Madrasdated High Court · 2006

WP No.47860/2006:

The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, HMT Post, Jalhalli, Bangalore-560 131.

The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai-6.

The Director of Government Examinations, College Road, Chennai-6.

Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Thippampatti P.O., Pollachi-642 107...RespondentsWP No.46403/2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to approve the students list submitted by the petitioner's Teacher TrainingInstitute for the academic year 2005-2006 and further direct the respondents to permit those students of the petitioners institute to sit for the examinations in the first year Diploma in Teacher Education to beheld in December 2006 or on subsequent dates. WP No.27148/2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in Rc.No.1008/C1/2006 dated 9.8.2006 and quash the same.WP No.47860 of 2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent toissue necessary hall tickets and permit the petitioners who have undergone their first year course in D.T.Ed., for the academic year 2005-2006to appear in the examinations to be conducted from 18.12.2006 and on subsequent dates and consequently publish their results thereunder. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner in WPs.46403 and27148/2006: Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kamadevan For Petitioner inWP 47860/2006 : Mr.B.Rabumanohar For Respondents-1to3in WP 46403/2006 andR.2 and R.3 inWPs.27148/2006 and 47860/2006 : Mr.Pa.Kadhirvel, Government Advocate (Education) For Respondent-1 in WPs.27148 and47860/2006 : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Standing Counsel for NCTE. For Respondent-4 inWP 47860/2006 : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kamadevan For Proposed Party inWP 27148/2006 : Mr.K.Sridhar COMMON ORDERThese three writ petitions arise out of the same conspectus offacts and hence they are disposed of by a common order.

Even while NCTE was processing the application for recognition, the institute entered into an unregistered lease agreement dated 29.11.2004 with one K.Ravi, for taking a portion of the building owned by him at Thippampatti, where the said K.Ravi was already running aschool.

By an order dated 27.1.2005, NCTE granted recognition to the institute for offering a two year Elementary Teacher Training Course from the academic session 2004-2005. Interestingly, the recognition was granted to and in favour of “Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Vanjipuram, Kaniyur, Coimbatore District” and was communicated to the institute, toits Thippampatti address, where the building of K.Ravi was taken on lease on 29.11.2004.

Paragraph-2 of the recognition order dated 27.1.2005 issued by the NCTE, reflected that the Southern Regional Committee had taken note of the fact that the institute had acquired land for setting up the institution and that the institution should have a permanent building constructed within three years on the acquired land.

After the grant of recognition by NCTE, the Correspondent andother representatives of the institute, entered into an unregisteredMemorandum of Agreement dated 12.4.2005 with the aforesaid K.Ravi. Underthe said Memorandum of Agreement, the Correspondent and other promoters of“Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute” received one cheque for Rs.9lakhs from K.Ravi and the cheque was encashed. They also received two postdated cheques, each for Rs.3 lakhs, from K.Ravi, totalling to a sum ofRs.15 lakhs.

Under the said agreement, the promoters agreed to transfer the recognition obtained from NCTE and the NOC obtained from the StateGovernment, to the said K.Ravi. It was also stipulated in the said agreement that from the date of the agreement, K.Ravi was entitled to run the institution at Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam, in the own building of the Trust and that K.Ravi could shift the same at a future date. The promoters of the institute agreed to cooperate with K.Ravi in the matter of complying with all formalities such as change of name etc. It was also stipulated in the agreement that the authority given to K.Ravi to run the institute under the agreement, would get cancelled if the post dated cheques bounced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Ravi did not honour one of those post dated cheques on the ground that the promoters did not come forward to sign necessary applications for effecting a transfer of the institution. Therefore, the promoters of the institute started claiming that the authority given toK.Ravi to run the institution, got cancelled by virtue of the conditions stipulated in the agreement.

