✦ High Court of India · 11 Jan 2008

Madrasdated High Court · 2008

Case Details High Court of India · 11 Jan 2008

Court

High Court of India

Decided

11 Jan 2008

Bench

Not available

Length

23,222 words

Acts & Sections

Committees shall strictly act within theambit of the National Council for TeacherEducation Act 1993 Constitution of India Indian Penal Code State Act 1993 TamilNadu Private Schools Regulation Act 1976

Cited in this judgment

ARIYALUR T.K. PERAMBALUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDNET C.BASKARBESANT EDUCATIONAL AND ... PETITIONER in WP No.27893 of 2007CULTURAL SOCIETY REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MRS.G. DHANALAKSHMI NE NO. 33 IST AVENUE BESANT NAGAR CHENNAI 600 090DGS TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.27929 of 2007INSTITUTE RU BY GUNA SEKARAN EDUCATINAL TRUST REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR. D. GUNASEKARANAMBALAVANAN NAGAR,HARICHANDRAPURAM VILLAGE THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT 63 210MODERN TEACHER TRAINING... PETITIONER in WP No.29262 of 2007 and 29256/07 INSTITUTE RUN BY PALANI ESWARI EDUCATIONAL TRUST REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.C.PALANIVEL NO.16 GOVT. HOSPITAL SOUTH LANE JAYANKONDAM PERAMBALUR DT.SRI JOTHI TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.27933 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY PROF. S. PARANJOTHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST REP. BY CORRESPONDENT MR. PARANJOTHI NO. 133 KATPADI VELLOREC.K.S.TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.28980 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY C.K.S. EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.75 R.S. ROAD GUDIYATHAM VELLORE DT REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN C.KUPPUSAMYVPN COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUC ... PETITIONER in WP No.27989 of 2007RUN BY VPN EDUCATIONL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REP.BY MANAGING TRUSTEE P.GOPINATH R.S.NO.208/3A 209/1&2 3&4 SEMMUDU VILLAGE NH-66A PUDUCHERRY KRISHNAGIRI ROAD VILLUPURAM DIST.J.K.TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE... PETITIONER in WP No.28288 of 2007RUN BY VEDASANDUR RAATIAMMAL AND RENGASAMY CHETTIAR TRUST 4/360 J.K.NAGAR DINDIGUL https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 624 001. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN R. KATHIRVELD.G.S. TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTEREP BY GUNASEKARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST REP BY ITS CHAIRMANDR. D. GUNASEKARANAMBALAVANAN NAGARHARICHANDRAPURAM VILLAGETHIRUVELANGADUTIRUVALLUR DISTRICT... PETITIONER IN W.P.28378/2007SRI DEVI TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.28382 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY SRI DEVI EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST REP.BY ITS CORRESPNDENT P. RAMESH KRISHNAPURAM PONNERI PIN-601 204.SRI BALAJI TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.28385 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY BALAJI TRUST REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT MR.M.PALANISAMY NO.10-2/26 SALEM MAIN ROAD CHINNA SALEM-606201.SAITHANI BI 1OO GIRLS TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.28390 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN BY AVALURPET MUSLIM MINORITY EDUCATIONAL TRUST REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT B. SARDAR AVALURPET POST GINGEEE TALUK VILLUPURAM DISTRICTD.K.T. TEACHER TRAINNG ... PETITIONER in WP No.28596 of 2007 INSTITUTE (WOMEN) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR. D. SOWKATH HAYATH KHAN AMARAVATHIPALAYAM PERUNTHOZHUVU POST TIRUPUR 641 665VICTORY TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.28936 of 2007INSTITUTE (MEN & WOMEN) RUN BY VICTORY EDUCATINAL TRUST KAMBILIAMPATTY (P.O) DINGIDUL(T.K) 624 306 TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDNETM. VADIVELSHREE RAMACHANDRA TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.29547 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE REP.BY ITS SECRETARY N.GAVASKAR AGGRAM KOOTU ROAD GURUVARAJAPALAYAM VELLORE DIST-632 107LITTLE FLOWER TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.29718 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN 682 LAWRENCE NAGAR MOULIVAKKAM PORUR CHENNAI-116. REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT A. LAWRENCE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KENNEDY TEACHER TRAINING... PETITIONER in WP No.30712, 30766 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY N.K. CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST REP BY ITS N. KRISHNAMOORTHY S.N. VILLAGE AGARAMCHERI POST VANIYAMBADI TK VELLORE DISTRICTHAJI S.M.S.SHAIK JALALUDEEN ... PETITIONER in WP No.31075 of 2007TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN BY SHADULI FAMILY PRIVATE LTD,ADIRAMA PATTINAM POST TRUST THANJAVUR REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT S.MOHAMMED MOHIDEENVAANI TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.31167 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN. BY VAANI EDUCATIONA TRUST INDRA NAGR CHETTIAPPANUR VILLAGE & POST VANIAMBADI 635 751. REP. BY ITS SECRETARYR. VIVEKANANDANVIGNESH TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.31188 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY VIGNESH EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.28 KALENDRA VILLAGE (JOLARPET) VANIYAMBADI TK VELLORE DT.- 635 751. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY J. Usha JayampathiAVMR TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.31257 of 2007INSTITUTE REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT M.AZHAGIRISWAMY SF.NO.383/1 NEAR CODISSIA FAIR GROUNDS PEELAMEDU COIMBATORE 641 004 COIMBATORE DISTRICTVALLALAR TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.31400 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY SRI MEENAKSHI MARGABANTHU PILLAI TRUST NO.12 5TH ST. PEERAM NAGAR GUDIYATHAM VELLORE DT-REP BY ITS CORRESPODENTM. RAMALINGAMSHRI SARASWATHI TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.31638 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN BY SHRI SARASWATHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST27 TALUK OFFICE ROAD THIRUVALLUR DIST REP. BY https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ITS SECRETARY S.ARIVAZHAGANMERCY TEACHER TRAINING INSTITU... PETITIONER in WP No.32037 of 2007RUN BY ALAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.16/4 PERIYA VANNIYA ST OPP. GANDHI PARK CHIDAMBARAM CUDDALORE DT. TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS CORRESPODENT K. MANISRI PASPO TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.32045 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY SRI PASPO EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST NO.16 SALEM MAIN ROAD DHARMAPURI REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT B. ANURADHAPUNITHA OHM TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.32214 of 2007 INSTITUTE RUN BY MUTHIAPILLAI MARIAMMAL EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST VELAYUTHAPURAM KOVILPATTI SATTUR ROAD TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN V.M. LAKSHMANAKPERUMALRAMAJAYAM TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.32327 of 2007INSTITUTE REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT PROF. P. MURUGESAN NATARAJAPURAM SOUTH THANJAVUR.MATHERI TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.33604 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY MATHERI CHARITY AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST 66/72 BAZAAR ST KAVERIPAKKAM VELLORE DT REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT P.G. JAYAPATHY.SRI AYYAPPA TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.33608 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN BY SRI AYYAPPA EDNL TRUST NO.16/1 2ND PANDIYAN ST TVK NAGAR PERNAMBUT VELLORE DT REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT L.SRINIVASANBISHOP PETER TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.33741 of 2007INSTITUTE FOR MEN REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDNET MR. T. RICHARD BASKARAN DEVANAMPATTINAM CUDDALORE 607 001STELLA MARYS TEACHER TRAINING .. PETITIONER in WP No.33864 of 2007INSTITUTE REP. BY ITS CORRESPODENT MR.M.J. JOHN NO. 215 ANNA SALAI NEXT TO RTO OFFICE THIRUVANNAMLAI - 606 601 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SEVEN HILLS COLLEGE OF ... PETITIONER in WP No.33984 of 2007EDUCATION RUN BY SEVEN HILLS TEACHERTRAINING EDUCATION TRUST REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN MRS.BPARAMESWARI VILLUPURAM MAIN ROAD KARUMBUR AND POST PUDUPETTAI VIA PANRUTI TK CUDDALORE.LEELA KALYAN TEACHERS TRAINING... PETITIONER in WP No.34001 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY HOLY ANGELS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY KRISHNAPURAM RETTANAI TINDIVANAM TK VILLUPURAM DT REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT MR.K. PALANIAPPANDEVAN TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.34163 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY DEVANAYAGI EDUCTNL TRUST ST. PAULS CAMPUS V.KOTTA ROAD PERNAMBUR VELLORE 635 810 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MRS. P. LILLY SHOBANACENTURY FOUNDATION TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.34498 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN BY CENTURY FOUNDATION EDUL TRUST 628/629 RACKIAPALAYAM NALLUR TIRUPUR REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT MRS.M. SAKTHI DEVISRI BALAJI TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.34932 of 2007INSTITUTE RUN BY TMT KANNAMMAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST ARCOT ROAD ACS NAGAR IRUMBEDU VILLAGE ARNI TK TIRUVANNAMALAI DT.REP BY ITS SECRETARY A.C. RAVISRI NATESANAR TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.34938 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN BY SRI NATESANAR EDUCATIONAL & SPECIAL TRUST SCHOOL ST VADAGAL THIRUVALAM POST WALAJA TK VELLORE DT.REP BY ITS SECRETARYN. CHANTHRASEKARANINDIAN INSTITUTE OF TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.35063 of 2007TRAINIGN REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDNT NO. 51/2A KATPADI THIRUVALAM ROAD KATPADI TALUK VELLORE DISTRICT 632 014SHRI BHARATHI TEACHER TRAINING... PETITIONER in WP No.35344 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ INSTITUTE REP. BY ITS JOINT SECRETRAY J. MOHAN 4/630 SCHOOLGIRI BYE PASS ROAD KRISHNAGIRI DT.ST.JOHN BOSCO TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.35797 of 2007 INSTITUTE KANDACHIPURAM 605 701 VILLUPURAM DIST REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT D.J.ANTONY RAJCSSR TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.35798 of 2007INSTITUTE MURUGHABHAVANAM PALANI ROAD DINDIGUL REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT T.S.DHANDEESWARANMEENAKSHMI TEACHER ... PETITIONER in WP No.36194 of 2007TRAINING INSTITUTE REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDNET MR. V. PANIMUTHU NO. 60 KAMARAJAR SALAI CHINNA THIRUPATHI SALEM -8ANNAI TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.36958 of 2007RUN BY ANNAI CHARITABLE TRUST REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE B. LAKSHMIPATHI RAJ NO. 46/2 RGALBAVI PRIVU POLLACHI MAIN ROAD UDUMALPETTHE BEST TEACHER TRAINING ... PETITIONER in WP No.37555 of 2007INSITUTE RUN BY BHAVANI EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE P. NATARAJAN 5/491-496 BHAVANI POST ERODE TK AND DISTRICTSRI RANGAPOOPATHI EDUCATIONAL ... PETITIONER in WP No.35476 of 2007AND CHARITABLE TRUST REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND CORRESPONDENT R.POOPATHI NO.17 I ST RAJA DESINGH NAGAR GINGEETHIRUMATHI RAJAMMA PERUMAL ... PETITIONER in WP No.35182 of 2007EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.SIVAGNANAM 558 PERUMAL NAGAR VANIYAMBADI ROAD TIRUPATTUR VELLORE DT.VsThe State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ School Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai 9...1st Respondent in WP.20569/07, 25943/07, 25998/07, 26003/07, 26006/07, 26011/07, 26012/07,26013/07, 26014/07, 26015/07, 26212/07, 26361/07, 26467/07, 26469/07, 26547/07, 26556/07, 26591/07, 26683/07, 26686/07, 26690/07, 26693/07, 26697/07, 26813/07, 26814/07, 27035/07, 27053/07, 27153/07, 27211/07, 27214/07, 27234/07, 27270/07, 27404/07, 27407/07, 27468/07, 27604/07, 27616/07, 27662/07, 27751/07, 27929/07, 29262/07...1st Respondent in WP.No.29256/07, 27933/07, 27989/07, 28288/07,28378/07, 28382/07, 28385/07,28390/07, 28596/07, 29718/07,29547/07, 29715/07, 30712/07,30766/07, 31257/07, 32327/07,33741/07, 33864/07 33984/07,34001/07, 35063/07 35344/07,33797/07, 35798/07, 36194/07,35476/07, 35182/07...2nd Respondent in WP.20882/07, 24058/07, 24059/07, 26643/07, 27395/07, 27696/07, 27743/07, 33864/07...3rd Respondent in WP.No.27856/07, 28980/07, 28288/07, 28936/07, 31075/07, 31167/07, 31188/07, 31400/07, 31638/07, 32037/07, 32045, 32214/07, 33604, 33608, 34498, 34163, 34932,34938, 36958, 37555/07The Director of Teacher Education,Research and Training, College Road,Chennai 6. ..1st Respondent in WP.20882/07, 24058/07, 24059/07, 26643/07, 26683/07, 27395/07, 27696/07,27893/07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ..2nd Respondent in WP.20569/07, 25943/07, 25998/07, 26003/07, 26006/07, 26011/07, 26012/07,26013/07, 26014/07, 26015/07, 26212/07, 26013/07, 26014/07,26015/07, 26212/07, 26361/07,26467/07, 26469/07, 26547/07,26556/07, 26591/07, 26686/07, 26690/07, 26693/07, 26697/07,26813/07, 26814/07, 27035/07, 27653/07, 27153/07, 27211/07, 27214/07, 27234/07, 27270/07, 27404/07, 27407/07, 27468/07, 27604/07, 27616/07, 27662/07, 27743/07, 27751/07, 27929/07, 29262/07, 29256/07, 27933/07, 27989/07, 28378/07, 28382/07, 28385/07, 28390/07, 28596/07, 29547/07...2nd Respondent in WP.No.29718/07, 30712/07, 30766/07, 31257/07, 32327/07, 33741/07, 33864/07, 33984/07, 34001/07, 35063/07, 35344/07, 35797/07, 35798/07, 36194/07, 35476/07, 35182/07...4th Respondent in wp.27856/07, 28980/07, 28288/07, 28936/07, 31075/07, 31167/07, 31188/07, 31400/07,31638/07, 32037/07,32045/07, 32214/07,33604/07, 33608/07, 34163/07, 34498/07,34932/07, 34938/07, 37555/07.The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training Thiroor, Thiruvallur District...2nd Respondent in WP.27893/07...3rd Respondent in WP.20882/07.The Principal,District Institute of Education,Kurukkuthi,Nagapattinam District...3rd Respondent in WP.24058/07,24059/07, 26643/07, 27696/07.The Principal,District Institute of Education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and Training[DIET]Aduthurai, Thanjavur District...3rd Respondent in WP.No.32327/07.The Director,Government Examination,DPI Compound, Chennai 6...4th Respondent in WP.No.32327/07.The Principal,District Institute of Teacher Training,Ranipet, Vellore District...3rd Respondent in WP.No.35182/07.The National Council for Teachers Education,rep. by its Member Secretary,Hans Bhavan, New Delhi...3rd Respondent in WP.25943/07, 25998/07, 35063/07, 27468/07, 28980/07.1st Respondent in WP.No.27856/07, 28288/07,28936/07, 31075/07, 31167/07, 31188/07, 31400/07, 31638/07, 32037/07, 32214/07, 32045/07, 33604/07, 33608/07, 34163/07, 34498/07, 34932/07, 34938/07, 36958/07, 37555/07.The Regional Director, National council for Teacher Education,Southern Regional committee,I Floor, CSD Complex,HMT Township, Bangalore 31...4th Respondent in WP.25943/07 25998/07, 27468/07, 35063/07, 35182/07...3rd Respondent in WP.26003/07, 26006/07,26011/07, 26012/07, 26013/07, 26014/07,26015/07, 26212/07, 26361/07, 26467/07,26469/07, 26547/07, 26556/07, 26591/07,26683/07, 26686/07, 26690/07, 26693/07,26697/07, 26813/07, 26814/07, 27035/07,27053/07, 27153/07, 27211/07, 27214/07,27234/07, 27270/07, 27404/07, 27604/07,27616/07, 27743/07, 27751/07, 27929/07,29262/07, 29256/07, 27933/07, 27989/07,28378/07, 28382/07, 28385/07, 28390/07,29718/07, 29715/07, 30712/07, 30766/07,33741/07, 33864/07, 33984/07, 34001/07,35344/07, 35797/07, 35798/07, 36194/07,35476/07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ..2nd Respondent in WP.No.27856/07, 28980/07, 28288/07, 28936/07, 31075/07, 31167/07, 31188/07, 31400/07, 31638/07, 32037/07, 32045/07, 34498/07, 33604/07,33608/07, 34163/07, 34498/0734932/07, 34938/07, 36958/07 and 37555/07.Petition presented to this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari 1) to call for therecords from the impugned order passed by the Ist respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 108 School Education (VI) Department dated 17.5.2007 (Annexe)and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent in Na. Ka. No.7707/E3/2007 dated 1.6.2007 quash the same in WP. No. 28596/07,35344/07.(a) as far as it relates to the implementation of rule ofreservation in the petitioners institution. (WP.No. 20569/2007)(b) as unjust, arbitrary Void, unworkable and unconstitutional inso far as it relates to the petitioner (WP 25943/2007, 25998/07,27468/07, 35063/07)2) Call for the records of the 2nd respondent in G.O.Ms.No.108School Education Department (VI) dated 17.5.2007 and quash the same asultravires and unconstitutional and not valid and binding and directthe respondents herein not to interfere with the admission process asper the said G.O.(W.P. 20882/07, WP. No. 27395/07, 27696/07).3) calling for the records pertaining to the order of the Istrespondent in G.O.Ms.108 School education (VI) Department dated17.5.2007 in respect of the Calender Activities for DT.Ed., Course forthe academic year 2007-2008 and quash the same WP.26003/07, 26006/07,26212/07, 26361/07, 26467/07, 24669/07, 27035/07, 27214/07, 27234/07,27604/07, 27743/07, 29262/07, 27933/07, 27989/07, 28378/07, 28382/07,28385/07, 28390/07, 30766/07, 33984/07, 35797/07, 35798/07.4) Calling for the records of the Ist respondent dated 17.5.2007in G.O.Ms.108 School Education (VI) Department and the consequentialOrder of the 2nd respondent dated 1.6.2007 in Na.Ka.No. 7707/E3/ 2007and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner.(WP. No.26011/07, 26012/07, 26013/07, 26014/07, 26015/07, 26547/07, 26556/07,26591/07, 27153/07, 27211/07, 27404/07, 27407/07, 27662/07, 29547/07,29718/07, 31257/07.II(b) Calling for the records pertaining to the Department dated17.5.2007 and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7707/E3/2007 dated 1.6.2007 and quash the same and direct therespondents not to insist the petitioner institute to follow thereservation.4)Policy of the Government in the matter of admission underManagement quota for Diploma in Teacher Education Course from theacademic year 2007 - 2008. WP.Nos. 26683/07, 26686/07, 26690/07,26693/07, 26697/07, 26813/07, 26814/07, 27053/07, 27270/07, 27616/07,27751/07, 27929/07, 29256/07, 30712/07, 33741/07, 33864/07, 34001/07,35476/07, 35182/07.II Certiorarified Mandamus:------------------------------ 1) to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in G.O.Ms.108School Education Department(VI) dated 17.5.2007 and quash the same asultravires and unconstitutional and not valid and binding and directthe respondents herein not to interfere with the admission process asper the said G.O. (WP.No. 24058/07) 24059/07, 26643/07. 2) call for the records from the 3rd respondent in the impugnedG.O.Ms.No. 108/ School Education (VI) Department dated 17.5.2007issued by the 3rd respondent and the consequential impugned Proceedingsin Na. Ka. No. 7707/E3/2007.3. Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus W.P.No. 32327/07:-------------------------------------------------- Calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining of theproceeding No. Na. Ka. 14228/E1/2007 dated 23.8.2007 and quash thesame and to direct the respondent to approve the list of facultysubmitted by the petitioners institute.4. Calling for the records relating to the order in G.O. Ms. No. 108Education Department dated 17.5.2007 passed by the First Respondentand quash the para B (and C) of the Annexure to the above G.O. Andfurther direct the 2nd respondent to approve the academic year 2006-2007 in WP.No. 36194/07.5. Calling for the records of the 3rd respondent herein inimpugned G.O. In G.O. No. 108, School Education (VI) Department dated17.5.2007 and the Consequential Proceedings in Na. Ka. No.7707/E3/2007 dated 01.06.2007 issued by the 4th respondent herein andquash the same in so far it relates to the petitioner institution isconcerned and consequently direct the respondents to give approval tothe students list sent on 12.12.2007 in WP. No. 37555/2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ III Writ of Mandamus:----------------------- Directing the Ist Respondent to approve the staff list for 2007-208 for the DT. Ed., Course (Telugu Medium) by applying G.O. Ms.No.108, dated 17.5.2007 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent toreceive the students list and approve the same for the said yearwithin the time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. (WP. No.27893)6) dated 01.06.2007 issued by the 4th respondent quash the same inso for it relates to the petitioner in WP.No.27856/07, 28980/07 andWP. No. 28288/07, 28936/07, 31075/07, 31167/07, 31188/07, 31400/07,31638/07, 32037/07, 32045/07, 32314/07, 33604/07, 33608/07, 34163/07,34498/07, 34932/07, 34938/07, 36958/07.Appearance for the Petitioner:------------------------------- ORDER: These petitions coming on for hearing on this day upon perusingthe petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and uponhearing the arguments of Mr. N.R. Chandran, Senior Standing counselfor Mr. B.Babu Manohar, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP.No. 20569,27856/07, 28980/07, 28288/07, 28936/07, 31075/07, 31167/07, 31188/07,31400/07, 31638/07, 32037/07, 32045/07, 32214/07, 33604/07, 33608/07,34163/07, 34498/07, 34932/07 and 34938/07 and of Mr. G.L. Ramashankar,Advocates for the petitioner in WP.No. 20882/07, 24058/07, 24089/07,26643/07, 27395/07, and WP.No. 27696/07 and Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy,Senior Standing Counsel for Mr.R. Sureshkumar, Advocate for thepetitioner in WP. Nos. 25943/07, 25998/07, 27468/07, and WP.No.35063/07.Of Mr. M. Hidayathullah Khan Advocate for the petitioner in WPs.26003of 2007, WP.26006 of 2007, WP.26212 of 2007, 26361/2007, 26467/2007,26469/2007, 26683/2007, 26686/2007, 26690/2007, 26693/2007,26697/2007, 26813/2007, 26814/2007, 27035/2007, 27053/2007,27153/2007, 27211/2007, 27214/2007, 27234/2007, 27270/07, 27604/2007,27616/2007, 27743/2007, 27751/2007, 27929/07, 29262/2007, 29256/2007,27933/2007, 27989/2007, 28378/2007, 28382/2007, 28385/2007,28390/2007, 30712/2007, 30766/07, 33741/07, 33864/07, 33984/07 andWP.34001/2007.Of Mr. K. Selvaraj Advocate for the petitioner in Wps. 26011/2007,26012/2007, 26613/2007, 26014/2007, 26025/2007, 26547/2007,26556/2007, 26591/07, 27404/2007, 27407/2007, 28596/07, 29547/2007WP.31257/2007Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy Sr. Council for the petitioner of Mr. A. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Jenasenan Advocate for the petitioner in WP.27662 of 2007 andWP.32327/07of Mr. A. Sivaji Advocate for the petitioner in WP.27893/2007of Mr. V. Ramajegadeesan, Advocate for the petitioner in WP.29718/2007of Mrs. Javid Khan & Sivaraj, Advocate for the petitioner in WP.35344of 2007of Mr. R. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner in WP.35797 and35798 of 2007of MR. S. James Advocate for the petitioner in WP.36194 of 2007of Mr. K. Soundararajan, Advocate for the petitioner in WP.36958 of2007 and WP.37555 of 2007of Mr. P. Srinivasan, Advocate for the petitioner in WP.35476 of 2007and WP.35182 of 2007For respondents: Mr.N.Kannadasan Additional Advocate General III assisted by Mr.G.Sankaran Spl.Govt.Pleader (Education) and Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy Government Advocate (Education) Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy for NCTE Mr.P.R.Gopinathan for NCTE..COMMON ORDERIn these batch of writ petitions the Self Financing PrivateTeacher Training Institutes have challenged the validity of theimpugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.108 School Education (U1)Department dated 17.05.2007 and the consequential proceedings of theDirector of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai asunjust, arbitrary, void, unworkable and unconstitutional in so far asthey relate to the petitioners as well as the members of thepetitioner Association.2. The impugned Government Order passed by the State Governmentwhile prescribing guidelines for admission of students from theacademic year 2007-2008 in the Diploma in Teacher Education has issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directions in the following lines:(i)granted permission to fill up the Government quota seatsunder Single Window System in four centres at Chennai;(ii)The academic year for the Diploma in Teacher Education isfrom July to June;(iii)The calendar of activities for the Diploma in TeachersTraining as mentioned in the Annexure to the GovernmentOrder has to be followed from the academic year 2007-2008,unless specific changes are required during the comingacademic years.3. The said impugned Government Order contains an Annexure, inwhich it is stated that as per G.O.(1D)No.111 School Education (U1)Department dated 17.07.2003, reservation by subject-wise, communal-wise and special reservation shall be continued to be followed. Thereservation under the said three categories are, 1.Subjectwise reservation: (i)out of total number of seats, 50% shall be filled up fromstudents of Science faculties in +2 Examinations;(ii)25% of students to be filled up from students of Artsfaculties in +2 Examinations;(iii)25% of students to be filled up from students of Vocationalfaculties in +2 Examinations.Under this category, there is a note to the effect that in the caseof Anglo-Indian Teacher Training Schools, if students are notavailable as per the preparation, the seats can be filled up onmerit without following subjectwise reservation.2.Communal Reservation:(i) Scheduled Castes: 18%(ii)Scheduled Tribes: 1%(iii)Most Backward Class: 20%(iv)Backward Class: 30%(v)Open category : 31%3.Special Reservation: To be filled up on horizontal basis.(i) persons with disability (as per the District Medical BoardCertificate) : 3% under the Single Window System;(ii) Children of Ex-Servicemen: 132 seats;(iii)Legal heirs of Freedom fighters: 28 seats.It is also stated in Clause IV of the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.108 thatin respect of the Unaided Non-minority Private EducationalInstitutions, while admitting students under the Management quota, thepolicy of reservation of the State Government as per Tamil NaduBackward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservationof seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or posts inthe Services) under the State Act, 1993 (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has to be followed. However, in respect of Unaided MinorityInstitutions, the reservation is not insisted.4. The last clause in the Annexure relates to the calendar ofactivities to be followed from 2007-2008. According to it,(i)Diploma in Teacher Training School -- academic year is from July toJune;(ii)Self Financing Teacher Training Teachers list approval –- lastdate would be 20th of June every year;(iii)Advertisement in newspapers, printing and sale of applications,receipt of applications, registration of applications, preparationof merit list and communication to students for counselling underSingle Window System -- all should be done between first week of Mayand second week of June;(iv)Proceedings to admit students under Single Window System – shouldbe done from third week of June to First Week of July;(v)Applications to be issued to the students under Management quota inrespect of Self Financing Aided Teacher Training Schools –- in Junefirst week;(vi)Beginning of classes for Teacher Training Institutes "includingSelf Financing and Aided Teacher Training Schools" -- should be witheffect from third week of July;(vii)Last date for admission of students (including Self Financing andAided Teacher Training Schools) -– July 31st;(viii)Last date for approval of students under Management quota -–August 31st;(ix)Observation and teaching practice -– October till the end ofNovember;(x)Internal assessment -- from March to April;(xi)Public Examination –- in June.5. It is further stated in the said annexure that no Institutioncan be started without approval from Southern Regional Council(SRC) ofthe National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and over and abovethe students strength that is approved by the NCTE shall not beadmitted. It is further stated that as per the orders of the SouthernRegional Council of National Council for Teacher Education, theapproval of teachers must be obtained from the Director of TeacherEducation, Research and Training, Chennai before admission ofstudents. It is further stated that in respect of institutions whichhave obtained conditional recognition from NCTE for 2007-2008, afterthe teachers list is approved by the Director of Teacher Education,Research and Training and if the unconditional approval of NCTE isobtained, if only from 20th June, students can be admitted in thatacademic year, if the unconditional recognition is obtained beyond 20thJune, the students can be admitted only in the next academic year. Itis also further stated that students shall not be admitted beyond 31stJuly reiterating that July to June shall be treated as academic yearfor Diploma in Teacher Training courses provided the total number of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ working days would be 220 days.6. Broadly speaking, the said impugned Government Order is madeapplicable to Self Financing Non-minority Teacher TrainingInstitutions and also the Aided Private, Government Minority and Non-minority, Unaided minority institutions. Three conditions which areunder challenge in these writ petitions are:(i) (a) Subjectwise reservation in filling up the seats in theDiploma in Teacher Training courses, viz., 50% from Science groupstudents; 25% from Arts group students and 25% from Vocational groupstudents. The said classification is challenged by the petitioners onthe ground that it is beyond the competency of the State Government toimpose such condition since the Central recognising /approving body,viz., National Council for Teacher Education has not insisted suchcondition while granting approval by virtue of the powers under Entry66 List I of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India and therefore,the field is occupied by the Union of India and the order passed bythe State Government, contrary to the same, is illegal and ultravires. The petitioners have relied upon various judgements of theSupreme Court in challenging the subjectwise reservation including thejudgement of the Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra vs.Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shatra Mahavindyalaya [2006 (9) SCC 1] andthe judgement of this Court in Self Financing Private Teacher TrainingInstitutes Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2006 (4) MLJ 1477]. (b) That apart, it is the case of the petitioners that suchrestriction will amount to interfering with the right of SelfFinancing Institutions to administer, which includes admission, byplacing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.PaiFoundation case (2002) 8 SCC 481 and the latest Supreme courtjudgement in P.A.Inamdar case(2005) 6 SCC 537 . (c) It is the further contention of the petitioners as submittedby the learned senior counsel Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy and Mr.N.R.Chandranand Mr.K.Selvaraj and other counsel that even otherwise, when theAnnexure to the Government Order gives exemption to Anglo-IndianSchools from following the subjectwise reservation, the same shouldnot be denied to the petitioners and therefore, the Government Orderis arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.It is their submission that as long as the admissions are madetransparently in a non-arbitrary manner and non-exploitative nature,it is not open to the State Government to impose such unreasonableconditions.(ii) As far as the next condition under the impugned GovernmentOrder, viz., imposing of communal reservation is concerned, it is thecase of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well asother counsel that the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation andP.A.Inamdar cases has clearly held that insisting of such reservation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ policy in respect of admission of students in the Self Financing Non-minority and Minority Institutions is ultra vires. It is also theirsubmission that when the Government of Tamil Nadu filed reviewpetition in the said P.A.Inamdar case, basing reliance on the TamilNadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointmentsor posts in the Services) Act, 1993 (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994), thereview petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the DivisionBench judgement of this Court approving the conduct of the Governmentin imposing policy of reservation was stayed and in fact, the largerissue about the reservation is pending before the Apex Court. It isalso the submission of the learned senior counsel that as it hashappened in the case of B.Ed. Colleges before this Court in TamilNadu Self Financing Colleges of Education Management Association(Regd.) rep. by its President R.Tamil Mani and others vs. State ofTamil Nadu and others (2007 (6) MLJ 478), if the petitionersvoluntarily desire to follow the reservation, it is open to them to dothe same.(iii) The last point is about the validity of the schedule statedto be the calendar of activity from the year 2007-2008, especiallywith reference to admission for the year 2007-2008. According to thepetitioners, as submitted by the learned senior counsel and otherrespective counsel, even for the academic year 2006-2007, theGovernment itself has extended the period of approval of admission ofstudents upto 30.11.2006 and in respect of approval of teachers, whichwas originally fixed as 20.11.2006 as last date has been subsequentlyextended upto 09.03.2007 as per G.O.(2D)No.7 School Education (U1)Department dated 09.02.2007 and therefore, when for the 2006-2007itself the schedule has not been followed by the respondents and NCTEhas granted approval throughout the year, fixing of the calendar for2007-2008 in the manner stated in the impugned Government Order as perthe Annexure is unworkable. It is also their contention that whenthis Court has given judgement in W.P.No.47503 of 2006 based on whichthe impugned Government Order stated to have been passed by fixing thecalendar of activities, the last date for approval of teachers wasstated as 20.11.2006, based on which the order came to be passed,however, even before the said order was passed, the date of approvalof teachers has been extended upto 09.03.2007 and therefore, accordingto the learned counsel for the petitioners it is not the intention ofthe Government to follow the schedule. Further, though the approvalof teachers was extended upto 09.03.2007 for the academic year 2006-2007, but the students were permitted to be admitted upto 30.11.2006,which is before the date of approval of teachers, and hence, theunderstanding of the Government is that the students should bepermitted to be admitted even before the approval of teachers andtherefore, according to the learned counsel, approval of teachers bythe Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, is only anempty formality. The NCTE, the authority for recognition which has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prescribed qualifications for the teachers, has perused the entirerecords relating to the teachers appointed by the Institutionsbefore granting approval and therefore, the approval by the StateGovernment is only in the form of verification of the correctness ofthe particulars furnished by the Managements to the NCTE and even inthe event of the State Government finding some discrepancy in respectof the particulars, it is only open to the State Government to informthe same to the NCTE and the State Government of its own, cannot takeany action regarding the cancellation of approval, etc., It is theirfurther submission that incorporating such Schedule is not within thepowers of the State Government. According to the learned counsel,when the Central authority by exercising its powers of maintainingcoordination and standard as per the provisions of the Constitution ofIndia has granted approval by referring the list of teachers appointedby the Managements after verifying that possess the necessaryqualifications prescribed by the NCTE in its regulations, there isabsolutely no necessity for the State Government to once againapprove the list, and therefore, the Schedule which is annexed to theGovernment Order dealing with the approval of list of teachers isreally a transgression of powers of the Central Government. It isalso insisted by the learned counsel that the Appendix to theregulations of the NCTE does not only give the details about thequalifications required for the appointment of persons as Teachers inthe Diploma course in Teacher Education along with experience, etc.,but it also fixes norms and standards apart from directing theManagement to file affidavit about the correctness of the particularsfurnished and that as per the latest regulations, it is incumbent onthe part of the Management to put all the particulars in Website andtherefore, it becomes transparent to everybody and in such a situationthe question of State Government approving the list of Teachersappointed by the Management does not arise. It is their furthercontention that after the latest regulations of the NCTE of the year2005, there is no delegation of powers to the State Government and atthe most, the State Government can only be a verifying authority,because the NCTE has granted unconditional approval by accepting thedecision of this Court in W.P.No.15177 of 2007.7. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel in addition to thecontention of Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel wouldsubmit that in the subjectwise reservation, which is equivalent toregional selection, the chance of meritorious candidates is minimum aspersons with lesser marks in different streams like, Arts andVocational studies are able to get admission under 25% category ofreservation, which will be a gross discrimination against themeritorious students. He would also submit that as far as thecommunal reservation is concerned, in the review petition inP.A.Inamdar case the Supreme Court dismissed the claim of the StateGovernment made on the basis of Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 andtherefore, the State Government is estopped from raising the issue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ again. It is his further contention that in respect of the Scheduleof activities, apart from infringing the powers of the Central body,it is purely without any reason, for, according to the learned seniorcounsel, among the professional courses, the Teacher Training Courseis in fact the last resort and therefore, the last date for admissionof students by third week of July is practically impossible. Further,the Schedule of activities was not incorporated in consultation withthe NCTE at all. According to the learned senior counsel, even theFirst Year examinations for the candidates admitted in the year 2006-2007 have not been scheduled by the respondents, who are admittedlythe examining body and admission for 2007-2008 is yet to be completedand the respondents themselves have not followed the scheme aspropounded in the impugned Government Order.8. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.N.Kannadasan,learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents thatthe State Government being the examining body as per the NCTE Act,should be treated as affiliating body. He would also refer to variousprovisions of the NCTE Act to contend that the Act itself empowers theState Government to lay down norms and standards in consultation withthe Central Government. He would further refer to the admissionprocedure found in the approval letter of the NCTE wherein it isclearly stated that the selection process of the students must bebased on the policy of the State Government. He would also submitthat the latest resolution passed by the NCTE based on the orders ofthis Court in W.P.No.15177 of 2007 itself would recognise the statusof the State as examining body. According to the learned AdditionalAdvocate General, the conduct of the State Government by incorporatingthe schedule to the impugned Government Order is in consonance withthe NCTE regulations and it is not in derogation of the Centrallegislation as well as the regulations made by the NCTE. He wouldsubmit that it is true that under Entry 66 List I of Seventh Schedule,the Central agency is the authority, but, by virtue of Entry No.25 inList III (concurrent list) of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution ofIndia, the State Government has the role to play while admittingstudents as examining body which cannot be said to be contrary to theprovisions of the NCTE Act. According to him, no one of theprovisions of the impugned Government Order is in violation of theNCTE Act. He would further submit that the Central authority, NCTE,has never raised objection about the Government Order and hence, it isnot open to the petitioners to raise the same.9. According to the learned Additional Advocate General when theState Government has not framed any Scheme based on the NCTE Act asexamining body for the purpose of conducting the examinations bringingout the syllabus prescribing the term, days, etc., the GovernmentOrders passed have to be treated as a proper guideline. He wouldsubmit that fixing of academic year from June to July in the impugnedGovernment Order in normal understanding of any person would make no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ difference. He would submit that as far as the academic year 2006-2007 is concerned, some problems were created not because of therespondent, but partly because of NCTE in granting recognitionthroughout the year and also because of the grievance raised by theprivate Management like the petitioners, and therefore, variousGovernment Orders were issued extending the time for approval ofteachers and admission of students in the Institutions for theacademic year 2006-2007. He would submit that as an agency, which isnot unconnected with the conducting of private educationalinstitutions, the State Government cannot stand as a passive spectatorwhen the unscrupulous Managements, by giving false information to theNCTE, are obtaining approval and proceeding to commence classeswithout qualifying teachers, which will certainly affect the standardof students in the State of Tamil Nadu and the State Government isentitled to see that the academic career of students should be broughtup in a proper manner. He would also submit that in respect of thenewly recognised institutions only the extension of date for admissionas well as approval of teachers has been given. Unless and until theteachers list is approved by the State Government as per the directionof the NCTE, such institutions are not entitled to admit any students.According to the learned Additional Advocate General, it is true thatif any deficiency is found, it will be reported to the NCTE for properaction, but no one can compel the State Government to give approval tothe teachers when the State authority has found that there is patentviolation of norms prescribed by the NCTE in respect of qualificationof teaches. It is his contention that it is strange to say that evenbefore the approval of teachers with necessary qualifications, theinstitutions can admit students, which is antithesis to the concept ofeducation itself.10. I have heard the learned senior counsel and other counsel forthe respective petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate Generalfor the respondents and perused the entire records.11. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel,it can be categorised that the impugned Government Order is challengedon three grounds, viz.,(i) Subjectwise allotment of seats in respect of Unaided institutionsby directing 50% of the seats to be allotted to the science students;25% to be allotted to Arts students and the remaining 25% to beallotted to the vocational stream students is ultra vires;(ii) The communal reservation by directing Self Financing Non-minorityTeacher Educational Institutions to follow the policy of reservationin the following manner, viz.,(a)Scheduled castes: 18%(b)Scheduled Tribes: 2%(c)Most Backward Class: 20%(d)Backward Class: 30% and(e)Open category: 31%, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is illegal;(iii) The calendar of activity by fixing dates for admission etc., tobe followed from 2007-2008, is not practicable, and therefore,illegal.12. Out of the three grounds raised by the petitioners, inrespect of the challenge on the basis of communal reservation, in abatch of writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.37233 of 2006 etc., batch,wherein G.O.Ms.(1D)No.226 School Education (U1) Department dated28.08.2006, in which the policy of reservation of the State Governmentwas directed to be followed in respect of admission of students inTeacher Training Institutions, was challenged and based on thejudgement of the Apex Court, especially in P.A.Inamdar vs. State ofMaharashtra (2005 (6) SCC 537), this Court has held that suchreservation is not permissible in respect of admission of students inthe private Self Financing Non-minority Institutions. In that case,it was held that in the event of the respective Institutions intendingto follow the rule of reservation, there is no bar. In this case alsoas fairly submitted by the learned senior counselMr.R.Muthukumarasamy, it is left open to the petitioner Institutionsto follow the said principle of reservation. In view of the same, noseparate order is necessary as far as this issue is concerned and theorder passed in the above batch of cases shall be binding.13. Therefore, the only other two issues to be considered inthese batch of writ petitions are,(i) Subjectwise reservation; and(ii) Calendar of activities to be followed from the year 2007-2008onwards.14. Before adverting the above said points, it is relevant topoint out some of the provisions of the National Council for TeacherEducation Act,1993. The said Act has been passed by the Government ofIndia under Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule tothe Constitution of India. The said Entry 66 reads as follows:"66. Co-ordination and determination of standardsin institutions for higher education or researchand scientific and technical institutions."By virtue of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, whichcame into effect from 03.1.1977, Entry No.11 of List II (State List)was omitted. After the said Constitutional Amendment, Entry No.25 ofList III (Concurrent List) stands as follows:"25. Education, including technical education,medical education and universities, subject to theprovisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I;vocational and technical training of labour." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, the provision regarding "Co-ordination and determinationof standards in institutions for higher education or research andscientific and technical institutions" always remains within thepurview of the Parliament either before or after the 42nd Amendment.Even as per Entry No.25 of List III, the same is made subject to EntryNo.66 of List I. Therefore, it is clear that the legislation withregard to the Co-ordination and determination of standards ininstitutions for higher education or research and scientific andtechnical institutions is always within the domain of the Parliament.15. The National Council for Teacher Education Act,1993 (inshort, "NCTE" Act) has been enacted by the Parliament with a view toachieving planned and coordinated development of Teacher Educationalsystem throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenanceof norms and standards in the teacher education system and the mattersconnected therewith. The said Act defines the term "TeacherEducation" in Section 2(l) as follows:"2(l) "teacher education" means programmes ofeducation, research or training of persons forequipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary,secondary and senior secondary stages in schoolsand includes non-formal education, part-timeeducation, adult education and correspondenceeducation."Therefore, "teacher education" includes the Diploma as well as Degreein Teacher education. 16. The term "examining body" is defined under Section 2(d) ofthe NCTE Act, as follows:"2(d)"examining body" means a University,agency or authority in which an institution isaffiliated for conducting examinations in teachereducation qualifications."17. The term "University" is defined under Section 2(n), whichruns as under:"2(n)."University" means a University definedunder clause (f) of Section 2 of University GrantsCommission Act,1956, and includes an institutiondeemed to be a University under section 3 of thatAct."While Chapter II provides for Establishment of the Council, ChapterIII deals with the functions to be performed by the Council. Section20 of the Act which is in Chapter V deals with the creation ofRegional Committees to be constituted by the National Council forTeacher Education, created as per Section 3(1) of the NCTE Act. Thesaid Regional Committees are: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) the Eastern Regional Committee;(ii)the Western Regional Committee;(iii)the Northern Regional Committee; and(iv)the Southern Regional Committee.Chapter IV of the NCTE Act deals with Recognition of TeacherEducational Institutions. Sections 14, 15 and 16 deal with procedureto be followed for granting recognition, permission for starting newcourse or training by recognised institutions and powers of theaffiliating body to grant affiliation. The said sections are asfollows:"Section 14.(1) Every institution offering orintending to offer a course or training in teachereducation on or after the appointed day, may, forgrant of recognition under this Act, make anapplication to the Regional Committee concerned insuch form and in such manner as may be determinedby regulations:Provided that an institution offering acourse or training in teacher educationimmediately before the appointed day, shall beentitled to continue such course or training for aperiod of six months, if it has made anapplication for recognition within the said periodand until the disposal of the application by theRegional Committee.(2) The fee to be paid along with theapplication under sub-section (1) shall be such asmay be prescribed.(3) On receipt of an application by theRegional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from theinstitution concerned such other particulars as itmay consider necessary, it shall,-(a) if it is satisfied that such institutionhas adequate financial resources, accommodation,library, qualified staff, laboratory and that itfulfils such other conditions required for properfunctioning of the institution for a course ortraining in teacher education, as may bedetermined by regulations, pass an order grantingrecognition to such institution, subject to suchconditions as may be determined by regulations; or(b) if it is of the opinion that suchinstitution does not fulfil the requirements laiddown in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusingrecognition to such institution for reasons to berecorded in writing: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that before passing an order undersub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shallprovide a reasonable opportunity to the concernedinstitution for making a written representation.(4) Every order granting or refusingrecognition to an institution for a course ortraining in teacher education under sub-section(3) shall be published in the Official Gazette andcommunicated in writing for appropriate action tosuch institution and to the concerned examiningbody, the local authority or the State Governmentand the Central Government.(5) Every institution, in respect of whichrecognition has been refused shall discontinue thecourse or training in teacher education from theend of the academic session next following thedate of receipt of the order refusing recognitionpassed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt ofthe order under sub-section (4),-(a) grant affiliation to theInstitution, where recognition has been granted;or(b) cancel the affiliation of theInstitution, where recognition has been refused.15. (1) Where any recognised Institutionintends to start any new course or training inteacher education, it may make an application toseek permission therefor to the Regional Committeeconcerned in such form and in such manner as maybe determined by regulations.(2) The fees to be paid along with theapplication under sub-section (1) shall be such asmay be prescribed.(3) On receipt of an application from aninstitution under sub-section (1), and afterobtaining from the recognised institution suchother particulars as may be considered necessary,the Regional Committee shall,-(a) if it is satisfied that suchrecognised institution has adequate financialresources, accommodation, library, qualifiedstaff, laboratory and that it fulfils such otherconditions required for proper conduct of the newcourse or training in teacher education, as may bedetermined by regulations, pass an order grantingpermission, subject to such conditions as may bedetermined by regulation; or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) if it is of the opinion that suchinstitution does not fulfil the requirements laiddown in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusingpermission to such institution, for reasons to berecorded in writing:Provided that before passing an orderrefusing permission under sub-clause (b), theRegional Committee shall provide a reasonableopportunity to the institution concerned formaking a written representation.(4) Every order granting or refusingpermission to a recognised institution for a newcourse or training in teacher education under sub-section (3), shall be published in the OfficialGazette and communicated in writing forappropriate action to such recognised institutionand to the concerned examining body, the localauthority, the State Government and the CentralGovernment.16. Notwithstanding anything contained in anyother law for the time being in force, noexamining body shall, on or after the appointedday,-(a) grant affiliation, whetherprovisional or otherwise, to any Institution; or(b) hold examination, whetherprovisional or otherwise, for a course or trainingconducted by a recognised institution,unless the institution concerned has obtainedrecognition from the Regional Committee concerned,under section 14 or permission for a course ortraining under section 15."Under Section 20(6) of the NCTE Act, the Regional Committees arehaving the same powers as that of the Central Committee, viz., thepowers in Sections 14, 15 and 17, in addition to any other functions,which may be assigned by the Council.18. The term "Council" is defined under Section 2(c) of the Act,which is as follows:"2(c). "Council" means the National Council forTeacher Education established under sub-section(1) of Section 3."19. Section 17 enables the Regional Committee to withdrawrecognition of any recognised institution, apart from stating theprocedures to be followed for such de-recognition. Section 17 as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ follows:"Section 17. (1) Where the Regional Committeeis, on its own motion or on any representationreceived from any person, satisfied that arecognised institution has contravened any of theprovisions of this Act, or the rules,regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, orany condition subject to which recognition undersub-section (3) of section 14 or permission undersub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it maywithdraw recognition of such recognisedinstitution, for reasons to be recorded inwriting:Provided that no such order against therecognised institution shall be passed unless areasonable opportunity of making representationagainst the proposed order has been given to suchrecognised institution:Provided further that the order withdrawingor refusing recognition passed by the RegionalCommittee shall comes into force only with effectfrom the end of the academic session nextfollowing the date of communication of such order.(2) A copy of every order passed by theRegional Committee under sub-section (1).-(a) shall be communicated to therecognised institution concerned and a copythereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously tothe University or the examining body to whichsuch institution was affiliated for cancellingaffiliation; and(b) shall be published in the OfficialGazette for general information.(3) Once the recognition of a recognisedinstitution is withdrawn under sub-section (1)such institution shall discontinue the course ortraining in teacher education, and the concernedUniversity or the examining body shall cancelaffiliation of the institution in accordance withthe order passed under sub-section (1), witheffect from the end of the academic session nextfollowing the date of communication of the saidorder.(4) If an institution offers any course ortraining in teacher education after coming intoforce of the order withdrawing recognition undersub-section (1), or where an institution offeringa course or training in teacher education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ immediately before the appointed day falls orneglects to obtain recognition or permissionunder this Act, the qualification in teachereducation obtained pursuant to such course ortraining or after undertaking a course ortraining in such institution, shall not betreated as a valid qualification for purposes ofemployment under the Central Government, anyState Government or University, or in any school,college or other educational body aided by theCentral Government or any State Government."However, against such order, an appeal lies to the Council. Section12 of the Act empowers the National Council for Teacher Education tolay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a personto be employed as teacher in Schools or in recognised institutions, tolay down norms for any specified category of courses or training inTeacher Education, including the minimum eligibility criteria, to laydown guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions for startingnew courses or training, to lay down standards in respect ofexaminations leading to teacher education qualifications, etc. Thesaid Section 12 is as follows:"Section 12. It shall be the duty of theCouncil to take all such steps as it may think fitfor ensuring planned and co-ordinated developmentof teacher education and for the determination andmaintenance of standards for teacher education andfor the purposes of performing its functions underthis Act, the Council may -(a) undertake surveys and studiesrelating to various aspects of teacher educationand publish the result thereof;(b) make recommendations to the Centraland State Governments, Universities, UniversityGrants Commission and recognised institutions inthe matter of preparation of suitable plans andprogrammes in the fields of teacher education;(c) co-ordinate and monitor teachereducation and its development in the country;(d) lay down guidelines in respect ofminimum qualifications for a person to be employedas a teacher in schools or in recognisedinstitutions;(e) lay down norms for any specifiedcategory of courses or training in teachereducation, including the minimum eligibilitycriteria for admission thereof, and the method ofselection of candidates, duration of the course,course contents and mode of curriculum; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (f) lay down guidelines for complianceby recognised institutions, for starting newcourses or training, and for providing physicaland institutional facilities, staffing pattern andstaff qualifications;(g) lay down standards in respect ofexaminations leading to teacher educationqualifications, criteria for admission to suchexaminations and schemes of courses or training;(h) lay down guidelines regardingtuition fees and other fees chargeable byrecognised institution;(i) promote and conduct innovation andresearch in various area of teacher education anddisseminate the results thereof.