders. Pursuant to the said order, the said 50 students of 2007-2008 batch have completed their practical training and practicalexamination.2.9. In the meantime, W.A.No.278 of 2008, which was remandedby the Supreme Court as stated above, was taken up for finalhearing and judgment was passed on 24.4.2009, by which the DivisionBench has modified the earlier order of the learned Single Judgepassed in W.P.No.25164 of 2007 remanding the matter to the firstrespondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner dated9.3.2007 and pass appropriate orders regarding staff list for theacademic year 2006-2007, instead of the earlier direction given bythis Court, wherein the first respondent was directed to considerthe proposal of the petitioner dated 9.3.2007 and pass ordersapproving the teacher list for the academic year 2006-2007.Therefore, to that extent the order stood modified.2.10. It was after the said Division Bench judgment inW.A.No.278 of 2008, the first respondent passed the impugned orderdated 5.5.2009 rejecting the proposal dated 9.3.2007. It is asagainst the said order, the present writ petition has been filed onvarious grounds, including that the rejection is technical; thatthe revised list dated 9.3.2007 has not been considered in propermanner in spite of the fact that the second respondent hasacknowledged the proposal dated 9.3.2007 after verifying records;that the order is by improper application of mind; and that thefirst respondent has not taken into consideration the inspectionreport submitted by the second respondent dated 16.7.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The 20 students, who have filed W.P.No.11670 of 2009, wereadmitted in the year 2006-2007 in the above said institute andpermitted by this Court to write first and second year examinationsand as per the direction of the Supreme Court they were permittedto undergo practical training and practical examination and eventhough they have completed the course, due to the non approval ofthe teaching staff in respect of the institute by the firstrespondent, their results are not published and therefore, the saidwrit petition in W.P.No.11670 of 2009 has been filed for directionas stated above.4.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent,it is stated that the National Council for Teacher Education,Southern Regional Committee, while granting recognition has imposeda specific condition that the institute must obtain approval fromthe first respondent before commencement of the course. It isstated that the petitioner has sent proposal for approval of stafflist on 9.3.2007 for the academic year 2006-2007, which happens tobe the last date, containing the names of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi asPrincipal and Mrs.P.Nirmala as Maths Lecturer. The deficiencieswere pointed out in respect of their qualifications and therefore,the proposal was rejected by the first respondent on 26.4.2007.4.2. It is stated that disciplinary proceedings have beeninitiated against the second respondent, who is alleged to havedemanded bribe from the petitioner/institute for forwarding theproposal and a criminal case is also pending against him.4.3. The first respondent has also referred about the orderpassed by this Court in W.P.No.20781 of 2008 and W.A.No.278 of 2008filed against the said order wherein the Division Bench by judgmentdated 24.4.2009 has modified the order in the writ petition bydirecting the first respondent to consider the proposal of thepetitioner/institute dated 9.3.2007 and pass appropriate orders.4.4. It is stated that on perusal of the proposal dated9.3.2007 it was noticed that appointment of Mr.G.Anbazhagan asPrincipal appointee and Mrs.J.Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturerappointee were made after 9.3.2007, which is beyond the cut offdate for the academic year 2006-2007. Therefore, thepetitioner/institute was informed by the impugned order dated5.5.2009 that the approval of the staff list cannot be granted.4.5. In addition to that, from the proposal dated 9.3.2007sent by the petitioner/institute in which the names ofMrs.G.Ranganayagi as Principal appointee and Mrs.P.Nirmala as MathsLecturer appointee were given, it was found that Mrs.G.Ranganayagiwas not having five years teaching experience, while Mrs.P.Nirmaladid not possess M.Ed. Qualification and the experience certificate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted by her for teaching elementary education has not beenproperly countersigned by the District Elementary Officer as to itsgenuineness. 