S.Venkateswaran & Ors. v. Jayasuriya Teachers Education& Training College No.3/139, Jeyasuriya Mahal Vignesh Nagar, Trichy Main Road, Villupuram

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 07.02.2008CoramThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIWrit Petition Nos.21583, 25927 and 31976 of 2007& M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 2 of 2007W.P.No.21583 of 2007:1. S.Venkateswaran2. P.Sudhakar3. G.Abirami4. J.Mohanraj5. V.Venkatesan6. L.John Britto7. N.Kodiyarasi8. P.Saritha9. S.Selvapriya.... PetitionersVs.1. Jayasuriya Teachers Education& Training College No.3/139, Jeyasuriya Mahal Vignesh Nagar, Trichy Main Road, Villupuram.2. The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai – 6.3. The Director of Government Examination, College Road, Chennai – 6.4. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education C.S.D. Building, H.M.T.Post, Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 031..... RespondentsPETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingfor the issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 totreat the 9 petitioners herein as students admitted under theGovernment Quota in the first respondent institute for the academic https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ year 2005-06 in D.T.Ed. Course and permit them to take their firstyear examination conducted by the third respondent for D.T.Ed. Coursefrom the first respondent institute and consequently permit thepetitioners to continue the second year D.T.Ed. Course in the firstrespondent institute under the 9 approved and recognized seats.(prayer amended as per order dated 4.10.2007 in M.P.No.2 of 2007)For Petitioner : Mr.Silambanan, S.C. For M/s.Silambanan AssociatesFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.Chandran, S.C.for Mr.R.Kannan – R1G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P. - R2 & R3 assisted by Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar,AGPMr.P.R.Gopinathan – R4W.P.No.25927 of 2007:Jeyasuriya College of Education,rep. By its Managing DirectorMrs.R.Jeya Rayar.... PetitionerVs.1. The Member Secretary, National Council for TeacherEducation (NCTE), Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.2. The Regional Director, National Council for TeacherEducation, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore – 560 031.3. The Director of Teacher Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006..... RespondentsPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India prayingfor the issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsrelating to the order in F.SRO/NCTE/D.T.Ed.A1/2006-2007/2504, dated11.5.2007 issued by the second respondent in so far as it relates tothe condition 3(iv) of the said order and quash the same and acceptthe list submitted by the petitioner dated 18.11.2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Chandran, S.C. for Mr.R.KannanFor Respondents: Mr.P.R.Gopinathan – R1 & R2 Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P. assisted Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar, AGP-R3W.P.No.31976 of 2007:Jeyasuriya College of Education,rep. By its Managing DirectorMrs.R.Jeya Rayar.... PetitionerVs.1. The Director of Government Examinations, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.2. The Director of Teacher Educationand Training, College Road,Chennai.3. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training G.Ariyur, Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram..... RespondentsPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India prayingfor the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents topermit 74 students who are now studying in the petitioner institutionfor the academic year 2006-2007 to write the first year Diploma inTeacher Education examination to be held on November 2007 conducted bythe respondents.For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Chandran, S.C. for Mr.R.KannanFor Respondents: Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P. assisted Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar, AGP-------C O M M O N O R D E RWrit Petition No.25927 of 2007- learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. He hasalso made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, W.P.No.25927 of2007 is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1and 2 of 2007 are also dismissed.2. W.P.No.31976 of 2007 is filed by a self-financing PrivateTeacher Training Institute for a direction against the respondents topermit 74 students who are now studying in the petitioner institutionto write the first year Diploma Examination for the academic year2006-2007.3. Nine petitioners among the 74 students mentioned by the writpetitioner in W.P.No.31976 of 2007, who were admitted in thepetitioner institution for the academic year 2006-2007 have filedW.P.No.21583 of 2007.4. The petitioner institution was recognised by the NCTE on24.11.2004 for the academic year 2004-05 in the original