(j) examine and review periodically theimplementation of the norms, guidelines andstandards laid down by the Council, and tosuitably advise the recognised institutions;(k) evolve suitable performanceappraisal systems, norms and mechanisms forenforcing accountability on recognisedinstitutions;(l) formulate schemes for various levelsof teacher education and identify recognisedinstitutions and set up new institutions forteacher development programmes;(m) take all necessary steps to preventcommercialisation of teacher education; and(n) perform such other functions as maybe entrusted to it by the Central Government."20. Section 31(1) of the Act enables the Central Government, bynotification in the official gazette, to make rules to carry out theprovisions of the Act, which includes apart from the constitution ofthe Members of the Council, the manner in which and persons by whomthe inspection of Institutions has to be conducted, the fees payableon application for obtaining recognition under Section 14(2) of theAct.21. Section 32 enables the Council, by notification in theofficial gazette, to make regulations which includes apart from theprocedures of the meeting of the Council, the following mattersregarding the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of(i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as ateacher under clause (d) of section 12;(ii) the specified category of courses or training in teachereducation under clause (c) of Section 12;(iii) starting of new courses or training in recognised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ institutions under clause (f) of Section 12;(iv) standards in respect of examinations leading to teachereducation qualifications referred to in clause (g) of Section 12;(v) the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by institutionsunder clause (h) of Section 12;(vi) the schemes for various levels of teachers education, andidentification of institutions for offering teacher developmentprogrammes under clause (l) of Section 12.22. In consonance with the said provisions of the NCTE Act, theNational Council for Teacher Education has framed Rules called"National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms &Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations,2006, (hereinafter called as "2006Regulations"), which was promulgated on 27.12.2005 by the NCTE andnotified on 13.01.2006. By the said Amended "2006 Regulations",certain changes were made in the National Council for TeacherEducation (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations,2005, especiallyin relation to Regulation 7, which deals with "Processing ofApplications". The Regulation No.7 which stands as on today, viz.,after the Amended "2006 Regulations", is as follows:"7. Processing of applications.(1) Applications which are complete in allrespects shall be processed by the office of theRegional Committee concerned within 30 days ofreceipt of the such applications.(2) The applications shall be processed asunder:-(i) The particulars of the institutionsshall be hosted on the official website of theRegional Committee concerned of the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education.(ii) This will serve as an electroniccommunication to the applicant and also the StateGovernment/UT Administration concerned fornecessary follow up action on their part.(iii) A written communication inaddition shall also follow to the applicant.(iv) A written communication along witha copy of the application form submitted by theinstitution(s) of the concerned State/U.T. shallbe sent to the State Government/U.T.Administration concerned.(3) On receipt of the communication, theState Government/UT Administration concerned shallfurnish its recommendations on the applications tothe office of the Regional Committee concerned ofthe National Council for Teacher Education within60 days from receipt. If the recommendation is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ negative, the State Government/UT Administrationshall provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof,which could be taken into consideration by theRegional Committee concerned while deciding theapplication. If no communication is received fromthe State Government/UT Administration within thestipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed that theState Government/UT Administration concerned hasno recommendation to make.(4) Though normally, the applicantinstitutions will ensure submission ofapplications complete in all respects, in order tocover the inadvertent omission of deficiencies indocuments, the office of the Regional Committeeshall point out the deficiencies within 30 days ofreceipt of the applications, which the applicantsshall remove within 90 days. The date of receiptof the application after completion ofdeficiencies shall be treated as the date ofreceipt of the application complete in allrespects within the meaning of Regulation 7(1).(5) Ordinarily, the inspection ofinfrastructure, equipment, instructionalfacilities etc. of an institution shall beconducted within 30 days of completion ofprocessing of its application by the office of theRegional Committee with a view to assessing thelevel of preparedness of the institution tocommence the course. Such inspection shall be inthe chronological order of the date of receipt ofthe completed application in the office of theRegional Committee concerned. Among theapplications received on the same day,alphabetical order shall be followed.(6) All the applicant institutions shalllaunch an own website simultaneously with thesubmission of their applications covering, interalia, the details of the institution, itslocation, name of the course applied for withintake, availability of physical infrastructure,(land, building, office, class rooms and otherfacilities/amenities), instructional (laboratory,library) and the particulars of their proposedteaching and non-teaching staff etc. withphotographs for information of all concerned.(7) At the time of receipt of the team ofexperts to an institution, the institutionconcerned shall arrange for the inspection to bevideographed in a manner that all important https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facilities are videographed along with interactionwith the management and the staff (if available).The visiting teams shall finalise and couriertheir reports along with the video tapes on thesame day.(8) the application and the report along withthe video tapes of the Visiting Team shall beplaced before the Regional Committee concerned forconsideration of grant of recognition orpermission to an institution in its next meeting.(9) The Regional Committee shall decide grantof recognition or permission to an institutiononly after satisfying itself that the institutionfull-fills all the conditions prescribed by theNCTE under the NCTE Act, Rules or Regulations,including, inter alia, the Norms and Standardslaid down for the relevant Teacher EducationProgramme/Course.(10) The matter of grant of recognition, theRegional Committees shall strictly act within theambit of the National Council for TeacherEducation Act, 1993, the National Council forTeacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from timeto time and the Regulations including the Normsand Standards for various Teacher EducationProgrammes and shall not make any relaxationthereto. The Regional Director who is theconvenor of the Regional Committee while puttingup the proposal to the Regional Committee shall beresponsible for ensuring that the provisions inthe NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations includingNorms and Standards for various Teacher EducationProgrammes have been brought to the notice of theRegional Committee to enable the RegionalCommittee to take appropriate decisions.(11) The institution concerned shall beinformed of the decision for grant of recognitionor permission subject to appointment of qualifiedfaculty members before the commencement of theacademic session.(12) The Institution concerned, afterappointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall putthe information on its official website and alsoformerly inform the Regional Committee concerned.The Regional Committee concerned shall then issuea formal unconditional recognition order.(13) In cases where the Regional Committee,after consideration of the report of the VisitingTeam is of the opinion that the institution does https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not full-fill the requirements forstarting/conducting the course, such aninstitution will be allowed one more opportunityfor inspection after removal of the deficiencies.For such inspection the institution concernedshall again deposit a fee of Rs.40,000/- to theRegional Committee concerned through a DemandDraft from any nationalised bank drawn in favourof the Member Secretary, NCTE payable at the citywhere the Regional Committee is located. However,no such fee is required if the deficienciespointed out are minor in nature not involvingcivil construction or the like and therectifications are verifiable without physicalinspection.(14) The reports of inspection of theinstitutions along with the names of the VisitingTeam Experts shall be made available on theofficial website of the Regional Committeeconcerned after the same have been considered bythe Regional Committee."23. Regulation 8 deals with the Conditions for the grant ofRecognition, which reads as follows:"8. Conditions for Grant of Recognition:(1) An institution must full-fill all theprescribed conditions related to norms andstandards as prescribed by the NCTE for conductingthe course or training in teacher education.These norms, inter alia, cover conditionsrelations to financial resources, accommodation,library, laboratory, other physicalinfrastructure, qualified staff including teacherand non-teaching, personnel etc.(2) In the first instance, an institutionshall be considered for grant of recognition forthe basic unit as prescribed in the norms andstandards for the particular teacher educationprogramme.(3) An institution shall be permitted toapply for enhancement of intake in a teachereducation course already approved after completionof the academic session of running the course.(4) An institution shall be permitted toapply for enhancement of intake in secondaryteacher Education Programme – B.Ed., and B.P.Ed.,Programme, if it has accredited itself with theNational Assessment and Accreditation Council https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (NAAC) with a grade of B+ on a nine point scaledeveloped by NAAC.(5) No institution shall be grantedrecognition under these Regulations unless it isin possession of required land on the date ofapplication. The land free from all encumbrancescould be either on ownership basis or on lease fora period of not less than 30 years. In caseswhere under relevant State/UT laws the maximumpermissible lease period is less than 30 years.The State Government/UT Administration law shallprevail.(6) The institution/society shall furnish anaffidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper duly attested byNotary Public stating the precise location of theland (village, district, state etc.), the totalarea in possession and the permission of thecompetent authority to use the land for educationpurposes, mode of possession, i.e. ownership orlease.(7) The affidavit shall be relied upon by theRegional Committee as an authentic self-declaration. The copy of the affidavit shall bedisplayed by the institution on its officialwebsite so as to make the self-declarationavailable in public domain. In case the contentsof the affidavit are found to be incorrect orfalse, the society/trust or the institutionconcerned shall be liable for action under therelevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and otherrelevant laws. In case of Government institutionsthe said affidavit shall be furnished by thePrincipal or the Head of the Institution or anyother higher authority.(8) At the time of inspection, the buildingof the institution shall be complete in the formof a permanent structure on the land possessed bythe institution in terms of Regulation 8(5),equipped with all necessary amenities andfulfilling all such requirements as prescribed inthe norms and standards.(9) In case of change of premises, priorapproval of the Regional Committee concerned shallbe necessary, which could be accorded after dueinspection of the institution at the new site.The change can be permitted to a site which, ifapplied initially, could have qualified forestablishment of an institution as per prescribednorms of NCTE. The change should be displayed on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ website thereafter. The application for change ofpremises shall be accompanied by a demand draft ofRs.40,000/- of a Nationalised Bank drawn in favourof the Member Secretary, NCTE and payable at thecity where the Regional Committee is located.(10) An institution shall make admission onlyafter it obtains unconditional letter ofrecognition from the Regional Committee concerned,and affiliation from the examining body.(11) Whenever there are changes in the normsand standards for the course or training inteacher education, the institution shall complywith the requirements laid down in the revisednorms and standards immediately but not later thanthe date of commencement of the next academicsession, subject to conditions prescribed in therevised norms.(12) An institution shall have copies of allrelevant Acts, Rules and Regulations of NCTE,Central and State/UT Govt., affiliating/examiningbodies, and other Central/State/UT authorities,relevant to the running of an educationalinstitution currently in force. The institutionshall make all the information/documents availableto the NCTE or its authorised representatives asand when demanded by them. Failure toproduce/show any of these documents, shall betreated as a breach of condition for recognition.(13) The institution shall maintainrecords/registers and other documents etc., whichare essential for running an educationalinstitution especially those prescribed in therelevant norms and standards andguidelines/instructions/rules etc., of theCentral/State/UT Govts., affiliating/examiningbodies.(14) The institution shall adhere to themandatory disclosure in the prescribed format anddisplay up-to-date information on its officialwebsite."24. A combined reading of the said Regulations shows that underRegulation 7(11), the Regional Committee can grant recognition orpermission subject to certain conditions and after the concernedinstitution complies with the various requirements, an unconditionalorder of recognition is issued under Regulation 7(12) of theRegulations.25. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Southern https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Regional Committee in its 145th Meeting held on 16th, 17th and 18thOctober, 2007 has passed a resolution resolving to issue unconditionalrecognition as directed by this Court subject to the submission of anaffidavit by the Management concerned regarding the appointment ofstaff on Rs.100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format and anaffidavit on Rs.10/- from the individual staff members in theprescribed format and also the staff profile of the faculty appointed,if the institution has appointed staff with requisite qualificationsas prescribed by NCTE in the norms and standards for the particularcourse. It is also informed that in the said resolution, the SouthernRegional Committee has also decided to incorporate Para 8(1) of NCTERegulations dated 13.01.2006, which is in the following words: "An institution shall make admissions only after it obtainsaffiliation from the examining body."26. The Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher EducationProgramme leading to Diploma in Education [D.Ed.] has been prescribedby the NCTE in the "National Council for Teacher Education(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006published on 15th November, 2006, (Appendix 2) which is as follows:"1.0 Preamble1.1.1 Free and compulsory elementary education (6-14years) is the fundamental right of every child in ourcountry. The aim of elementary education is to fulfill thebasic learning needs of all children in an inclusive schoolenvironment bridging social and gender gaps with the activeparticipation of the community.1.1.2 The objectives of elementary education are toenable the child to develop skills of literacy, numeracy,communication and problem solving and acquire knowledge andunderstanding of the physical and social world around andattitudes and skills related to enhancing productivity andquality of life.1.1.3 The elementary stage of education marks thebeginning of formal introduction of the child to the 3R'sgradually moving on to the study of the disciplines. Itshould provide for a learning environment for children thatpromote joyful, activity based and participatory teacher andlearning.1.1.4 The elementary teacher education programmecarries different nomenclatures like BTC, diploma inEducation, TTC and so on. Both the duration of training andentry qualifications differ across states. The course isoffered in elementary teacher education institutions and inDIETs. The programme is aimed at preparing teachers forprimary (I-V) level education.2.0 Duration and working days https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) The elementary teacher education programme shall beof duration of two academic years.(b) There shall be at least 200 working days each yearexclusive of the period of examination and admission, out ofwhich at least 40 days shall be for practice teaching/skilldevelopment in nearby elementary schools.(c) A working day shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in asix day week, during which physical presence in theinstitution of all the teachers and student teachers isnecessary to ensure their availability for individualadvice, guidance, dialogues and consultation as and whenneeded.3.0 Intake, Eligibility and Admission Procedure3.1 Intake3.1.1 There shall be a unit of 50 students, foreach years.3.2.1 Candidates with at least 50% marks in thesenior secondary examination (+2) or its equivalent areeligible for admission.3.2.2 There shall be relaxation ofmarks/reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC and othercategories as per the Rules of the Central Government/StateGovernment/UT Administration concerned.3.3 Admission Procedure3.3.1 Admission shall be made on merit on the basis ofmarks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in theentrance examination or any other selection process as perthe policy of the State Government/UT Administration.4.0 Staff4.1 Academic4.1.1 (a)(i) Number (for an intake of 50 eachyear, total 100 in the 2 years)Principal-1Lectures- 54.1.1 (a)(ii) Additional intake which will be inthe multiple of 50 student, the number of full time teachereducators shall be increased by three.4.1.1. (a)(iii) Appointment of teachers shall besuch as to ensure the availability of expertise for allmethodology courses and foundation courses.4.1.1. (a)(iv) For activities such as Health andPhysical Education, Art, Work Experience, Music, ICT etc.,part-time teachers may be appointed.4.1.1(b) Qualifications https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Principal:-(a) Academic and professional qualification willbe as prescribed for the post of lecturer; and(b) 2 years' experience of teaching in anelementary teacher education institution.Lecturer:-(a) M.Ed. (or M.A. Education with B.Ed.) anddiploma in Elementary Teacher Education / 5 years' teachingexperience in recognised elementary school / elementaryteacher education institution.OR(b) Master's Degree in relevant school subject andBachelor of Elementary Education or B.Ed. with Diploma inElementary Education with five years' teaching experience inelementary school/teacher education institution.4.1.2 Technical Support Staff(a) Number Librarian- one (full time) Art (Fine Arts/ performing Art /music)- Part-time Health & Physical Education- Part time Work experience - Part time(b) Qualifications as prescribed by the StateGovernment/UT Administration concerned.4.1.3Administrative staff(a) Number(i) UDC/Office Superintendent1 (Regular)(ii)Computer Operator-cum-Store Keeper 1 (Regular)(iii)Helpers 2 (Regular)(b) Qualifications as prescribed by the State Govt/UTAdministration concerned.4.2 Terms and conditions of service(a) The appointment shall be made on the basis ofrecommendations of the Selection Committee constituted asper the policy of the Central/concerned StateGovernment/Board whichever is applicable.