4.6. It was after the rejection order passed by the firstrespondent dated 26.4.2007, rejecting the names ofMrs.G.Ranganayagi and Mrs.P.Nirmala, the petitioner/ institute hasforwarded the new names of Mr.G.Anbazhagan and Mrs.J.Ceema Nair forPrincipal and Maths Lecturer respectively and inasmuch as theproposal was beyond the cut off date, the same was rejected sinceit cannot be considered for the year 2006-2007.4.7. It is also stated that the Correspondent of thepetitioner/institute by his letter dated 18.6.2007 has informed thefirst respondent, which was forwarded by the second respondent,that they have appointed new Principal, Mr.G.Anbazhagan instead ofMrs.G.Ranganayagi and new Maths Lecturer Mrs.J.Ceema Nair insteadof Mrs.P.Nirmala. The said replacement was made much beyond9.3.2007, namely the cut off date as per G.O.Ms.No.7, SchoolEducation Department, dated 9.2.2007 and therefore, the rejectionorder passed by first respondent is perfectly valid.4.8. It is also stated that it has been observed in the abovesaid cases that results of the students can be declared onlysubject to the outcome of the approval of the staff list andinasmuch as the staff list has not been approved, the studentsresults cannot be published.5. At the outset, it is to be noticed that in the year 2006-2007 many such institutions like that of the petitioner have madeadmission of students illegally, without obtaining approval of theteaching staff from the first respondent, with the result enormousnumber of students who got admitted innocently, without knowingabout the non approval of the teaching staff, were actually put togreat prejudice. Taking note of the fact that the National Councilfor Teacher Education has granted approval for those institutionsand the students who were innocent were not actually aware of thereal fact of non approval of the teaching staff, students werepermitted by various interim orders to write their examinations.It appears that this sort of illegal practice by these institutionsin admitting students continued in the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008and the students were permitted to write examinations at variouslevels by orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court, as it isnoted in this case. In few of the cases, when ultimately it wasfound that the students admitted were within the sanctionedstrength and have completed their various examinations due to theorders of this Court, taking note of the peculiar situation whichhas happened in the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, final ordershave been passed by this Court directing the authorities concernedto publish the results of the students by imposing heavy penalty on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the institutions, like directions to those institutions to pay fineof Rs.5000/- per student illegally admitted and such amounts weredirected to be paid to various social welfare organizations likeGovernment run schools for the Deaf and Dumb, Juvenile Homes, etc.for the benefit of the disabled and downtrodden with a view toteach a lesson to these institutions, who have not only doneillegal acts unscrupulously admitting students, but also deceivedthe innocent students and parents knowing fully well that they arenot entitled to admit students before approval of the staff list.6.1. As far as the present petitioner/institute is concerned,it is stated that the admissions were made in the years 2006-2007and 2007-2008and thereafter, no admissions have been made. But aclinching fact has come to limelight as far as thepetitioner/institute is concerned. The secondrespondent/Principal, District Institute of Education and Trainingholding the post earlier is stated to have been involved in illegalactivities of demanding bribe for the purpose of forwarding theproposal for approval of students as well as the teachers to thefirst respondent and in respect of him, it appears that a criminalcase is also pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrateand Special Judge, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.59 of 2008 in which it isstated that the charge has been filed on 28.7.2009.6.2. On a direction from this Court to the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri calling for therecords relating to the said prosecution, the criminal court hassent the original proposal sent by the petitioner/institute dated9.3.2007 countersigned by the then second respondent Mr.K.Balan,Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, who isstated to be involved in the criminal case, and verified byDr.R.Natarajan, Senior Lecturer and Head of Department, DistrictInstitute of Education and Training, Krishnagiri dated 9.3.2007.The said original, which has been received from the criminal court,shows that the proposal sent by the petitioner/institute has beenverified and countersigned by the second respondent on 9.3.2007 andthat proposal relates to Mrs.G.Ranganayagi for the post ofPrincipal of the petitioner/institute. 