intake of 50students. The teachers list for the said students have been approvedby the second respondent on 29.6.2005. The petitioner has applied tothe NCTE for recognition of additional intake of 50 students in theyear 2006. Anticipating that the NCTE will grant approval, thepetitioner institution has admitted some students for the academicyear 2005-06. However, the NCTE has granted recognition foradditional intake of students only on 15.7.2006. Therefore, it isclear that the students admitted in respect of additional strength inthe institution by the petitioner even in the year 2005-06 are notpersons eligible to write examinations. However, in that year, inrespect of original strength of 50 students, 25 students were to beadmitted by the petitioner institution under the management quota andthe remaining 25 students have to be sponsored by the Government, intotal in that year, namely 2005-2006 41 students were permitted toappear for the examination.5. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from the 41students, who were permitted to write examination for the year 2005-06, there were 74 students, who were admitted by the petitionerinstitution in the said year in anticipation of the approval by theNCTE and the case of the petitioner institution is that those studentswere continued for the academic year 2006-07 and the petitioner hasalso sent a proposal on 18.11.2006 for approval of the list ofteachers for the additional strength of students, which was for theacademic year 2006-07. There was no order passed by the secondrespondent and in those circumstance, the petitioner was constrainedto approach this Court by filing W.P.No.5559 of 2007. This Courtdisposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 19.2.2007directing the first respondent therein to consider the list of facultymembers submitted by the petitioner by proposal dated 18.11.2006 andpass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. According to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner, inspite of the direction given by this Court on19.2.2007, the second respondent has not passed any orders even tilldate. In this circumstance, the petitioner institution has filed thepresent writ petition for a direction as stated above.6. On the other hand, the second and third respondents havefiled counter affidavit. It is their case in the counter affidavitthat for the year 2005-2006, 41 students were permitted to writeexaminations and the petitioner has admitted 74 students over andabove the sanctioned strength. They also denied that they have notapproved the list due to official bias. It is the case of the secondrespondent in the counter affidavit that the proposal of thepetitioner dated 18.11.2006 was returned by the third respondent,namely, the Principal, DIET, Villupuram to the petitioner on 8.3.2007for modification of deficiencies and the papers have not been so farre-submitted by the petitioner. Further, it is stated by the secondrespondent that the second respondent has brought to the notice of theNCTE about the illegalities committed by the petitioner institution inadmitting the students over and above the sanctioned strength forappropriate action. It is also the case of the second and thirdrespondents that in respect of admission of students over and abovethe permitted strength, there has been law and order problem and oneof the students has also committed suicide and due to the said reason,certain criminal cases have been filed and in fact the person inmanagement of the petitioner institution was also arrested in acriminal case.7. It is the further case of the second respondent that the writpetitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2552 of 2008 withfalse averment praying for issuance of hall tickets for 150 studentson the basis that the NCTE has granted another additional intake of 50students over and above the additional intake of 50, which was alreadygiven to them. According to the second respondent the NCTE has notgiven permission for any additional intake and in spite of that, thepetitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2552 of 2008. Thisshows the conduct of the petitioner in giving false representation andadmitting the students over and above the strength to which they areentitled to. It is the further case of the second respondent in theaffidavit that the petitioner has been making and sending many listsstating as if the students were admitted every year. According to thesecond respondent the petitioner has claimed another list of 84 + 16students stated to have been admitted in their institution. It isalso stated by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that dueto the harassment of the petitioner, one Selvi.Sathya aged 18 years,who got admission in the petitioner institution has committed suicide,since the petitioner institution has compelled the parents to pay thefull amount for the purpose of getting transfer certificate and inrespect of that there was a complaint given to the State Human RightsCommission, which is pending against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. It is also stated by the second respondent in the counteraffidavit that the petitioner has given so far three lists ofstudents, namely, 'A' list containing 75 students; 'B' list containing100 students and 'C' list containing another 150 students and thosestudents are not at all permitted to write examination, inasmuch asthey are admitted beyond the original strength of 50 and additionalintake of 50, which was given in the year 2006-07. Therefore noindulgence should be shown as far as the present petitioner isconcerned.9. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel for the petitionerwould vehemently oppose the ground taken by the second respondent inthe counter affidavit as if the proposal of the petitioner dated18.11.2006 for approval of teachers in respect of the additional intake of students of 50 granted by the NCTE for the year 2006-07 wasreturned by the third respondent, namely, the Principal of DIET on8.3.2007.10. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader hasproduced the copy of the document filed by the petitioner to the thirdrespondent wherein the third respondent has returned the papers on8.3.2007. It is the case of the learned Special Government Pleaderthat the copy, which seems to be the original order passed by thethird respondent Principal is a duplicate copy and the original hasbeen sent to the petitioner and according to the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader, the petitioner has received the same. He has alsobrought to the notice of this Court that the said documents containacknowledgement of the Principal of the petitioner College.11. On the other hand, Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counselwould vehemently oppose contending that first of all the thirdrespondent/Principal DIET has no right to pass any orders, even as perthe proceedings, which have been followed by the respondents. It isfor the Director, namely, the second respondent who has got right toapprove or disapprove the teachers list. Therefore, at the firstinstance, he would submit that the order passed by the thirdrespondent is uncalled for and illegal and the same has to be ignored.Secondly, he would submit that a reference to the documents producedby the learned Special Government Pleader shows that the person, whohad signed the order as Principal is not the Principal at that pointof time at all. When clarification was sought for, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader would submit that the Principal of DIET Villupuramat that point of time was one Mr.Lakshmipathy Raju, who has beencontinuing atleast from 26.10.2006 to 26.11.2007, as it is seen fromthe proceedings of the Principal, DIET in Na.Ka.No.987/E1/2006 dated26.10.2006 and Na.Ka.No.1281/ A2/2007 dated 26.11.2007 as produced bythe learned Special Government Pleader himself. However, the learnedSpecial Government Pleader would submit that on the day, namely, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.3.2007, when the papers were returned, it was signed by some otherperson, who was working as Principal in-charge. It is also submittedby the learned Special Government Pleader that the Princpal in-chargewho has signed the papers on 8.3.2007 himself has not returned thepapers to the petitioner and his case is that the Principal in-chargehaving signed the papers has left it in the office and office hasreturned the papers to the petitioner, who has received it onacknowledgement.12. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel after hearing theargument of the learned Special Government Pleader would submit thatwhen the Principal, DIET himself has no right to pass order, it is notknown as to how the Principal in-charge has come into existenceespecially when the documents produced by the Special GovernmentPleader shows that from 26.10.2007 to 26.11.2007 one Mr.LakshmipathyRaju was the Principal of DIET. He would also submit that evenassuming that the person, who has signed the order is the Principalin-charge, it is not the case of the respondents that the Principalin-charge has returned the papers, but somebody else, who has to be anofficial and there is no proper acknowledgment from the petitioner atall. Learned senior counsel denied the initial put by some otherperson stating that it is not that of the petitioner/Principal and hereiterated the stand taken by him in the additional affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition that the said proposal dated 18.11.2006filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has never beenreturned so far.13. On the other hand, as it is seen in the counter affidavit,it is the stand of the second respondent that the papers have beenreturned as early as 8.3.2007 and it is the petitioner, who has nottaken any step to re-submit it and there is no fault as such on thepart of the second respondent. On the face of the document, which hasbeen produced before this Court, Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned seniorcounsel would also submit that as per the document produced it isreturned on the basis that the list of teachers does not containqualification as per the NCTE norms, the Principal, DIET has no rightto take such a decision at all.14. