High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02.07.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr. A.K.GANGULY, CHIEF JUSTICEandTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAWRIT APPEAL Nos.718 to 726 of 2008and M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 in all appealsT.Shyla.. Appellant in WA.718/2008.C.Asha .. Appellant in WA.719/2008.C.Pearly Amara.. Appellant in WA.720/2008A.Margaret Ajitha Kumary.. Appellant in WA.721/2008C.Usha.. Appellant in WA.722/2008D.Nesaline Anjala.. Appellant in WA.723/2008S.Amutha.. Appellant in WA.724/2008J.Hermina Beatrisam.. Appellant in WA.725/2008S.Sahaya Jaczulin Mahila.. Appellant in WA.726/2008/versus/1. The Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai – 600 006.3. The Controller of Examination, Manonmaniam Sundarnar University, Tirunelveli – 627 012. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Ponjesly College of Education, Alamparai, Vettoornimadam Post, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents in all the above appeals.Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 24.4.2008 made by the learned single Judge of thisCourt in W.P.No.41881 of 2006.W.P.No.41881 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus tocall for the records relating to the impugned order dated 28.09.2006Ref.No.MSU/CE/E/E&R passed by the third respondent university andquash the same in so far as the portion of the said order declaringthat the petitioner is not eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course andconsequently direct the third respondent to approve the eligibilityof the petitioner for admission in B.Ed. Course in the fourthrespondent college following the guideliness issued by the first andsecond respondents.W.P.41882 to 41889 of 2006: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamusdirecting the 3rd Respondent University to consider therepresentation dated 23.10.2006 submitted by the petitioner andapprove the admission of the petitioner in the B.Ed. Course andaccept be eligibility of the petitioner for joining the B.Ed. Courseas per the guidelines issued by the respondents 1 and 2 andconsequently permit the petitioner to complete the B.Ed. Course inthe 4th respondent college during the calendar year 2006.For appellant in all cases: Mr.S.ThankasivanFor respondents: Mr.G.Sankaran, Special Govt. Pleader.(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Heard counsel for the parties. These appeals have beenfiled against a common order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the learnedsingle Judge, dismissing all the nine writ petitions in W.P.Nos.41881to 41889 of 2006. 2. These writ appeals have been filed against the dismissalof nine writ petitions which involved a common question. The commonquestion involved in these appeals is whether the appellants/writpetitioners can be allowed in B.Ed. Course having regard to thequalification prescribed by the State Government. Admittedly, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellants before us, had not secured 45% marks in Under GraduateDegree. Some of them have obtained Post Graduate Degree. But therequirement of 45% marks in the Under Graduate Degree is a mandatoryrequirement under the qualification prescribed by the StateGovernment. The qualification prescribed by the State Government isas follows:- (i) The candidates should have passed the UG Degreeexamination in the 10+2+3 stream, with the same mainsubject in part III, for which he is seeking admission inthe B.Ed., course.(ii) Candidates who have taken more than one mainsubject in Part III (Double or Triple major) of the U.G.degree have to choose only one of the main subjects andapply for that optional in B.Ed.(iii) Candidates who have done their U.G. degree inApplied Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry or Applied Physics canapply for Chemistry and Physics optional respectively inB.Ed, those who have done Environmental Science and Micro-Biology can apply Biology optional in B.Ed and similarlycandidates with Applied Geography in UG degree can applyfor Geography optional.(iv) a) Candidates should have secured 45% of marks inU.G. degree and in P.G. degree a minimum pass is requiredfor admission.b) In the case of candidates belonging to SC and STcommunities, a pass in the relevant UG degree course isenough, irrespective of the number of attempts,c) In the case of handicapped (both physical andvisual) candidates, a minimum pass in the degree isrequired.(v) Candidates with PG qualification alone will beconsidered for Economics, Commerce and Home Science."3. The attention of this Court has been drawn to clause(iv) of the said qualification:-(iv) a) Candidates should have secured 45% of marks inU.G. degree and in P.G. degree a minimum pass is requiredfor admission.b) In the case of candidates belonging to SC and STcommunities, a pass in the relevant UG degree course isenough, irrespective of the number of attempts, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ c) In the case of handicapped (both physical andvisual) candidates, a minimum pass in the degree isrequired."4. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend thatthe candidates should have secured 45% marks in U.G. Degree and aminimum pass in P.G. Degree should be construed differently from theway it has been construed by the learned Judge. And should beconstrued as "or". The learned counsel for the appellants submittedthat since the appellants have obtained P.G. Degree, the fact thatthey failed to obtain 45% marks in P.G. Degree should not stand inthe way of their getting admission in B.Ed. Course. We haveconsidered this submission. But we are unable to accept the sameinasmuch as under the requisite qualification 45% marks in U.G.Degree is a mandatory requirement. 5. Additional requirement is a P.G. Degree in which nopercentage of mark is specified, but mere pass has been specified.Therefore, just a pass in P.G. Degree cannot be substituted for therequirement of 45% marks in the U.G. Degree. This is clear on aplain reading of clause (iv)(a). 6. It is a well settled principle of construction where aplain reading makes the meaning clear and there is no ambiguity, theprinciples of construction need not be pressed into service. In theinstant case, any ordinary person, by reading Clause (iv)(a) ofqualification, can come to the conclusion that requirement of 45%marks in U.G. Degree is mandatory. In so far as the qualificationsprescribed by N.C.T.E. are concerned, the same had been set out bythe learned Judge in paragraph No.9 of the order. The said norms areset out below:-"9. It is not in dispute that as per NCTE norms, theeligibility for admission to B.Ed. Degree is as follows:"3. Eligibility.-(a) Candidates with at least 45% marks in theBachelor's/Master's Degree with at least two schoolsubjects at the graduation level are eligible foradmission.(b) Admission should be made either on the basis ofmarks obtained in the qualifying examination or in theentrance examination conducted by the University/StateGovernment, as per the policy of the StateGovernment/University, to which the institution isaffiliated.(C) There shall be reservation of seats forSC/ST/OBC, Handicapped, Women, etc. as per the rules of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the concerned State Government."7. This Court finds that the N.C.T.E. Norms under Clause(a) are getting 45% marks in Bachelor's/Master's Degree at least withtwo School subjects at Graduate level. Clause (b) says thatadmission should be made either on the basis of marks obtained in thequalifying examination or in the entrance examination conducted bythe University/ State Government, as per the policy of the StateGovernment/ University, to which the institution is affiliated.Under the NCTE norms 45% marks both in Bachelor's and Master's Degreeis the requirement and the State Government policy has been aprimacy. 8. Going by the said norms of the State Government, we donot find that the appellants/writ petitioners who had not obtained45% marks in the U.G. Degree, can have any right to get admission.That being so, we do not see any reason to interfere with the orderof the learned single Judge of the Writ court. 9. Therefore, all the Writ Appeals are dismissedaccordingly. No costs. All the miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Assistant Registrar/true copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarsaiTo1. The Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai – 600 006.3. The Controller of Examination, Manonmaniam Sundarnar University, Tirunelveli – 627 012.4. Ponjesly College of Education, Alamparai, Vettoornimadam Post, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. + 9 ccs to Mr.S.Thangasivan Advocate SR No.34269+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader SR No.34205W.A.Nos.718 to 726 of 2008SGL(CO)JJM(21.07.08)