High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 30-11-2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.Nos.29589, 32137 & 34843 of 2007 &M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 200701.D.Anbarasi02.Bestymonolisa.D03.Beulah Inba Kumari P.04.Caroline D05.Christinal Flowercy D06.Christy Angel.S07.Elamathi M08.W.Easther Kirubai Mercy09.Flancia Nancy.G10.Freeda.A11.Hannah Nancy Toyner.J12.Helen Synthiya.D13.Ida Jaya Kumari S.14.Iiakkiya D15.Jamuna.A16.Jansy Jain Mary.S17.Jesi Rathinavathi.Y18.Y.Kerline Getseyal19.Kiruba.G.20.Leena Florence N.21.P.Lilly Saronin Roja22.Malathi.P23.Mary Angel.S24.M.Megala25.Mercy Gunaseell.E26.Nancy.A27.Nirmala.M28.Pauline.P29.Regina.S30.Rita Jabarani J31.S.Roselin Marget32.Sathiya Priya A33.D.Sheeba Santha Kumari34.E.Sipora Shalina35.Stella S. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

36.Stella Y37.D.Stella Mary38.G.Usha Grace39.Vijakala.S . . Petitioners in all the petitionsVs.1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.2.The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai.3.The District Institute of Education and Training Kalayampoondi, Kancheepuram District.4.The Director of Government Examinations DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.5.Gnanodhaya Teacher Training Institute rep by its Principal and Correspondent 1/60 Pollwells Road, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai. . Respondents in all the petitionsW.P.No.29589 of 2007:The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to forthwithpublish the results of the petitioners of the 1st year examination held inDecember 2006 of the Two Year Diploma Course in Teachers Training.W.P.NO.32137 of 2007The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit thepetitioners to appear for the II year exams of the Two Year Diploma Coursein Teachers Training and publish the results and issue mark sheets. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.34843 of 2007This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct theTeaching Practice for the year 2nd year, Commission (internal) for 1st and2nd year and award marks/Diploma Certificate for the same and take allother necessary steps to enable the petitioners to complete the secondyear Diploma in Teachers Training Course.For Petitioners : Mr.V.Vijay ShankarFor Respondents : Mrs.Dhakshayani Reddy for R1 to R4 Government Advocate COMMON ORDERThe petitioners, who are stated to be the students of the fifthrespondent Teaching Training Institute, have joined in the two yearDiploma in Teachers Training Course for the academic year 2005-2007. 2. The fifth respondent institution is a recognised institution andit is one of the oldest institution established in the year 1926. Inrespect of total number of seats namely 40 for the said course, 20students have to be filled up by the Government and the remaining studentsare to be filed up under the Management quota. The fifth respondent isstated to have admitted 20 students under the Management quota aspermissible in the regulations governing admission. However, in respect oftwenty students to be sent by the Government, the Government has not sentthe list of students to the fifth respondent institution which resultedthe fifth respondent, by deeming it the same as the lapsed seat category,had admitted 19 students and totally 39 students were admitted.3. The management is said to have field W.P.No.7828 of 2006 for thepurpose of approval of the admission of the said 20 students. This Courtby an order dated 24.03.2006 has directed the respondents therein toapprove the twenty candidates stated to have been admitted by the fifthrespondent institution under the lapsed seat category from the Governmentquota. According to the fifth respondent institution, out of 20 studentsadmitted, one student left and there are remaining only 19 students.Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are duly admitted by thefifth respondent institution and in fact their admission have beenapproved by this Court as per the Order of this Court stated above.Subsequently, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.48964 of 2006 fordirection against the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Trainingand the Director, Government of Examination, to approve their admissionand consequently permit them to complete the II year Diploma course inTeacher Training by allowing them in participating in the theory practicalexamination etc., This Court, while ordering the said writ petition by an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order dated 15.12.2006, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitionerswere admitted before the cut off date and therefore they were eligible forgrant of approval. In view of the same, the respondents were directed topermit the petitioners to write the examinations subject to the fulfilmentof other criteria. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners weredirected to write their First Year examination which took place on 18th and20th December 2006. Since the results were not published, the petitionershave filed W.P.No.29589 of 2007 to publish the result.4. The petitioners filed W.P.No.32137 of 2007 seeking permission toappear for their second year examination which was to be held on08.10.2007. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerswould state that the respondents 2 and 4 have in fact permitted thepetitioners to write the second year examination and therefore nothingsurvives in the said writ petition. The said submission is recorded.5. The petitioners filed W.P.No.34843 of 2007 for permission towrite the Teaching practice examination for the second year and internalexam for the I and II year which they were not permitted.6. The second respondent has filed the counter. It is the case of thesecond respondent that even in the academic year 2001-2002, the fifthrespondent management has admitted 35 students as against the permittedintake of 20 students under management quota. In addition, the fifthrespondent has also admitted another 13 students in total 48 students asagainst the sanctioned strength of 40. Further This Court on earlieroccasion, in respect of the said admission has taken a sympathetic viewand students were admitted during the academic year 2001-2002 were carriedforward to the academic year 2002-2003 with direction to seek ratificationfrom the authorities concerned.7. It is the further case of the second respondent that even duringthe academic year 2002-2003 no approval was accorded for the studentsadmitted under the management quota and the students were permitted towrite their examinations as per the direction of this Court.8. It is the further case of the second respondent that the fifthrespondent management has not adhered to the admission procedure and nopermission was granted to admit the students under management quota, butthe management has suo motto admitted students and subsequently gotapproval for the admission from the Court. It is the further case of thesecond respondent that due the said disputed position in respect of thefifth respondent management, during the academic year 2005-2006, no singlewindow system counselling candidates were sent to the fifth respondentinstitution at all. The management has admitted 