In the cross fire between these two parties, the students who were admitted to the Diploma Course, got caught and the results of the examination taken by them was not declared. Therefore, 48 students joined together and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18980 of 2006, praying for adirection to publish the results of the examination. In the said writ petition, both the parties got impleaded as the owners of the institute and by an order dated 25.7.2006, the said writ petition was disposed of, directing the official respondents to declare the results. In the said order, the learned Judge made two observations, which are of significance. In para-2, the learned Judge recorded a statement from the counsel appearing for K.Ravi that though transfer has not been effected, due to the failure of the promoters to sign, K.Ravi was in possession of the institute. The learned Judge further observed that the dispute relating to the transfer of the institute was not decided.

In the meantime, the promoters of the institute applied to the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training for permission to shift the institute to Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam, Udumalpet. Butthey were directed to get approval for the shift, from the NCTE. Claimingthat they had sent a letter to NCTE on 29.10.2005, the promoters filed awrit petition in W.P.No.25244 of 2006, seeking a direction to the NCTE aswell as the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, for approval of the shifting of the institute. In the said writ petition, it was contended on behalf of NCTE that for the change of the premises, prior approval was necessary and that an application accompanied by a demand draft for Rs.40,000/- should be made to the Southern Regional Committee ofNCTE. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated10.8.2006, permitting the promoters of the institute to apply to NCTE in the prescribed format along with the necessary documents and directingNCTE to inspect the premises and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the promoters of the institute submitted an application to NCTE on 14.8.2006 along with a demand draft forRs.40,000/-.

In the meantime, Director of Teacher Education Research and Training passed an order dated 9.8.2006, directing the promoters of the institute not to admit students for the academic year 2006-2007, until the rival parties who stake their claim for ownership of the institute, lawfully resolve their dispute and come out clean. Challenging the said order dated 9.8.2006, the promoters filed W.P.No.27148 of 2006. The said writ petition was admitted on 22.8.2006. While admitting the writ petition, two interim orders were passed, one in M.P.No.2 of 2006 granting interim stay of the order dated 9.8.2006 of Director of Teacher Education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Research and Training and another in M.P.No.1 of 2006, directing the NCTEto inspect the premises of the institution at Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam and pass orders within three weeks on their application for shifting of location. In the said writ petition W.P.No.27148 of 2006, the agreement holder K.Ravi filed M.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2006, for impleading aswell as for vacating the interim orders. However, the NCTE has already inspected the premises at Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam on 11.10.2006and orders awaited.

In the meantime, the promoters had sent a list of students admitted by them, on 19.1.2006 to Director of Teacher Education Researchand Training for approval and the same was not processed. Therefore, the promoters of the institute filed W.P.No.46403 of 2006 for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training to approve the students list submitted by them for the academic year 2005-2006 and to permit them to sit for the examinations scheduled to commence from 18.12.2006.16. 48 students under going the Diploma Course in the rented premises belonging to K.Ravi, have filed W.P.No.47860 of 2006 for a Writof Mandamus, directing the Director of Government Examinations to issue hall tickets to appear for the examination scheduled to commence from18.12.2006.

Thus, the above three petitions W.P.Nos.27148, 46403 and47860 of 2006 have come up for hearing. While the earliest writ petitionW.P.No.27148 of 2006 is by the promoters of the institute challenging the order of the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training dated9.8.2006 prohibiting the INSTITUTION from admitting students for the year2006-2007, the second writ petition W.P.No.46403 of 2006 is also by the promoters for approval of the list of students admitted by them for the year 2005-2006. The third writ petition is by the students undergoing the course in the rented premises belonging to K.Ravi.

I have heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counselappearing for the promoters of the institute who are the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.27148 and 46403 of 2006, Mr.M.Sekar, learned Special GovernmentPleader (Education) appearing for the State Government and its officials, Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the NCTE, Mr.K.Sridhar, learned Counsel for the Agreement holder K.Ravi who seeks to get impleadedin W.P.No.27148 of 2006 and Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, learned Counsel appearing for the students undergoing the course in the premises of K.Ravi and who are the petitioners in W.P.No.47860 of 2006.