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learnedSpecial Government Pleader that the Principal, DIET has not passed anyorder, he has only returned the papers inasmuch as every papersaddressed to the Director have to be routed through the DIET Principaland the Principal, DIET has got every right to verify the correctnessor otherwise of the application produced by the petitionerinstitution. Therefore, on verification, Principal, DIET, who is alsoan authority working under the Director has found that the teacherswere not qualified and therefore, he has every right to return thepapers and therefore it is the duty of the petitioner to resubmit thesame. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. Be that as it may. On the basis of the document, which hasbeen produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, there isabsolutely no doubt that some person, who is called as DIET Principalwithout even mentioning that he is the Principal in-charge has madethe return. In the teeth of the specific stand taken by thepetitioner that the proposal given by the petitioner dated 18.11.2006has not been considered at all and no order has been passed by thesecond respondent in spite of the specific direction given by thisCourt as early as on 19.12.2007, I have no hesitation to come to aconclusion that there is definitely some truth in the contention ofthe learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner for thereasons, which are more than one. As correctly submitted by thelearned senior counsel it is not known as to how the Principal incharge of DIET whose name is not known has any jurisdiction to passany order in respect of the qualifications of the teachers, whosenames find place in the list. In fact in the batch of writ petitions,which came to be disposed of in W.P.No.20569 of 2007 dated 11.1.2008,this Court has taken a definite stand that the Principal DIET has noright to even make endorsement because his endorsement is not valid inthe eye of law. In the admitted circumstance that there is no Scheme,no Regulation and no Rule framed by the Government in respect of thepowers of the Director as well as the Principal DIET, I am not able tounderstand as to how the returns are made and under what authority.16. On the basis of the submissions by the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner that the signature found in the return isnot that of anybody working in the petitioner college, I do not thinkthat there is any substance in the contention of the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader as if the proposal have been returned and thepetitioner has not represented the same. It is not in dispute that inthe proposal dated 18.11.2006, the names of 8 teachers have beenproposed for the purpose of approval. Except in respect of three, asit is seen in the endorsement by the so called Principal in-chargewherein he has stated that item Nos. 2 and 3 in the list have not gotmore than 55% of marks, there is no endorsement in respect of others.In respect of others, it is not known as to how the Director has notpassed any orders in spite of the specific direction given by thisCourt. It is seen on record that the second respondent has originallyapproved the list of 1 + 5 teachers by his proceedings inR.C.No.1248/C1/2005 dated 21.6.2005. The further grounds stated bythe Principal DIET in-charge in the return is about the requirement of55 % marks. As it is seen in the amended NCTE Rules 2005, there is noprescription of any mark regarding the qualification of the teachers.At the same time, a reference to the documents show that all is notwell in the petitioner institution. The very fact that a student hascommitted suicide, which resulted due to the conduct of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ institution is certainly disturbing. The reason given is that theexorbitant amount has been requested to be paid by the parents andabout which an enquiry is pending before the State Human RightsCommission.17. The records further show that as it is seen in the annexureto the counter affidavit of the second respondent that the petitioneras on date had atleast filed three list of students for approval,namely, list 'A,B and C'. It is seen that List 'A' contains 75 namesof students, who are admitted for the academic year 2005-06, whichincludes the the nine writ petitioners in W.P.No.21583 of 2007. Verycuriously, List 'B' has also been submitted by the petitionerinstitution on 5.2.2007 containing another 100 students. The saidlist also includes the students, who were admitted under Single WindowSystem. Further the third list has been sent as List 'C' containing150 