(b) All appointments are to be made on full-time andregular basis excepting those specified as part-time.(c) Appointment of part-time instructors and othersupporting staff shall be made as per norms of the concerned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government.(d) The academic and other staff of the institutionsshall be paid such salary as may be prescribed by theconcerned Government by account payee cheque or as peradvice into the bank account of the employee, speciallyopened for the purpose.(e) The management of the institution shall dischargethe statutory duties relating to pension, gratuity,provident fund, etc. for its employees.(f) The age of superannuation of staff shall bedetermined by the policy of concerned Government.Facilities 5.1 InfrastructureBuilt-in area consisting of class-rooms etc. shall notbe less than 1500 sq.mts. space in each instructional roomshall be 10 sq.ft. per student.5.1.2 There shall be provision for two class-rooms, onemulti purpose hall, one multi purpose laboratory,seminar/tutorial rooms, resource room for education ofhandicapped, separate rooms for the principal, for thefaculty members, for the office and for the administrativestaff and a store appropriate space is provided for musicart drama work experience activities. For everyinstructional room like class room, laboratory, library etc.space shall not be less than 10 sq.ft. per student. Multipurpose hall shall have the seating capacity for 150persons.5.1.3 There shall be games facilities with a play ground.Alternatively, the play ground available with the attachedschool or local body may be utilised exclusively for fixedperiods. Where there is scarcity of space as inmetropolitan towns/hilly regions, facilities for small courtgames, yoga and indoor games may be provided.5.1.4 Safeguard against fire hazard be provided in all partsof the building.5.1.5 The institutional campus, building, furniture etc.should be barrier free.5.2 Instructional(a) The institution shall have easy access tosufficient number (5-10) of recognised elementary schoolsfor field work and practice teaching related activities ofstudent teachers. A list of such schools shall be prepared.It is desirable that it has an attached an elementary school https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of its own.(b) There shall be a multi purpose educationallaboratory with psychology and science sections, a workshopattached to it.(c) The science section shall have the apparatusrequired to demonstrate all the experiments as per thesyllabus of elementary schools.(d) The psychology section shall have the facilitiesfor observation of children counselling and guidancePersonality and Interest Inventories.(e) There shall be hardware and software facilities forlanguage learning. (f) There shall be an Educational Technology laboratorywith hardware for projection and duplication and educationalsoftware, required for imparting Information Technology(IT), Literacy including TV, camera etc.(g) ROT (Received Only Terminal) and SIT (SatelliteInterlinking Terminal) shall be desirable.(h) There shall be a library equipped with minimum 2000titles including text and reference books related to theprescribed course of study, educational encyclopaedias, yearbooks, electronic publications (CD Roms) and 5 educationaljournals on elementary education and related subjects. Itshould be augmented with addition of 200 titles annually.The library shall have photocopying facility and computerwith internet facility for the use of faculty students -teachers.(i) There shall be an art and music section, equippedwith art paper, also notes, brushes, colours etc. for visualart. Simple musical instruments such as harmonium, dabla,flute, mridingam other local popular instruments, costumesand accessories for staging dance and drama performance,curtains and other accessories.5.3 Amenities.5.3.1 Functional and appropriate furniture for thepurpose in required number shall be provided forinstructional and other purposes. Tables and chairs forteachers and students, for laboratories and workshops,computer room, library, office, store room etc. should beprovided fully as needed. 5.3.2 The institution shall provide common rooms forfemale teacher educators/trainees.5.3.3 Safe drinking water be provided in theinstitution.5.3.4 Sufficient number of toilets, separate male andfemale, shall be made available to staff and students.5.3.5 Arrangement shall be made for a canteen, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ telephone facility and parking of vehicles etc.5.3.6 Effective arrangements shall be made for therepair and replenishment for furniture and other equipmentsas and when needed and regular cleaning of campus, water andtoilet facilities.GeneralIf one or more courses in teacher education are run bythe same institution in the same building, the facilities ofplay ground, multi purpose hall, library and laboratory(with proportionate addition of books and equipments) andinstructional space may be shared."27. Therefore, it is clear that the admission procedure,qualifications required for the post of Principal, Lecturers,Technical Support Staff and Administrative Staff and their serviceconditions have been clearly laid down in the norms Prescribed by theNCTE and as stated above, the NCTE which was in the habit of issuingconditional recognition and thereafter issuing unconditional order ofrecognition after compliance of various requirements, has now decidedto grant unconditional recognition based on the order of this Courtpassed in the batch of writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.15177 of 2007 etc.batch dated 25.04.2007 (Oxford Teacher Training Institute rep. By itsCorrespondent and others vs. NCTE and others), wherein this Court hasheld as follows:" 15. Considering the submissions made oneither side the above writ petitions are disposedof with the following direction:-"All the petitioners shall submit affidavit by themanagement regarding the appointment of staff inRs.100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format,affidavit in Rs.10/- from the individual staffmembers in the prescribed format and staff profileif the same have not already been submitted withina period of two weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order and on receipt of suchrequest from the writ petitioners, the same shallbe considered by NCTE and pass appropriate ordersthereon within a period of two weeks therefrom andgrant unconditional recognition without insistingfor the approval by the concerned affiliating bodylike University, SCERT, DTERT, DSERT etc.,"Therefore, as on date, there is no conditional recognition granted bythe NCTE in respect of Teacher Training Institutions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. In each year, the number of working days are 200 with 40practical teaching classes, and one unit must consist of 50 students.While stipulating the admission procedure as enumerated above, it isstated that the admission to the Diploma in Teacher Education has tobe made on merit based on the marks obtained in the qualifyingexaminations or in the Entrance Examination or any other selectionprocess as per the policy of the State Government or UTAdministration. Now, in the State of Tamil Nadu the admissionprocedure is based on the marks obtained in the qualifyingexaminations, and there is no difficulty to come to the conclusionthat it is the marks obtained in the +2 examinations, which is thecriterion for admission of students.29. Section 12(b) of the NCTE Act only enables the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education to make recommendations to the StateGovernments, Universities and UGC in the matter of preparation ofsuitable plans and programmes in the field of Teacher Education and itcannot be said to have conferred any power on the State Governmentbeyond the powers of the NCTE. It is true that Regulation 8(10) makesit clear that an institution shall make admission only after obtainsunconditional recognition from the Regional Committee concerned andaffiliation from the examining body. As stated above, the examiningbody is defined as not only the University, but also agency orauthority to which an institution is affiliated for conductingexaminations in Teacher Education qualifications. However, the term,'affiliation' is not defined. While construing the term "examiningbody" under Section 2(d) of NCTE Act there is no difficulty toconclude that the State Government as well as the Director of TeacherEducation, Research and Training is the examining body. The questionwhich can be raised in this case is as to whether the examining body,viz., respondents 1 and 2 can be equated to the affiliating body,viz., the University. 30. University is a statutory creature, having its own Statutes,Ordinances and Regulations framed in accordance with the concernedlaw. The Ordinances and Regulations elaborately explain variousprocedures to be followed for inspection of Colleges to find out theinfrastructure facilities available, apart from verifying thequalifications required for appointment of teaching staff, prescribingsyllabus, etc. before granting affiliation.31. It is also pertinent to point out at this stage that whiledealing with the concept of affiliation by the Universities to B.Ed.,degree courses in the light of various provisions of the NCTE Act, aFull Bench of this Court (in which I am also a party) in W.P.No.28304of 2007 by judgment dated 06.10.2007, after taking note of various https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgements of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. AdhiyamanEducational & Research Institute [1995 (4) SCC 104]; ThirumurugaKirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educationaland Charitable Trust vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1996 (3) SCC 15] andJaya Gokul Educational Trust vs. Commissioner and Secretary toGovernment Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, KeralaState and another [2000 (5) SCC 231], held that when the concernedAICTE Act, Indian Medical Council Act and NCTE Act prescribe themanner and procedure as per Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Scheduleto the Constitution of India, the field is occupied by the CentralGovernment, but also held that it does not mean that once the Centralbody grants recognition or approval, the concerned University byclosing its eyes should necessarily grant affiliation, since theUniversity owes its existence to its statutes and one cannot directthe University to disobey its own statutes by relying on the judgmentof the Supreme Court in A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society vs.Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1986 SC 1490). Ultimately, the FullBench has held that while granting affiliation, the University cannotbe expected to act as a rubber stamp after the recognition or approvalgranted by the Central body and it has to apply its statute beforegranting affiliation, however, not insisting any standard orrequirement, which is more than what is required by the Centralauthority by virtue of its powers under Entry 66 of List I of theSeventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 32. The abovesaid cases related to Universities which were boundby their own statutory guidelines.But as far as the Director ofTeacher Education is concerned, it is admitted that the StateGovernment has not framed any guidelines or Rules and Regulations forthe purpose of either granting approval for the teachers appointed bythe private Management or for any other matters except periodicalGovernment Orders issued relating to the fixation of date for thepurpose of admission of students for Diploma in Teacher Education,fixation of date for approval of teachers in the said Institutions,etc. Therefore, the crucial issue to be considered is as to the roleof the examining body, viz., the State Government as well as theDirector of Teacher Education, Research and Training in respect ofapproval of Teachers. In the absence of proper guidelines framed bythe State Government to follow uniform procedure in respect of theInstitutions, which are granted recognition, the guidelines which arestated to be available to the State Government are only the GovernmentOrders passed from time to time.33. Now, it is relevant to find out as to how the said GovernmentOrders can be treated as proper guidelines for the purpose of approvalof teachers appointed by the Self Financing Non-minority EducationalInstitutions and for the method of inspection and for framing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Scheme of Education for the students of Diploma in Teacher Education.34. G.O.(1D)No.111 School Education (U1) Department dated17.07.2003, which is the earliest one regarding the guidelines to beissued for admission of students speaks about the subjectwiseadmission, viz., 50% of the students should be from sciencediscipline; 25% from arts discipline and 25% from vocational stream.That apart, it provides for the following of reservation, viz., 18%for Scheduled Castes; 1% for Scheduled Tribes; 20% for Most BackwardClass; 30% for Backward Class; and 31% for Open Category. As far asthe said communal reservation is concerned, the matter at large,pending before the Supreme Court. As it has been held by the SevenJudge Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar's case in respect ofUn-aided Non-minority Institutions that such reservation cannot beinsisted upon, however, in the event of the Management willing tofollow the reservation, there is no bar.35. In addition to the same, the said Government Order alsocontemplates for admission under Single Window System, by granting 50%to the Non-minority Self Financing Institutions and directing that theremaining 50% should be surrendered to the Government as Governmentquota. It is relevant to point out that in all the present casesthere is no much dispute regarding the admission by Single WindowSystem and also for surrendering a particular percentage of seats tothe Government treating the remaining as Management quota foradmission.36. G.O.Ms.No.212 Higher Education (J2) Department dated18.07.2006 relates to the apportionment of seats between theGovernment and Management in respect of Unaided Engineering Colleges.G.O.(1D)No.226 School Education (U1) Department dated 28.08.2006relates to the admission in the Educational Institutions for the year2006-2007 based on G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 18.12.2006. G.O.Ms.No.212dated 18.12.2006 itself was issued, based on the consensus arrived atbetween the Management and the Government for the year 2005-2006, andregarding the said G.O., orders were passed in W.P.No.15701 of 2006etc. batch cases on 06.07.2006.37. In G.O.Ms.No.133 School Education Department dated14.06.2007, ad hoc rules have been framed for appointment of posts(academic) in the Directorate of Teacher Education, Research andTraining, District Institutes of Education and Training and GovernmentTeacher Training Institutes in the Department of Teacher Educationand Training. It is under the said Rules, the Directorate of TeacherEducation, Research and Training, District Institutes of TeacherTraining and Government Teacher Training Institutes have been broughtwithin the "Tamil Nadu Teacher Educational Service." The saidGovernment Order is as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "School Education DepartmentG.O.(Ms)No.133 Dated:14.06.2007Read:-1.G.O.Ms.No.748 Education, dated 04.06.19902.G.O.Ms.No.106 School Education, dated 11.03.1997.3.G.O.Ms.No.715 Education, dated 05.08.1912.4.G.O.Ms.No.35 Education, dated 06.01.1934.5.G.O.Ms.No.1410 Education, dated 11.08.1967.6.G.O.Ms.No.1396 Education, dated 10.09.1968.7.G.O.Ms.No.910 Education, dated 14.05.1976.8.G.O.Ms.No.1799 Education, dated 07.12.1988.9.G.O.Ms.No.211 School Education, dated 11.12.2001.10.G.O.(1D)No.98 School Education, dated 13.08.1997.11.G.O.Ms.No.80 School Education, dated 22.03.1999.12.G.O.(1D)No.15 School Education, dated 19.1.2000.13.G.O.Ms.No.64 School Education, dated 21.5.2002.14.G.O.Ms.No.122 School Education, dated 06.08.2002.15.From the Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining Letter Rc.No.0770/A1/2004 dated 03.02.2004 and06.01.2006, 30.4.07 and 25.5.07......ORDER:- The administration of Teacher Training Institutesincluding District Institutes of Education and Training wasunder the administrative control of the Director of SchoolEducation. The Service Rules applicable to the teaching andadministrative posts in the School Education Department werefollowed for the members of staff working in the GovernmentTeacher Training Institutes, District Institutes ofEducation and Training and Directorate of Teacher EducationResearch and Training also. There has been rapid growth andexpansion in the field of Teacher Education particularly inthe area of In-service Training covering thousands ofteachers in the Elementary sector after the information ofDistrict Institutes of Education and Training. With a viewto have effective administration and for quickimplementation of the schemes, the Government decided that aseparate Directorate be formed for looking after TeacherEducation and accordingly orders were issued in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.O.Ms.No.748 Education (F2) Department, dated 04.06.1990.Subsequently orders were also issued in G.O.Ms.No.98Education dated 13.08.1997 streamlining the recruitmentprocedure and implemented it after obtaining the willingnessof the staff concerned. Vacancies in various categorieswere also filled up by promotion and direct recruitment wasalso resorted to, through Teachers Recruitment Board. Theservice conditions of number of teaching staff working underthe control of the Director of Teacher Education a non-vacation department, could not be regulated due to absenceof separate Service Rules governing the posts. In order toregulate the service conditions of teaching staff of theDirectorate of Teacher Education Research and Training. TheDirector of Teacher Education Research and Training hassubmitted the draft Ad hoc Rules governing the postssanctioned in Directorate of Teacher Education Research andTraining, District Institutes of Education and Training andGovernment Teacher Training Institutes, which shallconstitute "Tamil Nadu Teacher Educational Service".The Government accept the draft Ad hoc Rules of theTamil Nadu Teacher Educational Service.The following Notifications appended to this order willbe published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette."38. A reading of the abovesaid Ad hoc Rules framed shows thatthey are all governing the creation, qualification and function of theabove authorities and nowhere the said Ad hoc Rules states anythingabout method or scheme under which the first and second respondentsare to grant permission either to the Teachers or to the Institutionsafter such institutions are recognised by the NCTE. 39. It is also relevant to point out the letter of the Secretaryto Government addressed to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi inLetter No.16100/U1/07-02 dated 19.09.2007, in which the Governmentinformed its desire to adhere to Appendix 5 of Gazette Notificationdated 13.02.2002, which was subsequently changed as Appendix No.2 inthe Gazette Notification on 03.02.2006, in terms of qualificationprescribed for T.T.I. faculty as per regulation of the NCTE dated13.01.2006 and also sought for permission from the NCTE, New Delhi tofollow the norms in vogue prior to 11.12.2006, to enable the State togrant approval to the upcoming TTIs.40. For the year 2006-2007 for fixation of cut-off date foradmission in the Diploma in Teacher Education, the State Governmenthas issued G.O.(2D)No.59 School Education (U1) Department dated14.11.2006, in which the State Government has fixed 30.11.2006 as lastdate for admission to Diploma in Teacher Education for the academicyear 2006-2007 and also directed to provide instruction classes to thecandidates for 220 days as per the calendar of activities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