In the factual matrix detailed in paragraphs-1 to 17 above, the questions that arise for consideration are as follows:-(a) Whether the order dated 9.8.2006 issued by the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, directing the promoters of the institute not to admit any students for the academic year 2006-2007 is valid or not? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) Whether the students admitted by the promoters as well as the agreement holder K.Ravi are entitled for approval of their admission?Question No.(a):-

Admittedly, Evva Memorial Educational Trust, registered under The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, applied for recognition to NCTE on 30.12.2002 and obtained an order from this Court on 4.8.2004 to consider their application, to start an institute by name “Evva MemorialTeacher Training Institute”. They also obtained a No Objection Certificatefrom the Government of Tamil Nadu on 13.9.2004. At that time, the saidTrust was the Educational Agency and the institute took the property ofK.Ravi at Thippampatti on lease on 29.11.2004.

The recognition order issued by NCTE was actually issued in the name of the institute with the following address viz., Evva MemorialTeacher Training Institute, Vanjipuram, Kaniyur-642 203, CoimbatoreDistrict, Tamil Nadu. However, it was addressed to “The Correspondent, Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Sri Chintamani Memorial MatricHigher Secondary School, Udumalai-Pollachi Highways, Thippam Patti, Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu”.

Within three months of the grant of recognition, aMemorandum of Agreement was entered into between the promoters and K.Ravi, on 12.4.2005. The Memorandum of Agreement reads as follows:-@epWtd cld; gof; if Mtzk;2005 Mk; Mz;L Vg;uy; khjk; 12Mk; njjpf;F jkpH; jhuztUlk; g';Fdp khjk; 30Mk; njjpnfhaKj;Jhh; khtl; lk.; cLkiyg; ngl; il tl; lk;. fzpa{h;m";ry;. t";rpg[uk.; 9/67 be. ,y;yj; jpy; trpj;J tUk; nyl;j';fntYgps; is mth; fs; FkhuUk;/ (Evva Memorial TeacherTraining Institute) <th epidt[ Mrphpah; gapw; rp epWtdj; jpd; epWtdUkhd j/ghyRg;gpukzpad; ? 1 Tp tpyhrj; jpy; trpj; JtUk; Tp/ghyRg;gpukzpad; mth; fs; kidtpa[k; Tp (Evva Memorial TeacherTraining Institute) <th epidt[ Mrphpah; gapw; rp epWtdj; jpd; ,af; FdUkhd R./b$aghh; tjp?2. nfhaKj;Jhh; khtl; lk;. cLkiyg; ngl; iltl; lk;. fzpa{h; m";ry;. t";rpg[uk;. 9- 67 be.,y;yj; jpy; trpj; JtUk; T.ghyRg;gpukzpad; mth; fs; FkhuUk; (Evva MemorialTeacher Training Institute) <th epidt[ Mrphpah; gapw; rpepWtdj; jpd; jiytUkhd B.nfhgp ? 3.

It is seen from paragraph-3 of the aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement that what was traded between the parties, was the order of recognition granted by NCTE. The Memorandum of Agreement was followed by areceipt issued by the promoters to Mr.K.Ravi. Even the recitals contained in the said receipt confirms that what was sought to be transferred was the order of recognition. Translated into English, the relevant portion ofparagraph-3 of the Memorandum of Agreement reads as follows:-

The recognition granted to parties 1,2,3 and 4 (EvvaMemorial Teacher Training Institute) for running the Teacher Training Institute Tamil Medium under NCTE/2004-05 Code APSO 1103 dated 27.1.2005 and TN Govt. NOC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.29860/U1/04 dated 13.9.2004, is agreed to be transferred to the party of the fifth part, in his name or in the name of any Trust to which he belongs, inconsideration of the payment of … … … … … … … … … … … …

But the Certificate of Recognition granted by NCTE does not appear to be a tradable commodity or a transferable right. While a Trust,a Society, a Company, a Partnership Firm, or a Proprietory concern may be transferable, by virtue of the provisions contained in the law to which they are subjected, a Certificate of Recognition may not be transferable. The managements of body corporates in the nature of a Trust, Society, Company or Partnership Firm, are transferable by virtue of the provisions contained in The Indian Trusts Act, Societies Registration Act, TheCompanies Act, or The Indian Partnership Act. Therefore, such transfers of management become authorized by law.