students stated to have been admitted for the academic year 2006-07. It is also found from records that it is in respect of these 150students, the petitioner has filed another writ petition inW.P.No.2552 of 2008, even without getting recognition for furtherintake of students strength. As on date, the total students strengthwhich is permissible to the petitioner institution as approved by theNCTE originally was 50 for the academic year 2005-06, for theadditional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07. TheNCTE admittedly has not passed any orders even though, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently orders have beenpassed. In any event, this Court is concerned about the studentsespecially the 75 students, who have been admitted even in the year2005-06 under the pretext that they will be permitted to writeexamination for the year 2005-06 itself. It is due to the above saidreason, the NCTE has not granted approval, those unfortunate studentshave not been permitted to write examination and they have also agreedto continue their first year Course in the year 2006-07 and in thatview of the matter, it cannot be said that the said 75 students shouldnot be shown any mercy. Any order harsh to the petitioner, who may beotherwise entitled, should not affect the unfortunate students, whohave been admitted in the year 2005-06 itself.18. In view of the same, the present writ petition is orderedwith a direction to the second respondent to permit the followingstudents, who are admitted in the petitioner institution for theacademic year 2005-06 and continued in 2006-07 in the first yearDiploma in Teacher Education for the academic year 2006-07 to be heldon 18th February 2008. It is made clear that the petitionerinstitution shall not be eligible for permission to write examinationfor the academic year 2006-07 except the following students. Inaddition to the above, the following students admitted in thepetitioner institution, who are sponsored by the Government underSingle Window System shall also be permitted to write examination forthe academic year 2006-07. The said students shall be permitted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ write examination subject to the other requirements like attendanceetc.Students admitted in the petitioner institution for the academic year2005-06:01. MOHAN RAJ.R02. DHANALAKSHMI.S03. RAJESWARI.B04. KALPANA.B05. ARULMANI.K06. KODIYARASI.N07. PRIYA.D08. THULASI.P09. SATHIYAVATHI.G10. SAMPATH KUMAR.R11. MANIKANDAN.A12. NITHYA.A13. KARTHIKA.R14. MALATHI.D15. VELAYUDAM.S16. SIVA SANKARI.P17. DHAKSHANA MURTHY.J18. ELAVARASI.K19. BHARATHI.A20. PRIYA.K21. MOHANKUMAR.A22. PALANISAMY.T23. THIRUGNANA SAMBANDAM.K24. SUBHASHINI.S25. KRISHNA MURTHI.M26. JOHN BRITTO.L27. SATHYA.L28. RAGURAMAN.R29. SEENUVASAN.A30. PAUL RAJ.M31. VENKATESWARAN.S32. RAJESHWARI.D33. PRABAVATHI.S34. SARITHA.P35. ELAVARASI.A36. SUDHAKAR.P37. ROHINI PRIYA.S38. MANI MEGALAI.R39. SOPHIA MARY.A40. BHUVANESWARI.S41. AZHAGIRI.P42. GUNASEKAR.M43. SELVAPRIYA.S https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44. DEEPALAKSHMI.A45. MAGARAJAN.S46. MAN VIZHI.C47. SUBULAKSHMI.M48. ADHILAKSHMI49. VENKATESAN.V50. RAJA.D51. VASUKI.P52. RAJALINGAM.M53. SUBASRI.R54. ANITTA.E55. RAJALAKSHMI.A56. SRINIVASAN.K57. DEEPA.P58. SUGANTHI.S59. THAMARI MAY MALAR.J60. VALARMATHI.P61. ANANTHI.K62. MURUGAN.R63. SANGEETHA.B64. JAYA.P65. ABIRAMI.G66. ANBUCHELVAN.P.E.67. AROCKIA BERNADETH.G68. FRANCIS RAMYA.V69. GONSOLA GRASIA.S70. LAVANYA.K71. RAJAVENI.S72. THARANI SREE.R73. RAJESWARI.S74. RAMACHANDRAN.VStudents sponsored by the Government under Single Window System1. Alamelu2. Kanimozhi.S.3. Manimozhi.T.4. Ambika. B5. Latha. G6. Shanthi.M7. Revathi.G8. Rathika.C.9. Jeyabharathi.B10.Hemalatha .V.11.Muniammal.P.12.Usha.G.13.Kalaivani.G.14.Jayalakshmi.M15.Sathiya.T. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.Karthika.A.17.Riswanaparveen.U.18.Arunadevi.K.19.Kalyani.S.19. The writ petitions W.P.Nos.31976 of 2007 and 21583 of 2007are ordered in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1and 1 of 2007 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarslTo1. The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai – 6.2. The Director of Government Examination, College Road, Chennai – 6.3. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education C.S.D. Building, H.M.T.Post, Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 031.5. The Member Secretary, National Council for TeacherEducation (NCTE), Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.6. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training G.Ariyur, Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram.+2ccs to Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, Advocate Sr 6192 & 6194+1cc to Mr.R.Kannan, Advocate Sr 6234+1cc to Mr.S.Silambanan, Advocate Sr 6164+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr 6257CU (CO)km/12.2.W.P.Nos.21583, 25927&31976/07& M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 2 of 2007