41. By a subsequent G.O.(2D)No.7 School Education (U1) Departmentdated 09.02.2007, again, while dealing with the admission for theacademic year 2006-2007, the cut of date for approval of teachingfaculty which was fixed earlier as 20.11.2006 has been extended to09.03.2007. Again, by a subsequent Government Order in G.O.(2D)No.29School Education (U1) Department dated 13.06.2007, the StateGovernment has extended the cut off date for admission of studentsfor the year 2006-2007 as 16.03.2007. It is also relevant to pointout that before the NCTE Act has come into existence, it was the TamilNadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1976, which was made applicablefor Teacher Training Institutes also. After the NCTE Act has comeinto existence on 19.09.1993, which is a Central Act, the above saidTamil Nadu Act has no application as far as the Teacher EducationalInstitutions are concerned, especially when the field has beenoccupied by the Central Government by virtue of its power under Entry66 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.42. In such circumstances, especially in the absence of anyguidelines to be followed by the Director of Teacher Education,Research and Training for the purpose of deciding about the approvalof teachers appointed by the Self Financing Teacher TrainingInstitutions, etc., the above said various Government Orders extendingthe period of time for approval of teachers and admission of studentseven for the year 2006-2007 upto 16.03.2007 and 09.03.2007 show thatbased on various circumstances the second respondent has passed orderseven for fixing different cut off date for admission of students forthe year 2006-2007. It is alarming to note that in respect ofstudents admitted for the year 2006-2007, even till date the secondrespondent is not able to fix the dates for first year examinations.It is in the light of the above factual back ground, we have toproceed with the above said two points.43. As it is narrated earlier, NCTE Regulations are clear aboutthe required qualifications of a person to be admitted to the D.T.Ed.course and the norms are exhaustive and in the absence of any properscheme framed by the State Government in consonance with the Norms andStandards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme leading toDiploma Education framed by the NCTE, the State Government, which iscertainly the examining body as per Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act, hasto necessarily follow the various norms and standards prescribed bythe NCTE in Appendix No.2 for the purpose of verification as towhether the teachers who are sought to be appointed by the SelfFinancing Non-minority Educational Institutions conform to thequalifications prescribed by the NCTE norms and also to verify aboutthe number of working days, which are necessarily to be carried out bythe Institutions, apart from prescribing the syllabus.44. By applying the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in W.P.No.28304 of 2007 on 06.10.2007, there is no difficulty to cometo the conclusion that even in the absence of proper guidelines andscheme, the State Government, has to grant affiliation as per Section14(6) of the NCTE Act being the "examining body". It is true thatwhile granting recognition of any Teacher Training Institution, theRegional Committee is satisfied about the adequacy of financialresources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory etc.and it is only after being satisfied with the same, such finalrecognition is granted by NCTE. Further, it is true that thoseparticulars regarding the financial resources, accommodation, library,qualification of staffs etc. are directed to be displayed in thewebsite by each of the Institutions and therefore, there is no pointin saying that the respondents are not aware of the qualifications ofteachers, etc. Nevertheless, Section 14(4) of NCTE Act makes itclear that every order granting recognition to an Institution shall bepublished in the official gazette and communicated in writing forappropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examiningbodies, the local authority or the State Government and the CentralGovernment in the following terms:"14 (4). Every order granting or refusingrecognition to an institution for a course ortraining in teacher education under sub-section(3) shall be published in the Official Gazette andcommunicated in writing for appropriate action tosuch institution and to the concerned examiningbody, the local authority or the State Governmentand the Central Government."45. On receipt of such communication from the Regional Committee,the examining body grants affiliation to the institution etc. asfollows:"14(6). Every examining body shall, on receiptof the order under sub-section (4)-(a) grant affiliation to theinstitution, where recognition has been granted;or(b) cancel the affiliation of theinstitution, where recognition has been refused."46. The term 'affiliation' in Section 14(6) of NCTE Act instrict sense of law may be said to be applicable to the Universitieswhich offer degree courses in education like B.Ed., M.Ed., etc. andthe mere absence of the term, 'approval of teachers and students' inthe said Section 14(6) does not mean that the State Government has norole to play at all especially when the State Government isindisputably the "examining body" under the NCTE Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

