JUDGMENT
K. Suguna, J.
1. These two appeals are filed challenging the order dated 14.12.2006 passed in W.P. No. 24119 of 2006. The parties are referred to as in W.A. No. 95 of 2007.
2. Initially, a Trust by name “Sri Vigneshwara Trust for Education” was created by the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007. Mr. O.A. Patanisamy had submitted an application dated 29.7.2002 seeking recognition to start a new Elementary Teacher Training Course for a duration of two years from the academic year 2002-2003 under the name and style Dr. Radhakrishnan Teacher Training Institute. The deed of Declaration of Trust dated 7.3.2002 was registered as Document No. 46/2002 in Book No. 4 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Poliachi. Mr. O.A. Palanisamy, the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007 was described as the Founder of the Trust and 9 persons were named as the Trustees. On 25.7.2003, three Trustees of the above said Trust resigned and in that place five new Trustees were inducted, one of whom is Mr. M.D. Einstein, the appellant in A.S. No. 95/2007.
3. The Southern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education, the 5m respondent herein, after inspection has granted recognition by order dated 28.10.2004 for intake of 50 students for the academic year 2004-2005. Meanwhile, the founder of Vigneshwara Trust for Education. Mr. O.A. Palanisamy has started another Trust joining with the appellant in W.A. No. 95/2007 under the name “Sri Vinayaka Educational Development Trust” having office at No. 51/1 Kovilpaiayam Post, Poilachi. Subsequent to the formation of “Sri Vinayaga Educational Development Trust”, the “Vigneshwara Trust for Education” sold the lands to “Sri Vinayaka Educational Development Trust” on 21.9.2004. Though it was signed by the Founder, the Treasurer has not signed the said deed and he had filed O.S. No. 17/2005 on the file of the Sub-Court, Poilachi, for cancelling the sale and the same is pending. Subsequent to the recognition granted for the application submitted by the Vigneshwara Trust for Education, misunderstanding developed between the appellants in W.A. No. 95/2007 and W.A. No. 121/2007. Consequence of this, the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007 was running an Institution at Kovilpaiayam under the name and style of “Dr. Radhakrishnan Teacher Training Institute” and the appellant in W.A. No. 95/2007 Mr. Einstein was running another institution in the same name at Ramanathapuram Village at Poilachi Taluk, in pursuance of the recognition granted by the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bangalore, dated 28.10.2004. As per that order, permission was given only for the intake of 50 students, out of which 25 students have to be filled through the single window system under the Government quota and the balance of 25 students has to be filled by the management and out of the students selected under the Government quota, 15 students have joined in the Teacher Training Institute at Kovilpaiayam and 5 students have joined in the Institution at Ramanathapuram run by Mr. Einstein. However, writ petitions have been filed before this Court seeking approval of the staff list and the students list. However, in the writ petition filed by Mr. O.A. Palanisamy in W.P. No. 39307/2005, by order dated 7.12.2005, this Court has made it clear that the approval list should be considered prospectively for the academic year 2006-2007 and in the writ petition filed by Einstein in W.P. No. 19734/2006 to approve the admission of 20 students in the lapsed seats for the year 2005-2006, directions were issued to the Government to dispose of the representations of the petitioner therein dated 7.1.12006 and 28.6.2006. On 18.12.2004, an application was submitted by the institution run by Mr. Einstein seeking permission to admit additional strength of 50 students. The Southern Regional Committee, NCTE by its letter dated 12.12.2005 sought for clarification for having unauthorisedly shifted the institution from Pollachl to Ramanathapuram and further, in the said Setter, the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE has directed that admission should not be made until the said committee takes a final decision and communicated the same to the Institution and has also further informed that if any admission is made contrary to this direction that will lead to violation of the provision of NCTE Act 1993 and the same will be viewed seriously. In the subsequent letter of the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE Bangalore dated 8.3.2006 it is noted that the original recognition for Diploma in Teacher Education was accorded to the Institution at Kovilpalayam and an application for additional intake was submitted by the Institution at Ramanathapuram, hence, it was decided by the said committee to seek a clarification from the institution regarding the permission obtained for shifting the location of the institution. Meanwhile, since, Dr. Radhakrishnan Teacher Training institute at Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore was not included in the list of Teacher Training Institute for the purpose of counseling under the single window system for the first year Diploma in Teacher Education for the academic year 2006-2007, the appellant in W.A. No. 95/2007 had filed W.P. No. 24119/2006, wherein the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007 has impleaded himself as a party respondent and the said writ petition was disposed with the following directions.
(a) The prayer of the petitioner for including the name of the institution in the list of recognized institutions published by the respondents, is rejected.
(b) The respondents 1 and 2 shall allot the entire batch of 90 students (comprising of 20 students admitted under the Government quota and 70 students admitted by the rival claimants viz., the petitioner and third respondent) admitted for the academic year 2005-2006, to other recognized or Government Teacher training Institutes, so as to enable them to complete the course and take the examinations, if they have not already completed the course and taken the examinations.
(c) The fifth respondent viz., the southern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education, shall permit additional intake proportionately to the institutions to which the 90 students are reallotted by the respondents 1 and 2, so that their admission in the reallotted institutions do not suffer from any lacunae.
(d) The fifth respondent shall initiate action against the petitioner and the third respondent institution for derecognition, within a period of two weeks.