6.3. As it is seen in the typed set of papers filed by thefirst respondent, that on the same day, viz., on 9.3.2007, inaddition to the name of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi for the post ofPrincipal, the petitioner/institute has sent the names ofMrs.S.Pramila for the post of Tamil Lecturer, Mrs.Jayarani Georgefor the post of English Lecturer, Mrs.P.Nirmala for the post ofMaths Lecturer, Mr.R.Murugan for the post of Science Lecturer andMrs.V.Flora Jennmika for the post of Social Science Lecturer andthose papers were also verified with originals by the then secondrespondent, Mr.K.Balan, containing signatures of the respectivecandidates and in the last page, the same has been stated as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ verified by Dr.R.Natarajan, Senior Lecturer and Head of Departmenton 9.3.2007.6.4. The procedure appears to be that when the institute sendsproposal for approval of teachers, the same is at the firstinstance presented to the second respondent who is in the District,who, on verifying the originals from the petitioner/ institute,makes endorsement and forwards the same to the first respondent forappropriate orders of approval. In the present case, it is thecase of the petitioner that they have presented the proposal on21.2.2007 seeking approval of the names of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi andMrs.P.Nirmala. The second respondent has raised a doubt about thequalification of those two candidates and therefore, the saidproposal was replaced by the petitioner/institute on 9.3.2007,which happens to be the last date for presenting the proposal forthe academic year 2006-2007, by including new persons, namelyMr.G.Anbazhagan as Principal and Mrs.J.Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturerand that was received by the second respondent on 9.3.2007 andverified and countersigned by him. 6.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/institute producesa copy of that proposal verified and countersigned by the secondrespondent on 9.3.2007 which contains the names of Mrs.J.Ceema Nairas Maths Lecturer. Therefore, there are records to show that onthe same day, namely on 9.3.2007, the second respondent receivedthe two proposals from the petitioner, one for Mrs.G.Ranganayagi asPrincipal and Mrs.P.Nirmala as Maths Lecturer in addition to otherfour teaching staff as it is seen in the record of the firstrespondent and on verification from the criminal court recordsstated above, and another for Mr.G.Anbazhagan as Principal andMrs.J.Ceema Nair for Maths Lecturer as produced by the petitionerin the typed set of papers and he has chosen to countersign on thesame day.6.6. Of course, it is the complaint of the petitioner that thesaid second respondent, Mr.K.Balan has demanded bribe for thepurpose of sending the proposal and a criminal case, as statedabove, is pending. It is the case of the petitioner/institute, assubmitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/institute, thatthe proposal in respect of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi and Mrs.P.Nirmala waspresented by the petitioner/institute not on 9.3.2007, but on21.2.2007 and the second respondent has illegally endorsed andcountersigned on 9.3.2007 since the demanded bribe was not paid.On the other hand, it is admitted that on the same day, viz., on9.3.2007 the same second respondent, Mr.K.Balan has endorsed theproposal for appointment of Mr.G.Anbazhagan as Principal andMrs.J.Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer and that is admitted to havebeen signed by the second respondent in the presence of thepetitioner, after verifying the originals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.7. Even though these are the matters which are ultimately tobe decided by the criminal court wherein a charge has been leveledagainst the Mr.K.Balan, the entire episode shows the clumsycharacter and attitude of the petitioner/institute in going to theextent of changing names of teachers in the list for the purpose ofgetting approval somehow or other, of course taking advantage ofsome of the officials of doubtful reputation who have occupied thepost as Principals of District Institute of Education and Training.6.8. Further, as it is seen in the records produced by therespondents, the said Mrs.G.Ranganayagi, who was stated to havebeen named in the proposal dated 21.2.2007, was appointed by thepetitioner/institute only on 9.3.2007 and such appointment orderhas been forwarded to the respondents, which is available in thetyped set of papers filed on the side of the respondents and morecurious thing is that Mrs.G.Ranganayagi has signed in theappointment letter on 9.3.2007 having accepted the same. While so,it is not known as to how the petitioner/institute has presentedthe proposal on 21.2.2007 with the name of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi asPrincipal, who came to be appointed only on 9.3.2007, as it is seenin the appointment order issued by the petitioner/institute itself.6.9. In the consolidated particulars given along with theparticulars for the year 2006-2007 singed by the second respondenton 9.3.2007, the names of five lecturers were given asMrs.S.Pramila, Mrs.Jayarani George, Mrs.J.Ceema Nair, Mr.R.Muruganand Mrs.V.Flora Jennika along with their educational qualificationsand other particulars relating to them.6.10. One