It is in recognition of the transferability of themanagements that The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation)Act, 1973, provides for the approval of any change in the Constitution of the Educational Agency. Section 8 of the said Act enables the “EducationalAgency” to apply for approval of any change in the constitution of the Educational Agency, provided the Educational Agency and the person to whom the management is proposed to be transferred, make a joint application to the Competent Authority. But what the said Act actually permits, is the transfer of management of the Educational Agency and not the transfer of the permission granted under Section 5 or the recognition granted under Section 11 of the said Act. In other words, there is no provision in TheTamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, for the transfer of an order of the Competent Authority granting permission under Section 5 or recognition under Section 11 of the Act. 26. The analogy from The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, has become necessary in view of the fact that the National Council for Teacher Education Act under which a Teacher TrainingInstitute is established, does not contain a provision either for the transfer or alienation of the order of recognition or even the transfer of the management of the Educational Agency. Keeping in mind, the absence of such a provision under the National Council for Teacher Education Act,1993, the State of Tamil Nadu amended the Tamil Nadu Recognised PrivateSchools (Regulation) Act, 1973, by Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1999, to include aTeacher Training Institution, within the meaning of the word “PrivateSchool” under Section 2(7) of the Act. Therefore, it can be presumed that the change in the constitution of the Educational Agency, even in respect of a Teacher Training Institution, is authorized by law, viz., Section 8of The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Butas pointed out above, the permission contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act, is also only confined to a “change in the constitution of the Educational Agency” and “not to a transfer of the order of recognition”. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Therefore, the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.4.2005entered into between the promoters of “Evva Memorial Teacher TrainingInstitute” and “K.Ravi” for the sale of the order of recognition issued byNCTE and the No Objection Certificate issued by the Government of TamilNadu, is not an agreement permitted by law.

It is now well settled that the right to establish and maintain an Educational Institution is protected by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that education cannot be taken to be a trade or business, but could be treated only as an occupation. In T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA ANDOTHERS ((2002) 8 SCC 481), the Supreme Court held as follows:-"Education is per se regarded as an activity that is charitable in nature (see State of Bombay vs. R.M.D.CHAMARBAUGWALA (AIR 1957 SC 699). Education has so far not been regarded as a trade or business where profit is the motive. Even if there is any doubt about whether education is a profession or not, it does appear that education will fall within the meaning of the expression"occupation"."Again, the Supreme Court held in in P.A.INAMDAR AND OTHERS vs. STATE OFMAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ((2005) 6 SCC 537) as follows:-"89. Education, accepted as a useful activity, whether for charity or for profit, is an occupation. Nevertheless, it does not cease to be a service to society. And even though an occupation, it cannot be equated to a trade or a business. "

Of late lot of cases come up before Court, involving rival claims over the right to manage an institution. The trend is on the increase especially in so far as the Teacher Training Institutes are concerned. If such fights happen to be merely fights over the right to manage a single institution, it can be tolerated. But unfortunately, in all those cases, with a single order of recognition granted by NCTE, the rival claimants run two or more institutes under the same name, admitting innocent students, whose admissions are eventually not approved by the University or the State. At the last minute, both the rival claimants drive the students admitted by them to come up before Court, seeking permission to write the exams. This trend is on the increase only on account of the fact that the order of recognition granted by NCTE is wrongly understood to be a trade able or transferrable commodity. The said trend can be curtailed and thousands of students saved only if it is made clear that any agreement to transfer such a Certificate of Recognition is opposed to public policy and void in view of the provisions of Section 23of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, every agreement, of which, the object or consideration is unlawful, is void. Under the first limb of Section 23, the consideration or object of an agreement, is unlawful, if – https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1) It is forbidden by law; (2) Is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; (3) Is fraudulent; (4) Involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; (5) The Court regards it as immoral; (6) Opposed to public policy.

The Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.4.2005 entered into between the promoters of the institute and K.Ravi, is of such a nature, that if permitted, would defeat the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and is also opposed to public policy. This isso, in view of the elaborate procedure prescribed under the said Act for the grant of recognition. Section 14 of the said Act which deals with the grant of recognition, lays down the parameters, in respect of which the Regional Committee of the National Council, should be satisfied, for the grant of recognition, under sub section (3). These parameters laid down under clause (a) of sub section (3) of Section 14 of the Act, are as to the availability of adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and the fulfillment of such other conditions by the applying institution. Under Section 15(3)(a), which is in parimateria, the same parameters are to be satisfied even for starting a new course or training, in a recognized institution also. Therefore, if an order of recognition granted by NCTE is treated to be a trade able or transferable commodity, it would defeat the provisions of law and would also be against public policy. Hence any agreement for the alienation ofan order of recognition granted by NCTE is void and unenforceable.

Since the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.4.2005 is void, both parties are guilty of violating the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993.After entering into such an agreement, both parties fell out and the promoters started running the institute at Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam, while the agreement holder started running the institute at Thippampatti. Both of them have independently admitted students, resulting in an ugly situation, in which, two institutes are now run with a single order of recognition, but twice the permitted intake of students.

At least in so far as the promoters are concerned, they shifted the institute from Thippampatti to their own land and building at Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam and applied to NCTE for permission to change the location. The Inspection Team of NCTE also visited the new venue in October 2006. Therefore, the action of the promoters, is at least tolerable, since they have made an attempt to get their action ratified or regularized. But in so far as the agreement holder K.Ravi is concerned, he admitted students, on the basis of the aforesaid agreement, without holding a recognition from NCTE, merely on the ground that he is in actual physical possession of the building where the institute was run. Hence, the admissions made by the agreement holder are wholly illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It is under such circumstances that the Director of TeacherEducation Research and Training passed the order dated 9.8.2006, impugned in W.P.No.27148/2006, prohibiting the institute from admitting students for 2006-2007. Therefore the order cannot be found fault with.

It is true that the power to cancel the recognition, vests with NCTE under Section 17 of NCTE Act. But it does not mean that the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, who is empowered to approve the staff list and students list, should merely be a silent spectator and allow such illegal activities to continue, till NCTE wakes up from its slumber and initiates action under Section 17. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, has a role to play in respect of the following, viz., approval of staff list, admission of students, ensuring the conduct of classes for the prescribed number of days in an academic year, ensuring the conduct of practical training and observation, conduct of examinations by the Director of Government Examinations and issue of Certificates of completion of course. Therefore, the Director hasa duty cast upon him to prevent an institution, which is bogged down by rival claims over the right of management, from admitting students and that too more than the permitted intake. It is only in exercise of such aduty cast upon him that the order dated 9.8.2006 was issued by the Director and hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the said order dated 9.8.2006is liable to be dismissed.

Before deciding the fate of W.P.No.27148/2006 arising out of the order dated 9.8.2006, I directed Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned StandingCounsel for NCTE to find out the fate of the inspection carried out at Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam, on 11.10.2006. On instructions, it was stated by him that NCTE has rejected the request of the promoters, for shifting the location to Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam. Thus in effect, there is no recognition for the promoters from NCTE, to run the institute at Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam and hence, the order dated 9.8.2006issued by the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, has attained a seal of approval from NCTE also. Therefore, the writ petitionWP No.27148 of 2006 is dismissed. Question No.(b):-

Coming to the right or virtually the plight of the students, who are petitioners in W.P.No.47860 of 2006, it is seen that they were admitted in October 2005 for the academic year 2005-2006. Out of 48students, 25 were admitted under the Management Quota and 23 were admitted under the Government Quota through the Single Window System. By virtue of the agreement holder holding physical possession of the property, in which the courses were started, these students are undergoing courses in the property of the agreement holder K.Ravi, though the Educational Agency has gone out. After going out, the Educational Agency viz., the promoters of the institute, have admitted students independently in the new location both for the academic year 2005-2006 and for the academic year 2006-2007.The admission for the academic year 2006-2007 was made on the basis of the interim order granted in W.P.No.27148 of 2006. Since the interim order inW.P.No.27148 of 2006 also goes following the fate of the main writ petition, the admission of students by the promoters for the academic year https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2006-2007 is illegal. Moreover, Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Standing Counselfor the NCTE has reported that the Southern Regional Committee has rejected the request of the promoters to shift the location, by an order dated 14.12.2006. Thus, the admission made by the promoters for the academic year 2006-2007 is illegal.