(e) Mr. M.D. Einstein representing the petitioner shall deposit with the first respondent, an amount equivalent to the tuition fees and all other fees and charges collected from the 50 students admitted by him for the academic year 2005-2006. within a period of four weeks.
(f) Mr. O.A. Palanisamy representing the third respondent shall deposit with the first respondent, an amount equivalent to the tuition fees and all other fees and charges collected by him from the 40 students admitted for the academic year 2005-2006, within a period of four weeks.
(g) The first respondent shall pay, from out of the amount so deposited by M.D. Einstein and O.A. Palanisamy, all fees and other charges payable by those 90 students to the institutions to which they are to be reallotted if there is any shortfall, the same shall also be collected by the first respondent from the petitioner and the third respondent in proportion to the number of students admitted by them. If the amount collected from the petitioner and third respondent, is in excess of the amount payable by those students upon reallotment, the same shall be refunded to the students.
Aggrieved against this order, W.A. Nos. 95 and 121 of 2007 were filed.
4. Following the dispute in the Management, two institutions are run in two places by two Correspondents by staking from rival claim over the management of Teacher Training Institute as well as the ownership of the property. Now, the issue to be decided is to whom the 5m respondent has granted recognition, whether to Dr. Radhakrishnan Elementary Teacher Training institute at Kovilpalayam or to Dr. Radhakrishnan Elementary Teacher Training Institute at Ramanathapuram, Colmbatore District.
5. It is the case of the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007 though initially “Vigneshwara Trust for Education” had submitted an application seeking recognition to start a new Elementary Teacher Training Institute, subsequent to the formation of Vinayaka Educational Development Trust, the land belong to the ‘Vigneshwara Trust for Education’ was transferred to Vinayaka Educational Development Trust but the said transfer of land was not signed by the treasurer of ‘Vigneshwara Trust for Education’ and also the change of location was also not approved by the competent authority namely the NCTE. Besides, according to the learned counsel, initially, application was submitted by ‘Vigneshwara Trust for Education’ only to start the Teacher Training Institute at Kovtlpalayam. For this atone, recognition was given. But, it is the case of the appellant in W.A. No. 95/2007 that already the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007 was removed by a resolution passed by the competent committee and as on date the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007 is not holding the post of Correspondent. Apart from this, as per the rental agreement entered by the ‘Vigneshwara Trust for Education’ the institution was functioning at Ramanathapuram. Consequently, it cannot be held that the original recognition was given to start the Elementary Teacher Training Institution only to Dr. Radhakrishnan Teacher Training Institute at Kovilpalayam. Though the NCTE had sought for clarification with regard to the change of address and change of management, no orders were passed by the NCTE.
6. Yet another factor to be noted is, the original application seeking recognition was submitted by ‘Vigneshwara Trust for Education’ and the same was also granted by NCTE by order dated 28.10.2004. However, application for additional intake was submitted by Dr.Radhakrishnan Teacher Training Institute at Ramanathapuram. Now, in fact, basing on this rival claim as among the appellants in both the Writ Appeals, the actual sufferer are the students who were admitted in both the Institutions. Yet another factor to be noted is though the recognition was given by the Southern Regional Committee for the intake of only 50 students, each institution had admitted 25 students and also further students in the lapsed category. On the whole, in both the Institutions, total number of students who were admitted are 90 and the fate of them are under question. Under such circumstances, these wit appeals are disposed of confirming the following directions in W.P. No. 24119/2006 dated 14.12.2006.
(a) The first respondent viz., The Director of Teacher Education Research & Training, D.P. 1. Campus, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006 and the second respondent viz., The Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Thirumoorthy Nagar, Coimbatore District, shall allot the entire batch of 90 students (comprising of 20 students admitted under the Government quota and 70 students admitted by the rival claimants viz., the petitioner and third respondent) admitted for the academic year 2005-2006, to other recognized or Government Teacher Training Institutes, so as to enable them to complete the course and take the examinations, if they have not already completed the, course and taken the examinations.
(b) The fifth respondent viz., The Southern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education, shall permit additional intake proportionately to the institutions to which the 90 students are reallotted by the respondents 1 and 2, so that their admission in the reallotted institutions do not suffer from any lacunae.
(c) Mr. M.D. Einstein, the appellant in W.A. No. 95/2007 shall deposit with the first respondent, an amount equivalent to the tuition fees and all other fees and charges collected from the 50 students admitted by him for the academic year 2005-2006, within a period of four weeks.
(d) Mr. O.A. Palanisamy, the appellant in W.A. No. 121/2007 shall deposit with the first respondent, an amount equivalent to the tuition fees and all other fees and charges collected by him from the 40 students admitted for the academic year 2005-2006, within a period of tour weeks.
(e) Tine first respondent shall pay, from out of tie amount so deposited by M.D. Einstein and O.A. Palanisamy, ail fees and other charges payable by those 90 students to the institutions to which they are to be reaSiotted. If there is any shortfall, the same shall also be collected by the first respondent from the appellants in W.A. Nos. 95 and 121 of 2007 to the number of students admitted by them. If the amount collected from the appellants, is in excess of the amount payable by those students upon reallotment, the same shall be refunded to the students.
6.1 Further, the fifth respondent, the Regional Committee is directed to examine the rival claim made by both the appellants and pass orders with regard to which Institution actually recognition was granted and the parties are also at liberty to produce the relevant documents before the 5th respondent. However, the fifth respondent is directed to complete the process and pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2007 are closed. No costs.