20 students under themanagement quota and they have admitted another 19 students from theGovernment quota treating it as lapsed seat category. The secondrespondent as per the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.7826 of 2006has approved the admission of 39 students. Due to the dispute between the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ management and the previous principal, no faculty members were approved.According to the second respondent, the faculty members were functioningwithout necessary qualification as prescribed by NCTE. According to thesecond respondent, in the absence of qualified teachers as per the normsprescribed, the fifth respondent institute cannot give proper training tothe students. Therefore, it is the case of the second respondent that thepetitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed for. 9. It is seen that for the academic year 2005-2006, the petitionerswere admitted in the I year Diploma in Teacher Education under the fifthrespondent institution which is an aided institution, having been approvedby the NCTE. Even though it is the case of the respondents 2 and 4 thatthere was no approval of teacher for the fifth respondent institution andalso the students list were not approved, apart from the other contentionthat the admission of students by the fifth respondent is against theRules, it is relevant to point out that all these matters were taken intoconsideration by this Court at least earlier on two occasions and havecome to a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for approval. Itremains a fact that the orders passed earlier by this Court in permittingthe students has become final and no one of the respondents have takensteps to question such order passed by this Court.10. The petitioners filed W.P.No.48964 of 2006 for permission toapprove their admission and also to complete the two year Diploma coursein Teachers Training in the fifth respondent institution. This Court indetail taking into consideration the fact that the fifth respondent hasadmitted 20 students under management quota and another 20 students fromthe Government quota on the basis that the Government has not referred thecandidates and therefore treating it as lapsed seat category and therefore40 students were totally admitted out of whom it is stated that onestudent has left and therefore 39 writ petitioners were before this Court.In the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.48964 of 2006, dated15.12.2006, this Court has also taken note of the earlier order passed bythis Court in W.P.No.7828 of 2006 wherein this Court has directed thesecond respondent to approve the list of 20 candidates forwarded by thefifth respondent management on 20.02.2006 within a period of one week fromthe said date of the order. Those 20 students are really admitted by thefifth respondent treating them as lapsed seats from the Government Quota.It is not disputed that the second respondent has not passed any order. Itwas in these circumstances taking note of the conduct of the secondrespondent, while disposing the writ petition No.48964 of 2006, this Courthas categorically held that the petitioners who were admitted are eligibleto be approved. The judgment of this Court is as follows;"3.In respect of 20 students admitted under thelapsed seat category, there is already an order passedby this Court in W.P.No.7828 of 2004 dated 24.03.2006.Admittedly, the students have been admitted to theinstitution before the cut of dated namely 28.02.2006, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and consequently they have become eligible for grant ofapproval of their admission. In such circumstances thewrit petition is ordered directing the respondents togrant approval of the admission of the petitioners inthe fifth respondent institution and permit them towrite the examination subject to fulfilment of othercriteria. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. isclosed."11. Therefore, it is clear that as per the decision rendered above,the petitioners admission has been proved to be legal and inasmuch as thesaid order has become final, I am of the considered view it is not open tothe respondents 2 and 4 herein to reject the same stating as if thepetitioners were admitted out side the norms and the teachers of the fifthrespondent institution have not been approved and so on. Even though it istrue that no education institution can conduct classes without teacherswho are not approved, on the factual situation which I have enumeratedabove especially in the circumstances that the order of this Court on twooccasion has become final, there is absolutely no scope to go back to saythat the petitioners admission in the fifth respondent institution areeither illegal or not approved. It is further relevant to point out thatit is based on the order passed by this Court, the second and fourthrespondent have permitted the petitioners to write examinations which wereheld on 18.12.2006 and 20.12.2006. That apart, even for the second yearexamination, the respondents 2 and 4 without any order from this Courthave permitted the writ petitioners to write the examination. While so, itis not known as to how the students are prevented from writing theexamination in respect of teachers practice which they are eligible in theI and II year which forms part of the curriculum. In these circumstancesdue to the entire situation as extracted above and the said circumstancesare making it clear this shall not form part of the precedent in future,the W.P.Nos.34843 and 29589 of 2007 are necessarily to be allowed. In viewof the same, the W.P.Nos.34843 and 29589 of 2007 stand allowed.W.P.No.31137 of 2007 is dismissed as infructuous. It is made clear as faras examination regarding internal and teacher training the respondents 2and 4 shall conduct the said examinations to the petitioners within aperiod of eight weeks and thereafter respondents 2 and 4 shall publish theresult of the petitioners in respect of two years. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents wouldvehemently contend that even though the earlier order of this Court hasbecome final, it remains the fact that the teachers list in respect of thefifth respondent institution is yet to be approved by the second andfourth respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners would submit that the teachers list have been sent to therespondents 2 and 4 and the same is pending and the said respondents arenot passing any orders only due to the pendency of these cases. If that beso, the respondents 2 and 4 shall consider the said list of teachersstated to have been sent by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarjikrTo1. The Secretary to Government, The Government of Tamil Nadu Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.2.The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai.3.The District Institute of Education and Training Kalayampoondi, Kancheepuram District.4.The Director of Government Examinations DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.3 cc To Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Advocate, SR.70938 to 70940.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.71084.W.P.Nos.29589,34843 & 32137 of 2007 NSM(CO)RVL 18.12.2007