47. The subtle difference between the words "recognition andaffiliation" came to be decided by the Supreme Court in the Principaland others Vs. The Presiding Officer and others [AIR 1978 SC 344].The Supreme Court has in categoric terms held that "affiliation" ismeant to prepare and present the students for public examinations,while "recognition" is for other purposes mentioned in the Act andonly if the School is recognised by the "appropriate authority", itbecomes amenable to other provisions of the Act. The relevant portionof the judgment of the Supreme Court which explained the distinctionis as follows:"6. .... It appears to us that since theSchool was affiliated to the Board, the DelhiAdministration caused its name to be included inthe aforesaid list. The fact that the School isaffiliated or attached to the Board is also of noconsequence and cannot justify the conclusion thatthe School is a 'recognised school'. There is asignificant difference between 'affiliation' and'recognition'. Whereas 'affiliation' it may benoted is meant to prepare and present the studentsfor public examination, 'recognition' of a privateschool is for other purposes mentioned in the Actand it is only when the School is recognised bythe 'appropriate authority' that it becomesamenable to other provisions of the Act. .... "(Emphasis supplied)Therefore, it is clear that 'affiliation' to a University is for thepurpose of preparing the students for examination, while 'recognition'by NCTE is a condition precedent for the institute to come intoexistence. As such, applying the same, it is clear that recognitionby NCTE is necessary for an institute to come into existence, whilethe institution is activated by the examining body, which actuallyprescribes the syllabus for the students, apart from preparingschedule of examinations, conducting examinations etc. Merely becausethe NCTE is satisfied about the qualification of the teachers beforegranting recognition as per its regulations, it cannot be said thatthe State Government or respondents 1 and 2 have nothing to act atall. Arriving at such conclusion would make the provisions ofSections 14(4), 14(6) and 16 of NCTE Act nugatory. Mere absence ofproper guidelines by the State Government cannot take away its powersas conferred under the Central Act in the above said provisions.48. As rightly contended by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral, even if the State Government has not constituted SelectionCommittee as per the provisions of the Central Act, especiallyRegulations, 2006 Appendix 2, Clause 4.2, when the NCTE itself hasprescribed clear guidelines regarding qualifications, the State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government has to satisfy itself whether the qualifications prescribedby the NCTE Regulations are in fact possessed by the teachers. Thereis no doubt that the State Government or the Director of TeacherEducation, Research and Training is having not only a statutory rightbut also a duty to verify the correctness of the particulars furnishedby the Institutes to NCTE for obtaining its recognition. It is truethat on the State Government finding that such particulars furnishedby the Institutes to the NCTE for obtaining recognition are not infact available or the qualifications furnished to the NCTE are notcorrect, it is for the second respondent to take immediate action byreferring the same to the Regional Committee of the NCTE, and tillNCTE takes action in accordance with the Central Act, it cannot besaid that second respondent has no right to withhold the granting ofapproval in respect of such teacher whose qualification is not inconformity with the NCTE Regulations. As I have stated above, inspite of the State authorities finding that the particulars furnishedby the Institutes regarding the qualification of the particularteacher to the NCTE for granting approval are not in fact available,if the State authorities are to be directed to approve the list as perthe provisions of Sections 14(2), 14(6) and 16 of the NCTE Act, itwill make the entire provisions a mockery. Therefore, the contentionof the learned senior counsel that in spite of State authorities onverification having found that the qualification of the concernedteachers are not in accordance with the norms prescribed by the NCTERegulations, the State authorities should grant approval is notsustainable. Even if the powers of the State authorities aresecretarial or ministerial in the matter of verifying the particularsfurnished by the respective Institutes, one cannot ignore that suchpowers are conferred under the Central Act as well as Regulationsframed thereunder. In this regard, it is relevant to point out theobservations of V.Ramasubramanian,J. in a batch of writ petitions,viz., W.P.No.47503 of 2006 etc. batch in the order dated 03.04.2007,which are as follows:"24. From the aforesaid National Council forTeacher Education (Recognition Norms andProcedure) Regulations 2005, which came intoeffect from 13.1.2006, there is no escape from theconclusion that the Institutions are entitled toadmit students only after the following steps arefulfilled viz.,:-(a) Obtaining an order of recognition.(b) Appointing qualified Faculty Members,putting the information on the Official Websiteand formally informing the Regional Committeeconcerned.(c) Getting an unconditional order ofrecognition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d) Getting affiliation from the ExaminingBody.The Examining Body viz., the University concernedor the State Government (depending upon whetherthe Course is an Undergraduate/Post-GraduateCourse or a Diploma/Certificate Course), can grantaffiliation only after the list of staff membersis approved. After the publication of the AmendedRegulations of the year 2006 in respect of theNorms and Standards, with effect from 11.12.2006,the role of the Examining Body has been enlarged,in the matter of examining and granting approvalto the staff members appointed by the Institution,under para-4.2 of Appendix 2 Norms extracted inpara-21 above." 49. It is also relevant to point out that the learned Judge hasupheld the validity of G.O.(2D)No.59 School Education (U1) Departmentdated 14.11.2006, under which the date of admission of students in theDiploma in Teacher Education for the first year, viz., 2006-2007 hasbeen extended upto 30.11.2006, with the following directions:"27. Therefore, in fine, all the writpetitions are disposed of with the followingdirections:-(a) The impugned Government Order G.O.(2D)No.59, School Education Department, dated14.11.2006, prescribing 30.11.2006 as the lastdate for admission of students for the academicyear 2006-2007, is upheld as perfectly valid andthe same is binding on all Teacher TrainingInstitutes.(b) Since the last date for approval ofFaculty Members had been extended by the StateGovernment under G.O.(2D) No.7, School EducationDepartment, dated 9.2.2007 from 20.11.2006 to9.3.2007, the Director of Teacher EducationResearch and Training shall approve the admissionof students in all Private TTIs, if theiradmission had taken place before 30.11.2006 andthe list of Faculty Members had been submittedbefore 9.3.2007. This concession is only inrespect of the current academic year 2006-2007,since the Amended Regulations, 2005 were notifiedon 13.1.2006 and the revised Appendix-2 Norms andStandards under Amended Regulations 2006 werenotified only on 11.12.2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c) Within two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order, the StateGovernment shall issue a compendium ofguidelines, prescribing the calendar ofactivities for the Teacher Training Institutes,indicating (i) the date of commencement of theCourse, (ii) the cut off date for approval ofstaff members, (iii) the cut off date foradmission of students, (iv) the cut off date forholding Single Window Counselling, for sponsoringcandidates under the Government Quota, (v) themethod of recruitment of Teaching Faculty,administrative and technical support staff, (vi)the calendar of activities for the academic yearincluding the days of instruction and days ofinternship, (vii) the schools in which theinternship could be undergone, (viii) theSchedule for the Examination as well as theCommission Work and Observation Work and (ix)such other matter as required for streamliningthe system of Teacher Education in the State. Thesaid compendium of guidelines, shall be issued bythe Government within two months and it shalltake effect from the academic year 2007-2008onwards. (d) In the compendium of guidelines, theState Government shall make it clear that thequestion of grant of affiliation or approval ofadmission of students and appointment of FacultyMembers, would be considered for every academicyear, only in respect of those Institutes whichget orders of recognition upto a particular date,say 31st July or 31st August of a year. The date soprescribed shall be in tune with the calendar ofactivities prepared by the State Government,taking note of para-2 of Appendix 2 Norms andStandards prescribed under Amended Regulations ofthe year 2006. The Institutes which receiveorders of recognition beyond the cut off date soprescribed by the State Government, would beentitled to have affiliation and approval ofadmission of students and appointment of staffmembers only for the following academic year.(e) Since NCTE has now modified the format ofthe orders of recognition and the academic yearis not mentioned in the orders of recognition,the Institutes will have a right (from theacademic year 2007-2008 onwards) to admitstudents only after the grant of approval of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ staff members and the grant of affiliation by theState Government, in view of Regulation No.7(11),7(12) and 8(10) of National Council for TeacherEducation (Recognition Norms and Procedure)Regulations 2005 published in the GovernmentGazette on 13.1.2006.(f) Since one of the objections taken in thisbatch of writ petitions is that the impugnedGovernment Order was not published in theGovernment Gazette, the respondents are directedto publish the compendium of guidelines in theGovernment Gazette, so that such an objectioncould be avoided."It is based on the directions givenby the learned Judge, theGovernment has passed the Government Order, particularly withreference to the imposing of calendar of activity from the year 2007-2008.50. The Order passed in W.P.No.22161 of 2006 etc. batch cases byPrabha Sridevan,J. was relating to G.O.Ms.No.90 School Education (U1)Department dated 21.06.2006, in which the Government has appointed aHigh Level Committee to enquire into the deficiencies in PrivateTeacher Training Institutes and B.Ed. Colleges and to find out as towhether they possessed the required infrastructural facilities. Thelearned Judge has set aside the Government Order on the basis that theState Government has no supervisory power after the recognition isgranted by the NCTE and such executive action of the Government istotally without jurisdiction. The operative portion of the judgmentis as follows:"28. Ostensibly, the State Government onlywants to ensure that deficiencies in theinfrastructural facilities have not beenoverlooked in the grant of approval to theinstitutions listed in the Annexure to the G.O. orthe subsequent communication. When the StateGovernment's role in the entire scheme of thingswith regard to grant of approval is limited toissuing a NOC vide Regulation 6 of the State Actand it is only the Central Council which satisfiesitself with regard to the infrastructuralfacilities by making an inspection prior to grantof approval, and the final decision of the NCTEdoes not depend upon the grant or rejection ofNOC, as we have seen in St. John's case (supra), Iam unable to trace the genesis of the State'spower for issuing this G.O. after the institutionshave come up. The State Government is given no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scope to act as a supervisory body to checkwhether there has been any irregularity on thepart of the NCTE in the grant of approval. Theexecutive action is totally without jurisdictionand is a trespass into the field occupied by theCentral legislation. Repeatedly, the SupremeCourt has held in Adhiyaman's case (supra),Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru SundaraSwamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trustvs. State of Tamil Nadu [(1996) 3 S.C.C. 15] andJaya Gokul's case (supra) that the power of theCentral Council is supreme and any exercise ofpower by the State under Entry 25 is limited.Intrinsically, the area of operation of theCentral Council as per the Central legislation isalmost identical in all these Acts, be it theAICTE Act, the Medical Council Act, the DentalCouncil Act or the NCTE Act and therefore, whatapplies in the case of any one of these appliesequally to the NCTE. In Adhiyaman's case, theState Act has also been considered, and it hasbeen held that the provisions of the State Actinsofar as they impinge upon the AICTE Act arevoid. Here too, the same State Act is referredto, viz. Tamil Nadu Private Colleges RegulationAct. Therefore, the ratio laid down in that casewill apply on all fours here. "51. In the present case, the contention that the State Governmenthas no role to play at all after the recognition grantedby the NCTEis not only against the provisions of NCTE Act, particularly Sections14(4) and 14(6) read with Section 16, which recognises the StateGovernment's powers, but also against the law laid down by the SupremeCourt consistently starting from State of Tamil Nadu vs. AdhiyamanEducational & Research Institute (1995 (4) SCC 104). Since the fieldis occupied by the Central government, the power of the StateGovernment is limited and it cannot transgress into the powers of theCentral Government under Entry No.66 of List I of the Seventh Scheduleto the Constitution of India. Therefore, in my considered view, therespondents 1 and 2 certainly have the right of superintendence overthe institutions which are situated within the territory of the Stateand the said right is limited so that it should not transgress intothe powers of the NCTE. The right of superintendence of therespondents 1 and 2 encompasses within it the power to verify whetherthe particulars given to the NCTE by the Institutions are in factavailable or any of the Institutions have played fraud on NCTE by notfurnishing proper particulars and in such event, it is for the firstand second respondents to inform the same to the NCTE for takingappropriate action. Till such appropriate action is taken, no one can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compel the State Government, which has in fact found some defects inthe particulars furnished by the Institutes to the NCTE, to grantapproval to the appointment of teachers. Therefore, the contention ofthe learned senior counsel that all the particulars have beenfurnished to the NCTE even before the grant of unconditionalrecognition and such particulars have been hosted on the website hasno basis, for, the State authorities can find out only onverification, as to whether such particulars are in fact available asper the terms of the NCTE Regulations.52. Therefore, as far as the approval of teachers to be grantedby the State authorities is concerned, it is open to the Stateauthorities to verify the correctness of statements furnished by theInstitutes to the NCTE either on specific complaints or suo motu whenthe State authorities have materials to believe that correctparticulars are not furnished. It is also made clear that the powerof the State which is only to the limited extent of verifying thefactual particulars cannot be used by the authorities concerned forany unnecessary harassment especially in the circumstances that theState Government has not framed any Rules or Schemes regarding suchverification. In the absence of such Rules or Schemes, it is open tothe State Government to follow various instructions issued by meansof Government Orders, which can be referable to the executive power ofthe Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, so longas such instructions are not in transgression of the powers of theCentral authorities. Therefore, it is made clear that till theGovernment frames necessary Rules or schemes in this regard for thepurpose of verification, as stated above, the respondents shall grantapproval to the list of teachers except when specific complaint hasbeen made or on probe it is found that the qualification of suchteachers are not in accordance with the norms of NCTE Regulations andnot otherwise. In cases where the second respondent desires to make asuo motu enquiry regarding the qualification of teachers, it shall beonly for proper and acceptable reasons and that too only in respect ofthe specified teacher and withhold approval for other teachers, whoconfirm to the Central Regulations. As laid down by the Supreme Courtin State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K.Purushotham Reddy [2003 (9) SCC 564],both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate oneducation, including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry66 of List I, which deals with laying down standards in institutionsfor higher education or research and scientific and technicalinstitutions as also coordination of such standards. The State has,therefore, the right to control education including medical educationso long as the field is not occupied by the Union legislation and tothe extent that the State legislation is not in conflict with theCentral legislation. The State legislation, though purported to havebeen made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effectencroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made bythe Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or under Entry 66 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Union List, is to be held void or inoperative. By applying thesaid yardstick, the powers of the State Government to verify theparticulars furnished by the Institutes to the NCTE as to theircorrectness cannot be said to be transgression into the powers of theCentral authorities especially by virtue of Sections 14(4) and 14(6)of the NCTE Act. (Emphasis supplied)53. In the above said background, apart from the two points urgedby the learned senior counsel, viz., subjectwise allotment of seatsand the practicability of the schedule prescribed by the Governmentfor the year 2007-2008, it is incumbent to point out that a certainsolution has to necessarily be drawn in respect of admission ofstudents for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 in the larger interestof all concerned. This is relevant because, as I have stated earlier,the State Government under various Government Orders has beenextending the time limit for admission of students upto 16.03.2007 forthe year 2006-2007 and approval of teachers upto 09.03.2007 for theyear 2006-2007. Adding to that, it is the admitted case that NCTE isin the habit of considering the applications for recognitionthroughout the year and such statutory functions cannot also becurtailed.54. Considering the first submission regarding subjectwisereservation, the factual position is that as per the impugnedGovernment Order, out of the total number of candidates, in respect ofthe candidates allotted to the Management under Management quota forthe Unaided Non-minority Institutions, the admissions are sought to bedone on the basis that out of the number of seats allotted under theManagement quota, 50% of the same shall be filled up from the studentsof science faculties; 25% from arts faculties and the remaining 25%from vocational courses. 55. As I have enumerated above, there is no such stipulation bythe Central authorities by reserving seats to be admitted onsubjectwise quota. In State of Maharashtra vs. Sant DnyaneshwarShikshan Shatra Mahavidyalaya [2006 (9) SCC 1], the Supreme Courtwhile dealing with Entry No.66 of List I of the Constitution of India,in the context of NCTE Act has held that, "Any policy consideration of the State in thematter of establishment of a new college cannotprevent such institution to come into effect thatwhen once the Central authority under NCTE Act hasgranted recognition and therefore, the question ofobtaining NOC from State Government does notarise."The Supreme Court has held that it is not for the State Government orthe University to consider the local conditions or apply State policyto refuse permission to start a new Teacher Training Institution in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the following words."74. It is thus clear that the CentralGovernment has considered the subject of secondaryeducation and higher education at the nationallevel . The Act of 1993 also requires Parliamentto consider teacher-education system "throughoutthe country". NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, isexpected to deal with applications forestablishing new BEd colleges or allowing increasein intake capacity, keeping in view the 1993 Actand planned and coordinated development ofteacher-education system in the country. It isneither open to the State Government nor to auniversity to consider the local conditions orapply "State policy" to refuse such permission. Infact, as held by this Court in cases referred toherein above, the State Government has no power toreject the prayer of an institution or to overrulethe decision of NCTE. The action of the StateGovernment, therefore, was contrary to law and hasrightly been set aside by the High Court. "The stand of the State Government that the State Government alone cancorrectly assess and know the extent of requirement of trainedmanpower and supply of trained teachers keeping in view therequirement, change of occupation and demand of such teachers wasexpressly rejected by the Supreme Court in the above said case.56. The only reason adduced by the respondents to counter thecontention against the subjectwise admission is that after theintroduction of Higher Secondary Scheme, the ratio of 50% of seats toScience candidates; 25% seats to Arts candidates and 25% seats toVocational group students are given to cater to the needs of studentswho graduate from Higher Secondary Schools, in proportion to thestrength of such categories of students pursuing Higher SecondaryCourse in the State. It is also stated that to ensure quality ofeducation at all levels, the of calendar of activities regardingadmission, conducting classes, internship training etc. have beenfixed. 57. This part of the impugned order also affects the legitimateexpectation of the Institutions in the sense that the same has beenintroduced for the first time without any basis whatsoever. In asimilar circumstance, when a question arose about the imposition ofpolicy of the Government in introducing Tamil/mother tongue as mediumof instruction for admission of students in Matriculation School, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Full Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Tamil and English SchoolAssociation vs. State Government and 2 others [2000 (11) CTC 344] hasheld as follows:"53. Coming to the present case, as alreadypointed out the Matriculation Schools have beenteaching in English medium for over fifty years.They have been permitted to continue ever sincethe date of recognition of all the Schools andthat recognition has been granted without anycondition.54. The Managements can be said to bereasonable in claiming that they expected this tocontinue. It is not necessary that there shouldhave been a representation by the Government andthat the Schools were opened by the managementonly believing those representations. It is notdisputed that these managements have spentconsiderable amount in improving their respectiveschools.55. In the circumstances, we are of theconsidered opinion that the managements areperfectly justified in claiming that on theprinciples of legitimate expectation the impugnedorder is liable to be quashed which order we havealready found to be irrational, arbitrary andunreasonable."58. While dealing with the Private Unaided Non-minorityEducational Institutions, the Eleven Judge Bench of the Supreme Courtin T.M.A.Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002 (8) SCC 481) hasheld that imposing an unreasonable restriction regarding the admissionof students is unacceptable, unless the said conditions coincides withthe requirements to ensure the excellence of education and foradmission into any professional institution, merit must play animportant role. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "54. The right to establish an educationalinstitution can be regulated; but such regulatorymeasures must, in general, be to ensure themaintenance of proper academic standards,atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualifiedstaff) and the prevention of maladministration bythose in charge of management. The fixing of arigid fee structure, dictating the formation andcomposition of a governing body, compulsorynomination of teachers and staff for appointmentor nominating students for admissions would beunacceptable restrictions."68. It would be unfair to apply the samerules and regulations regulating admission to bothaided and unaided professional institutions. Itmust be borne in mind that unaided professionalinstitutions are entitled to autonomy in theiradministration while, at the same time, they donot forego or discard the principle of merit. Itwould, therefore, be permissible for theuniversity or the Government, at the time ofgranting recognition, to require a private unaidedinstitution to provide for merit-based selectionwhile, at the same time, giving the managementsufficient discretion in admitting students. Thiscan be done through various methods. Forinstance, a certain percentage of the seats can bereserved for admission by the management out ofthose students who have passed the common entrancetest held by itself or by the State/ Universityand have applied to the college concerned foradmission, while the rest of the seats may befilled up on the basis of counselling by the Stateagency. This will incidentally take care ofpoorer and backward sections of the society. Theprescription of percentage for this purpose has tobe done by the Government according to the localneeds and different percentages can be fixed forminority unaided and non-minority unaided andprofessional colleges. The same principles may beapplied to other non-professional but unaidededucational institutions viz., graduation andpostgraduation non-professional colleges orinstitutes." (Emphasis supplied)59. In P.A.Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra (2005 (6) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SCC 537), the Supreme Court has again reiterated that in respect ofUnaided Educational Institutions, whether Minority or Non-minority,there can be no State policy of reservation that would apply in thematter of admission on lesser percentage of marks, or there can be nonationalisation of seats and the Unaided institutions can have theirown admission if it is done fairly, transparently, non-exploitativelyand based on merit. It was also specifically held that the localneeds of the State cannot be a ground for the purpose of fixing thequota for seat sharing in the following words:"130. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannotapprove of the scheme evolved in Islamic Academyto the extent it allows the States to fix quotafor seat-sharing between the management and theStates on in the unaided private educationalinstitutions of both minority and non-minoritycategories. That part of the judgment in IslamicAcademy in our considered opinion, does not laydown the correct law and runs counter to PaiFoundation ."60. It is further relevant to note that by fixing the presentpercentage, it really does not intend to give admission to meritoriousstudents. As rightly contended by Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioners that a person in sciencesubject, who has got higher marks may be denied admission while aperson from vocation course with lesser mark may be admitted under 25%quota for want of candidates and this can never be said to maintainquality of education.61. Further, as pointed out by Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learnedsenior counsel, even in respect of the said subjectwise sharing ofseats, an exemption is granted to Ango-Indian Teacher Training Schoolsaying that in the event of non-availability of the candidates, thesaid reservation need not be followed, which is denied to thepetitioner institutions and it is certainly an arbitrary exercise ofpowers affecting the right guaranteed under Article 14 of theConstitution of India. Therefore, the portion of the impugnedGovernment Order directing the Unaided Non-minority Institutions inallotting percentage of seats based on subjectwise is arbitrary andunconstitutional and set aside.62. The next point for consideration is about the calendar ofactivities prescribed under the impugned Government Order from theyear 2007-2008. As I have stated above, the said calendar ofactivities are stated to have been issued by the Government on thebasis of the directions issued by this Court in the batch of writpetitions, viz. In W.P.No.47503 of 2006 etc. batch cases, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