In so far as the admission made by the promoters for the academic year 2005-2006 is concerned, the said admission also becomes illegal in view of the rejection order passed by NCTE on 14.12.2006,rejecting their request for change of location. In other words, the admission of students by the promoters for the year 2005-2006 in the new location, has become an admission to an unrecognised place. Afterinspecting the new location on 11.10.2006, the Southern Regional Committeeof NCTE has found by its order dated 14.12.2006 that no recognition could be granted to the said location. Therefore, these students admitted by the promoters and undergoing the course in the new location, are actually undergoing the course in a place not approved by NCTE and hence their admissions have become illegal.

In so far as the admission of students by the agreement holder K.Ravi is concerned, the same is also illegal since he was not an Educational Agency empowered under the NCTE Act to admit any students. Hewas a lessor of the land and building and an agreement holder for the purchase of the order of recognition. Such agreement is already held to bevoid. Therefore, the continuance of the students in the place of the agreement holder, in the absence of the Educational Agency, is also wholly illegal. Merely because he is in physical possession of the premises and had filed a suit for a mandatory injunction, the agreement holder cannot admit students. K.Ravi had admitted in W.P.No.18980 of 2006 that the transfer could not be effected as per the agreement, on account of the refusal of the promoters to sign the relevant papers. This is why he has filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction. Such a person is virtually aperson who has no recognition and consequently has no right to admit students.

But unfortunately, the petitioners in W.P.No.47860 of 2006got admitted in October 2005 before the rival claimants fell apart. Out of these 48 candidates, 23 were admitted by the Government through SingleWindow System. Therefore the rights of these students will have to be protected. But even while protecting their rights, these students cannot be permitted to continue the second year of the Diploma Course in the place of the agreement holder, since it would be illegal. Therefore, the students of 2005-2006 batch will have to be rehabilitated, to enable them to undergo the second year of the Diploma Course.

In order to rehabilitate the students admitted by both the rival claimants for the academic year 2005-2006, I directed the learnedSpecial Government Pleader (Education) to find out if the batch of students could be accommodated in other institutions for undergoing the second year. The learned Special Government Pleader (Education) submitted that if the NCTE grants approval for additional intake, to those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ institutions to which they may be reallotted, the Government could consider such a request. Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Standing Counsel forNCTE also agreed to place the matter before NCTE for approving the additional intake to enable the rehabilitation of the students.

While rehabilitating the students, the students should not be imposed with any additional financial burden. Normally, if students leave a course midstream, the self-financing colleges demand the fees payable for the remaining period of the curriculum also, to relieve them. Therefore the same logic has to be applied on the reverse, by directing both the rival claimants to refund the amount collected from the students.

Under the above circumstances, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-(a) The prayer made in W.P.No.27148 of 2006 forsetting aside the order of the Director dated 9.8.2006is rejected. (b) In so far as the prayer made by the promoters of the institute in W.P.No.46403 of 2006 and the prayer made by the students in W.P.No.47860 of 2006 are concerned, the Director of Teacher Education Researchand Training shall permit all those students admitted for the academic year 2005-2006 by both parties, to write the examinations scheduled to be held from18.12.2006.(c) After the completion of the examinations, the entire batch of students admitted by the promoters and the agreement holder K.Ravi as well as those admitted under the Single Window System for the academic year2005-2006, shall be reallotted by the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training to other recognised or Government Teacher Training Institutions, for continuing the second year of the Diploma Course.

With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarSvn. To1.The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai-6.2.The Director of Government Examinations, College Road, Chennai-6.3.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, HMT Post, Jalhalli, Bangalore-560 131.4.The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Thirumurthy Nagar, Coimbatore. 5. Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Thippampatti P.O., Pollachi-642 107.1 cc To Mr.S.Udayakumar, SCGSC, SR.63210.1 cc To Mr.K.Sridhar, Advocate, SR.63395. WP Nos.46403,27148 and 47860 of 2006TS(CO)RVL 22.12.2006