other astonishing factor, as revealed from thedocuments filed by the respondents, is that the same petitioner,who is owning another institution in the name of Jesus ChristTeacher Training Institute for Women has issued a servicecertificate to Mr.G.Anbazhagan dated 5.3.2007 stating that he wasworking in the said institute from 1.6.2005 to 3.3.2007 and he issought to be appointed to the petitioner institute on 7.3.2007.6.11. As per the records of the first respondent there is noproposal available stated to have been sent by the petitioner on21.2.2007 and the only proposal is dated 9.3.2007 containing thenames of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi and Mrs.P.Nirmala, as stated above. Whenthere are records to show that Mrs.G.Ranganayagi was appointed inthe petitioner/ institute as a Principal on 9.3.2007, thepetitioner/ institute has chosen to state in the proposal as if thesaid Mrs.G.Ranganayagi was appointed as Principal on 27.11.2006. 6.12. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocatethat the name of Mrs.J.Ceema Nair was subsequently insertedillegally by the petitioner/institute. There is certainly force inthe contention of the learned Government Advocate in this regard. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the order of the first respondent dated 26.4.2007, which was ofcourse subsequently set aside by this Court with a direction to thefirst respondent to consider the proposal dated 9.3.2007 asmodified in the writ appeal judgment as stated above, the firstrespondent by considering the application of the petitioner dated9.3.2007 has only referred to the names of Mrs.G.Ranganayagi asPrincipal and Mrs.P.Nirmala as Maths Lecturer. In W.P.No.25164 of2007, by which the petitioner has challenged the said order ofrejection dated 26.4.2007, the petitioner has stated that the listsent by the petitioner on 21.2.2007 with Mrs.G.Ranganayagi andMrs.P.Nirmala was returned by the second respondent on 9.3.2007 byraising some doubts and thereafter, on the same day, the revisedlist was given. If really the second respondent has returned thelist, it is not known as to how the second respondent has verifiedthe particulars about Mrs.G.Ranganayagi and Mrs.P.Nirmala on9.3.2007 with the originals and made endorsement on the same date.6.13. Moreover, the original records which have been seized inthe criminal case, as stated above, show that the proposalcountersigned by the second respondent dated 9.3.2007 containedonly the names of Mrs.Ranganayagi and Mrs.P.Nirmala, as statedabove. In the absence of such proposal on 9.3.2007 in respect ofMr.G.Anbazhagan and Mrs.J.Ceema Nair, which is not possible due tothe above said factual assertions which I have made on perusal ofrecords filed by the respondents in the typed set of papers, thereis nothing to infer that the petitioner has sent proposal on9.3.2007 for appointment of Mr.G.Anbazhagan as Principal andMrs.J.Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer. In fact, in the letter of theCorrespondent of the petitioner/ institute dated 18.6.2007, thepetitioner has referred about the appointment of Mrs.J.Ceema Nairon 5.3.2007 and Mr.G.Anbazhagan on 7.3.2007, but the proposal wassent for the first time on 18.6.2007 in respect of those two newcandidates. Even if the appointment of the said candidates wasmade before 9.3.2007, the same is not significant since it is thedate of proposal which is relevant for enabling the firstrespondent to consider for approval. Inasmuch as, on record, thereis nothing to show that the proposal in respect of Mr.G.Anbazhaganas Principal and Mrs.J.Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer was sent beforethe cut off date, namely 9.3.2007, I do not see any infirmity inthe order of the first respondent.7. Considering the grave and unhealthy conduct of thepetitioner/institute, which of course appears to be in collusionwith one of the officials of the respondent, particularly, the thensecond respondent, I am of the considered view that anyinterference with the impugned order of the first respondent wouldamount to giving premium to the illegal conduct of thepetitioner/institute. The conduct of the petitioner/institutecannot be simply stated to be deceptive, deceiving the innocentstudents, but it is much more than that and there is no question of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interfering with the impugned order of the first respondent. I amof the firm opinion that the petitioner/institute must be dealtwith in an appropriate manner, of course after ascertaining theactual conduct committed by the petitioner, on enquiry by anappropriate agency in the appropriate forum. 