03.04.2007. Even though it is not much in dispute among the learnedcounsel for the petitioners that the State Government has the power toissue such direction and it is not transgressing the powers of theCentral authority, viz., NCTE, the learned counsel have contended thatby the conduct of the respondents themselves, the calendar ofactivities has proved to be not workable.63. A reading of the impugned government Order makes it clearthat the calendar of activities are to be followed from the year 2007-2008. As I have stated earlier, by reading of the provisions of theNCTE Act, the State Government is empowered to approve the list ofTeachers and being the "examining body", it is entitled to prescribethe calendar for every academic year in respect of the number of termdays of the students, conducting of examinations, etc. and suchdirectives are only regulatory in nature, in fact for betterimplementation of the basic policy enunciated by the NCTE through theGovernment of India under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution ofIndia. The Scheme of calendar of activities dealing with the SingleWindow System (SWS) of the State policy cannot be questioned. Thecontention of the learned senior counsel is with particular referenceto the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, even though there is no muchdifficulty for adopting the calendar of activities for the year 2008-2009. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel submits that the lastdate for admission of students in the D.T.Ed. course may be extendedon the practical approach that among the professional courses studentsmay come to this course only as a last resort and therefore, theGovernment may be lenient as far as the admission procedure isconcerned.64. There is certainly substance in the contention of the learnedsenior counsel in this regard. It is true that while opting forprofessional courses, students give their option by preference, sayMedical, Engineering and so on, and after the expiry of the cut offdates for those courses, they try for the other professional courseslike B.Ed., D.T.Ed., etc. In any event, it is not for this Court tofix the calendar of activities and it is for the Government to decidethe same based on the administrative convenience, of course takinginto consideration the genuine grievance of the petitioner Institutes,and the actual reality of the situation, which can be implemented fromthe year 2008-2009.65. It is made clear that the Government shall take a pragmaticapproach in this regard considering the factual position and also thedifficulties experienced by the private institutions, and keeping inmind the fact that while passing previous Government Orders, theGovernment had taken into the consideration the grievance of theinstitutions and the difficulties experienced by the students on theadministration side. Therefore, taking all the aspects intoconsideration, it is for the Government to formulate proper calendar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of activities from the year 2008-2009, which shall be scrupulouslyfollowed from the said year onwards. It is incidentally made clearthat in the event of formation of such a concrete Scheme from 2008-2009 onwards, the institutions imparting Diploma in Teacher Educationshall obtain unconditional approval from the NCTE and shall not makeadmission of students before that date in respect of that academicyear. If such approval is obtained two months before the beginning ofthe academic year as fixed by the Government, the Institutes shallapproach the Government with all particulars of Teachers for approvalof Teachers' list, in which event the Government shall grant approvalof Teachers for that academic year, which shall continue for thesubsequent academic years also, however, subject to changes made inthe process of appointment which are to be carried out with theapproval of the NCTE and the subsequent permission by the Government,and so on. It is needless to state that by considering the grant ofapproval of teachers, it is not open to the State or Director ofTeacher Education, Research and Training to impose any more conditionthan what is prescribed in the NCTE Regulations as held by this Court(D.Murugesan,J.) in a batch of Writ Petitions, viz., W.P.No.26630 of2004 etc. batch cases, by order dated 09.11.2004 (Vivekananda TeacherTraining Institute for Women, Elayampalayam, Tiruchengode and othersvs. The Regional Director, NCTE and others) in the following words:"18. ..... By imposing the impugned condition, theRegional Committee has only directed the DTERT to approvethe faculty list on the basis of the educational andprofessional qualification awarded by the University or theexamining body. It is a matter of procedure forverification and the condition does not invest any power onthe DTERT either to prescribe the academic or professionalqualification or to impose any additional conditions thanone prescribed under clause 5 of Appendix 5. ...... "66. Relating to the admission of students, the contention of thelearned senior counsel Mr.N.R.Chandran, placing reliance on thejudgment of the learned single Judge of this Court (R.Banumathi,J.)in Marimuthuammal @ Marimuthu and another vs. R.P.P.Construction (P)Ltd., Chennai and others [2007 (5) MLJ 1059] is not acceptable. Thatwas a case wherein under Workmen Compensation Act, a workman wasentitled for compensation from the date of injury. It was due to thedelay caused, that too, not because of the conduct of the workmen, thecompensation was paid at a later point of time and in thosecircumstances, the learned Judge has held that the workman is entitledfor compensation from the date of accident and interest is payableafter 30 days from the date of accident, since the Act is a socialwelfare legislation the provisions of which are interpreted liberally.In the present case the contention raised by the learned seniorcounsel is that even though the applications were made for recognitionto the NCTE, the NCTE either kept them for long time or returned the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same on flimsy grounds, because of which the applications were pendingand ultimately, after a long period the recognition came to be givenand the delay was not due to the fault of the Management, andtherefore, it should be presumed that approval granted by the NCTEshould be treated as coming into effect from the date of applicationor for the academic year in which the application was made andtherefore, on that basis the Management should be permitted to admitstudents. I am afraid that this contention will create complicationsnot only in the academic stream but also it is against the wellconsidered principle that no student can be admitted beforerecognition or affiliation by the competent authorities and theUniversity concerned, and the law is very clear that such sympathy, ifshown to students would be a misplaced sympathy. In any event, thedelay caused by NCTE, which is the appropriate/competent authoritycannot be equated with the delay caused by the authority under theWorkmen's Compensation Act, wherein the liability of payment arisesfrom the date of accident. In the present case, simply because theapplication was made for the purpose of recognition, there can be nopresumption that the recognition is from the date of applicationignoring the time taken by the authorities for consideration which isincidental.67. In my considered view, the calendar of activities prescribedby the Government cannot be said to be in contradiction of theprovisions of the NCTE Act or the various Regulations made thereunderand the same are regulatory in nature and in fact intended for abetter implementation of the Scheme for maintaining excellency inTeacher Education in a coordinated manner.68. Now, coming to the factual unfortunate situation of thestudents admitted for the academic year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, Ihave already narrated the various Government Orders, including G.O.(2D)No.59 School Education (U1) Department dated 14.11.2006, underwhich the last date of admission of students in Diploma in TeacherEducation for the year 2006-2007 was extended upto 30.11.2006, G.O.(2D)No.7 School Education (U1) Department, dated 09.02.2007, underwhich the Government has directed 09.03.2007 to be the last date forapproval of teachers or faculty for the recognised private TeacherTraining Institutes for the academic year 2006-2007 and G.O.(2D)No.29School Education (U1) Department, dated 13.06.2007, under which theGovernment has extended the period of admission of students for theyear 2006-2007 upto 16.03.2007. The learned Additional AdvocateGeneral has also produced the details about the number of Institutionsand dates of First Year examinations held for Diploma in TeacherEducation from 1999-2000 to 2006-2007 as follows:Sl.No.YearNo.ofinstitutionsDate of FirstYear ExaminationRemarks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11999-2000837/22/0022000-2001837/23/0132001-2002839/3/02Single Window SystemAdmission Introduced.42002-2003839/24/0352003-2004837/28/0462004-200530511/23/0572005-200639812/18/0682006-2007611Date not yetfixedA perusal of the said particulars given by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General shows that the concept of academic year, viz., fromJuly to June has almost been maintained from 1999-2000 to 2003-2005,which may be due to the reason that the number of Unaided Institutionsin existence at that time were only 83. It was in 2004-2005, thenumber got increased to 305 and the First Year examination was held on23.11.2005, similarly in the year 2005-2006 the number of institutionswere 398 and the first year Diploma examination was held on18.12.2006. However, in the year 2006-2007, the number ofinstitutions were 611 and the examination for the First Year D.T.Ed.,course which should have been held in July,2007 has not been held sofar. The reason as I have stated earlier, is obvious from the readingof those Government Orders, that the admission of students for 2006-2007 has been extended even upto 16.03.2007, and therefore, there wasno possibility for the Government to conduct examination for the FirstYear course in July,2007 for the students admitted in 2006-2007. 69. The contention raised by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that the said Government Orders are applicable only to thenewly recognised institutions, has no meaning. When the approval oflist of teachers for the year 2006-2007 was extended upto 09.03.2007and the admission of students was extended till 16.03.2007, there isabsolutely no ground to accept that the calendar of activities asgiven for 2007-2008 can be made applicable for 2006-2007 also. It isrelevant to point out that the respondents have taken different standsin respect of approval of teachers in the private EducationalInstitutions imparting Diploma in Teacher Training Education. A newconcept of countersigning the certificates produced on behalf of theteachers appointed by the Institutes by the District Institute ofEducation and training was introduced and on that basis, therespondents have prolonged the order of approval. In one such case,viz., in Shri Ponniah Ramajathammal Educational & Charitable Trust,Thanjavur vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P.No.8700 of 2006,by order dated 19.04.2007, the learned single Judge of this Court came https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ across a very curious situation that the person who has issued theimpugned proceedings refusing to accept the approval of appointment ofstaff, himself happened to be the competent authority to putcountersignature, which is really making the entire system a mockery.The learned Judge has in fact held as follows:"`3. It is curious to note that the authority, who isspecified as the competent authority for counter signatureis none other than the person who has issued the proceedingsand we cannot understand why she had not counter signed.This is a clear case of non-application of mind and this hasunnecessarily driver the petitioner to file the writpetition. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.M.P.Nos .1 and 2 of 2006 are closed. The third respondentis directed to pass orders,forward the service certificateof the P.R.Teacher Training Institute after dulycountersigning it and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shallpass orders on the staff list submitted by the petitioner.For total non application of mind of the third respondent,which has necessitated the petitioner to file thispetition, the third respondent shall personally pay costs tothe petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousandonly)."70. In some other cases also, it was found that even after thecompliance report was made, the respondents have been prolonging thestaff approval and directions were given by the Court to consider thesame within specified time. In the circumstances which I havenarrated above, it is the duty of the first and second respondents toapprove the appointment of teachers made by the Institutes, when thequalification of the concerned teachers is in accordance with thenorms prescribed by the NCTE Regulations and on verification if it isfound to be true and there is absolutely no justification for thesecond respondent in keeping it pending on various grounds like,obtaining counter signature, etc. The above said instances are theclassic cases to show as to how the unguided powers can be misused bythe authorities concerned to the detriment of the Institutes and thestudents at large. Therefore, in the absence of such a schemeimposing a time limit on the part of the authorities in grantingapproval of the teachers list, it is made clear that as far as 2006-2007 is concerned, all applications pending with the secondrespondent, viz., Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining, Chennai shall be cleared within a period of 10 days from thedate of receipt of copy of the order. It is further made clear thatthe second respondent shall not raise any ground which is opposed tothe NCTE Regulations and such conduct will be treated as grossviolation of conduct of a public servant. On production of records bythe concerned Institutes to the second respondent, within 10 days fromthe date of receipt of copy of this order, the students admitted in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ all the Self Financing Private Institutions till 16.03.2007 for theacademic year 2006-2007 shall be treated as students admitted forFirst Year of the academic year 2006-2007 and it is open to therespondents to fix a date for examination after calculating therequired number of days for attendance from the said cut-off date madeby the Government itself for admission.71. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondentsthat out of the total number of teachers [for instance, for 50students 5 teachers + 1 Principal are required], if one of theteacher's qualification is found to be wrong, the entire list isliable to be rejected is unfounded. Such a policy has never beenenunciated either in NCTE Act or the Regulations framed thereunder.If it is found by the Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining that out of the total number of teachers, one person islacking qualification or the qualification prescribed by the NCTE isnot found available, he has to consider the case of that particularperson only and inform the same to the Southern Regional Committee ofthe NCTE and shall grant approval to the qualification of the otherteachers. 72. It is made clear that this order is passed regarding 2006-2007 only purely based on the peculiar facts and circumstances andconsidering the various orders issued by the Government as well as theconduct of the second respondent, viz., Director of TeacherEducation, Research and Training, Chennai.73. In respect of 2007-2008, it is the contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioners that admissions are being approved even ason date as per the schedule for the year 2007-2008. If the last datefor admission of students by the Self Financing Institutes is 31stJuly,2007, filling up of the Government seats under Single WindowSystem should have been at least from third week of June to first weekof July. As submitted by the learned senior counselMr.R.Muthukumarasamy, as a sample, one candidate, by name,G.Ponnarasu, was allotted under the Government quota on 30.07.2007,which is beyond the cut-off date prescribed by the Government itself.It is also contended by the learned senior counsel, similarly thereare many other instances wherein for the year 2007-2008, the admissionthrough the Single Window System for the Government quota itself wasnot completed within the prescribed time and the same is still goingon. Even though it is the case of the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that for the year 2007-2008, the admission process has beencompleted, there is no record to prove the same. In view of the abovesaid facts, especially in the circumstances that for the year 2006-2007, the last date for admission of students is stated to be16.03.2007, there is absolutely no impediment for the Government incompleting the process of selection for the year 2007-2008 also. Inview of the fact that the last date for admission of the students has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been fixed by the Government for the year 2006-2007 as 16.03.2007,learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted the followingcalculation: MonthNo.of daysNo.of working daysMarch,2007159April3019May3122June3020July3122August3122September3020October3122November3020December3119January.200885Total298200The calculation itself shows that the First Year students for 2006-2007 would complete the required number of working days by 08.01.2008,and therefore, the respondents are directed to complete the admissionprocess including the Management quota for the year 2007-2008 within10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and directcommencement of classes for the year 2007-2008 forthwith, so as tocomplete the required number of working days either by the end ofJuly.2008 or in August,2008 to enable them to conduct First YearD.T.Ed., examination for the students admitted for the academic year2007-2008. 74. It is made clear that the second respondent shall completethe process of approval of teachers within the above said period andadmission both for the Government quota as well as the Managementquota has also to be completed by then. Again it is made clear thatthis arrangement is made for 2007-2008 considering the peculiarcircumstances of the case and considering the totality of thesituation and interest of the students of the Institutions, especiallyin order to streamline the admission process based on the calendar ofactivities at least from 2008-2009.75. It is made clear that the Government shall prepare, inconsultation with the Management of private institutions, a freshscheme of Calendar of activities for the academic year 2008-2009,which shall be published in advance, preferably in the month ofApril,2008, enabling the admission process being commenced for thesaid academic year immediately, which shall be considered by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government preferably from the end of July. Consequently, it is heldthat the calendar of activity which may suitably be modified by theGovernment shall be made applicable from the academic year 2008-2009.In respect of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, considering the peculiarcircumstances, as a special case, the directions given above shall befollowed and it is made clear that the directions shall not be takenas precedent for future years.76. It is also made clear that even though it is open to the NCTEto grant recognition throughout the year, only those institutes whichare given recognition upto April of a particular year will be entitledto be considered by the Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining for approval of teachers, for admission of students and tocommence classes for that academic year. In cases where the NCTE hasgranted recognition of Institutes beyond the above said date, therespondents being the "examining body" are entitled to consider theapproval of teachers etc. for the next academic year only, which shallbe intimated to the concerned Institute making it clear that nostudent shall be admitted before granting such approval by theDirector of Teacher Education, Research and Training.77. Needless to reiterate that from academic year 2008-2009onwards unless and until the Director of Teacher Education, Researchand Training grants approval within the time specified above, noInstitute shall admit students and those students who are admittedwithout the approval of teachers as stated above, are not entitled totake part in the examination for the particular academic year. 78. The writ petitions are allowed in part with the followingdirections: (i) G.O.Ms.No.108 School Education (U1) Departmentdated 17.05.2007 in so far as it imposesreservation of admission based on subjectwise inrelation to Non-minority Self Financing PrivateTeacher Training Institutions imparting Diploma inTeacher Training is set aside;(ii) The portion of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.108School Education (U1) Department dated 17.05.2007relating to communal reservation in so far as itrelates to Non-minority Self Financing PrivateTeacher Training Institutions is set aside,however, with an observation that it is open tothe Private Management to accept to follow theGovernment's reservation policy voluntarily, inwhich event, this portion of the judgement shallnot stand in their way;(iii) The respondents being "examining body" underthe NCTE Act are authorities entitled to approve https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the teachers list on the hormonius construction ofSection 14(4), 14(6) and 16 of the NCTE Act,however, not imposing conditions more than theNCTE Act and Regulations made thereunder and cansuo motu on sufficient reasons or on specificcomplaint verify the correctness of theparticulars with specific reference to thequalifications of the teachers furnished by theInstitutes while obtaining recognition from theNCTE. In cases of discrepancy regardingqualification, it is open to the 2nd respondent toinform the same to the Southern Regional Committeeof NCTE in respect of the concerned teacher andshall grant approval regarding the other teachers,who confirm to the requirements of the NCTE; (iv) The calendar of activity found in the impugnedGovernment Order, as modified by the Government inthe terms stated above, shall be made applicableand shall be scrupulously followed by all partiesconcerned from the academic year 2008-2009; (v) The State Government and the authoritiesempowered by the State are empowered to approvethe list of teachers, conduct examinations andprescribe syllabus for the students of Diploma inTeacher Education, in consonance with Sections 14(4) and 14(6) of the NCTE Act; (vi) Based on the NCTE Regulations, for theacademic year 2006-2007, the list of teachers sentby the private Institutions shall be consideredand approved by the second respondent, viz.,Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining, Chennai within 10 days from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order; (vii) The second respondent, viz., Director ofTeacher Education, Research and Training, Chennaishall fix the date for First Year D.T.Ed.,examination for the students admitted in the year2006-2007 in January, 2008, after calculating thenumber of working days by taking intoconsideration the last date of admission ofstudents for academic year 2006-2007 as per theGovernment Order; (viii) For the academic year 2007-2008, theadmission process including the approval ofteachers shall be completed within 10 days fromthe date of receipt of copy of this order. It ismade clear that Institutes which have notforwarded the list of new teachers approved by theNCTE etc. shall submit the list forthwith to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent and the second respondent shallapprove the list based on the NCTE regulationswithin the time stipulated above; (ix) The second respondent shall fix the date ofExamination for First Year D.T.Ed. Course, 2007-2008 batch by calculating number of working daysfrom first week of January'2008 and fix the dateof examination in July or August,2008; and (x) The Government as well as Director of TeacherEducation, Research and Training shall issue freshcalendar of activities for the academic year 2008-2009 in consultation with the Institutes, thecalendar of activities shall be published andintimated to all Institutes by April,2008 and thesame shall be scrupulously followed by allconcerned from the academic year 2008-2009onwards.There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.I place on record my deep sense of appreciation of the effortsand the persuasiveness of Mr.N.R.Chandran and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,learned senior counsel and Mr.N.Kannadasan, learned AdditionalAdvocate General, but for whose assistance the task of disposal ofthis batch of cases at the earliest point of time could not have beenachieved.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.khTo1.The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu School Education Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Teacher Education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Research & Training College Road, DPI Campus Chennai 600 006.3. The Member SecretaryNational Counsel for Teacher EducationHans Bhavan, New Delhi.4.The Regional Director National Council for Teacher Education, C.S.D.Building H.M.T.Post Jalahalli, Bangalore 560 031.5. The Principal District Institute of Education and Training Thiroor, Thiruvallur District.6. The Principal,District Institute of EducationKurupputhiNagapattinam District.7. The PrincipalDistrict Institute of Education and Training (DIET)Aduthurai, Thanjavur District.8. The Director,Govt ExaminationDPI Compound, Chennai 6.9. The PrincipalDistrict Institute of Teacher TrainingRanipet, Vellore District.+ 4 ccs to Mr. R. Sureshkumar, Advocate, SR No.1731, 1735, 1733, 1734+ 1 cc to Mr. M. Hidyathullkhan, Advocate, SR No.1816+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Sivaji, Advocate, SR No.1811+ 1 cc to Mr. U. Ramajegadeesan, Advocate, SR No. 1722+ 1 cc to Mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate, SR No.1815+ 1 cc to Mr. V. Sanjeevi, Advocate, SR No.1725+ 1 cc to Mr. K. Soundararajan, Advocate, SR No.1729+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.1017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 cc to M/s. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate, sr. 18191 cc to Mr.P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate, sR. 19085 ccs to Mr.K. Selvaraj, Advocate, sr. 19421 CC TO m/S. s. JAMES, aDVOCATE, SR. 195315 cc to M/s. B. Rabu Manohar, Advocate, sR. 2005, 2007, 2008 to 2013,2135 to 21412 ccs to mr.R. Natarajan, Advocate, Sr. 2188, 21891 cc to Mr.A. Jeenasenan, Advocate, Sr. 2206W.P.No. 25998 of 2007 etc. batchkk,sr,gp,sg.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Committees shall strictly act within theambit of the National Council for TeacherEducation Act 1993