ORDER
S.S. Subramani, J.
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing second respondent to admit petitioner in the Teachers Training Course for the year 1998-99 in the second respondents’ Institute and render justice.
2. Petitioner is a minor and the writ petition is filed by her natural guardian father.
3. Petitioner after completing her plus two examination, applied for teacher training course in the second respondent institute. She has obtained 792 marks out of 1200. It is her case that her father who is the deponent has participated in the agitation to safeguard the interest of Tamil as ‘Mozhipor Thiyagi’. But petitioner was not given admission under the category meant for persons who have participated in the agitation to safeguard the interest of Tamil.
4. It is the case of petitioner that along with application, an affidavit attested by Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thiruttani was also attached, wherein it was stated that the deponent had participated in the agitation and about his detention in Vellore Prison in Crime No. 323 of 1986. Along with the application, a certificate issued by Tahsildar, Thiruttani was also enclosed to substantiate that deponent is a ‘Mozhipor Thiyagi’ and therefore petitioner is entitled to get admission under that special category.
5. Grievance of petitioner is that these documents were not considered by second respondent. It is said that as per G.O.Ms. No. 229, dated 6-8-1998, second respondent is bound to follow the directions therein and only because the same was not followed, petitioner was denied admission. It is said that second respondent has rejected the application on the ground that the certificate enclosed is not issued by the competent authority. According to petitioner, G.O.Ms. No. 229
dated 6-8-1998 do not disclose as to the person who is competent to issue such certificate and therefore, the certificate issued by Tahsildar is -valid.
6. It is further said that the attempt of second respondent is only to give admission to some other persons of their choice, who have obtained less marks than petitioner. It i s also said that even though second list was published, all candidates were selected under management quota. All the 12 candidates who have been admitted under management quota have obtained less marks than petitioner. It is in violation of guidelines prescribed by the Government and therefore, the selection is arbitrary.
7. Detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by second respondent. It is said that second respondent is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act established during the year 1930 with the primary aim of rehabilitating the destitutes and orphans of the Society. Government also extended 2/3rd grant-in-aid for the administration of the Teacher Training Institute.
8. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that it is mandatory on the part of management to adhere to the rules and norms set by Government in the matter of admission of students to Teacher Training Course, which is regulated under G.O.Ms. No. 379 dated 14-10-1998. It is also said that Government directed the institution to admit 30% of 40 sanctioned seals, viz., 12 seats under the management quota to be filled up on non-merit basis whereby said 12 seats were required to be filled up only by adhering to the educational and age qualifications of candidates irrespective of marks obtained by candidates in Plus Two examinations. Balance 70% seals viz., 28 seats out of 40 seats are to be filled up on merit basis following the reservation quota by adhering to the admission procedure contemplated by Government in that regard.
9. It is also said in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit that the application filed by petitioner seeking admission under special category was defective in the sense the certificate enclosed was not issued by the competent authority i.e., Directorate of Tamil Development. It is further said that the approving authority issued instructions to second respondent that in the absence of eligible special category candidates, it is open to management to fill up the seats with
merit candidates, and only under those circumstances the next merit candidate was filled up in the said seat and such candidature was also approved by competent authority in this regard. Three applications were received under the special category including that of petitioner and all those applications were rejected since they were defective. According to respondent, all admissions made by it is proper and there is no ground for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
10. I heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that G.O.Ms. No. 229 dated 6-8-1998 has only said that certain documents will have to be enclosed when a candidate prays for admission under the category of ‘MozhiporThiyagi’. In G.O.Ms. No. 229 with regard to the said category, it is stated thus,
(Vernacular matter omitted)
11. Learned counsel for petitioner was right in his submission that the said Government Order has not disclosed as to the authority who is competent to issue such certificate. Petitioner had enclosed a certificate issued by Tahsildar, Since the Government Order does not disclose the authority, an opportunity should have been given to petitioner to produce the certificate from the authorities who is competent to issue such certificate. That opportunity has been denied to petitioner.
12. But the procedural irregularity of respondent may not save petitioner in this case since it is found that one K. G. Selvi who also belong to backward community as in the case of petitioner, has obtained higher marks than petitioner. Selvi obtained 841 marks whereas petitioner obtained only 792 marks only. Only one seat is reserved under this special category. Application of Selvi was also rejected for the very same reason. Merely because Selvi has not approached this Court that may not be a ground to grant relief to petitioner, for admission must be according to merits. Since more meritorious candidate is in the list, possibility of petitioner getting admitted to the course is remote. Therefore, relief sought for to admit petitioner under special category has to be rejected.
13. Petitioner has got an alternate case as stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. It is stated
therein that 12 candidates have been selected in the second list and all of them were selected under management quota. All 12 candidates mentioned in the second list have got less marks than petitioner and the selection of students by second respondent is not proper. According to petitioner, out of 40 seats, 12 seats are now filled up under this category violating the directions issued by Government.
14. As against said contention, counsel for second respondent submitted that second respondent institute is entitled to admit students irrespective of merits but taking into consideration only the eligibility for admission. For the said purpose, learned counsel relied on G.O.Ms. No. 379 dated 14-10-1998. It is submitted that this Government Order has not been challenged and the admission already made is not liable to be interfered with.
15. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of G.O.Ms. No. 379, dated 14-10-1998 read thus,
(Vernacular matter omitted)
16. I find force in the said contention of learned counsel for respondent, where the Government has specifically said that with regard to management quota, only consideration is age and eligibility qualification and it also says (vernacular matter omitted). If that be so, inter se merit of candidate is not to be considered when management is free to admit 12 students, provided they are eligible to be admitted. Learned counsel for respondent also brought to my notice the admission list for the year 1998-99 regarding candidates admitted under management quota. It could be seen therefrom that five candidates have obtained far less marks than petitioner. But so long as Government order permits second respondent to admit candidates only taking into consideration eligibility conditions, I cannot find fault with the admission procedure adopted by it. G.O.Ms. No. 379 dated 14-10-1998 is also not challenged by petitioner.
17. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.P. No. 20 of 1999 is also dismissed.