8. Now coming to the sorry state of affairs of the innocentstudents admitted by the petitioner/institute, it is a fact that byconducting such enquiry against the petitioner/institute or by anyprobable prosecution in future or by directing the institute to payan amount for charitable purpose by way of penalty, it is not goingto be of any use to the students who have undergone the course,taken up the examinations at various levels by orders of this Courtas well as the Apex Court as stated above. It is no doubt truethat such permissions are given only as interim arrangements andsubject to the final decision, but the problem is that in the finaldecision if an order is passed against the institution which hasillegally admitted students, one must see the irreparable damagewhich is caused to these innocent youngsters who are at the vergeof entering into the rigorousness of life after completing theeducation and who cannot be compensated since the valuable time oftwo years cannot be given back to them by any such efforts unlessthe principle of equity is exercised in their interest, which cancertainly not be termed as bounty or grace. These are not caseswhere the students were informed either by the first respondent orby the National Council for Teacher Education either in publicmedia or otherwise that they should not get themselves admittedbefore approval of teaching staff. These are by and large theinternal affairs of the institutes existence of which is presumedbonafide, which in this case proved to be otherwise due to lack ofhonesty. Ultimately, apart from loss of hard earned money spenton these students by their parents, mental agony and financialcrisis which may be caused to them would be more if these studentsare thrown out on the ground that the petitioner/institute hascommitted a grave illegality. In such view of the matter, I aminclined to allow the writ petition filed by the students inW.P.No.11670 of 2009 purely on equitable ground, of course subjectto certain conditions.In fine, considering the overall facts and circumstances ofthe case, the following order is passed:(i) the impugned order of the first respondent dated5.5.2009 does not require any interference, exceptinsofar as it relates to the last paragraph regardingthe declaration of the results of the students.Hence, W.P.No.11200 of 2009 is dismissed, exceptinsofar as it relates to the last paragraph of theimpugned order dated 5.5.2009; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) the State Government and the first respondent aredirected to refer the matter to the CB-CID within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order and thereafter, the said agencyshall complete the enquiry expeditiously and submit areport to the State Government and thereafter theState Government shall take appropriate actionagainst the persons found responsible; (iii) W.P.No.11670 of 2009 stands allowed subject tothe condition that the fourth respondent/institute inW.P.No.11670 of 2009 (petitioner in W.P.No.11200 of2009) shall pay an amount of Rs.7500/- in respect ofeach of the 20 students amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) by way ofdemand draft to the State Commissioner for theDisabled, No.15/1, Model School Road, ThousandLights, Chennai – 600 006 within two weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order and onproducing proof of such payment, respondents 1 to 3are directed to permit the petitioners in W.P.No.11670of 2009 who have been admitted in 2006-2007 tocomplete their examinations, including arrears orpractical examination, if any, and issue necessarymark sheets and certificates. In default of payment asstated above, this writ petition shall standdismissed; and(iv) on the petitioner/institute forwarding the amountstated in direction (iii) of order, the StateCommissioner for the Disabled shall send the same tothe Government Higher Secondary School for the Blind,Karaiyan Chavadi, Poonamalle, Chennai – 600 056 to beused for the interest of the beneficiaries of the saidinstitute and report to the Registry of this Courtwithin two weeks thereafter.Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 in W.P.No.11200 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.11670 of 2009 are closed.sasiSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training Government of Tamil Nadu D.P.I. Campus, Chennai – 600 006.2. The Principal District Institute of Education and Training, Pulikarai Dharmapuri District – 636 808.3. The Director of Government Examinations, Government of Tamil Nadu D.P.I.Campus, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006.4. The State Commissioner for the Disabled 15/1, Model School Road Thousand Lights Chennai - 600 006.5. The Principal Christina Teacher Training Institute Vetrilaikaran Pallam Dharmapuri.6. The Government Higher Secondary School for the Blind, Karaiyan Chavadi Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri.8. The Section Officer, Crl Section, High Court, Madras (To send the records in CC.59/2008)9. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Sureshkumar, Advocate SR No.59885+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.59977, 59976+ 1 cc to Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Advocate SR No.59926MBS(CO)SR/10.11.2009W.P.Nos.11200 and 11670 of 2009