IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14/08/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION.NO.1503 OF 2003
and
WPMP.NO.1878 OF 2003
1. S.K. Mathena
D/o. Kader
2. M. Deivamani,
D/o. S. Mani
3. K. Thilagam,
D/o. Kandappan
4. S. Manjula
D/o. Sidheswaran
5. B.G. Sumathi,
D/o. Govindha Chetty
6. A. Umamageswari,
D/o. Ayyasamy
7. K. Valarnila,
D/o. Kumaravel
8. A. Moorthy,
S/o. Paani Sammal
9. K. Sengodan,
S/o. Karuppanna Nadar
10. G. Vivekanandan,
S/o. Govinda Chetty
11. G. Mariyappan,
S/o. Ganapathy
12. S. Kalayanaraman,
S/o. Srinivasan
13. A. Jayasankar,
S/o. Ambikapathi
14. S. Gunasekar,
S/o. Subramanian
15. K.R. Baskaran,
S/o. Ramadass
16. M. Rajasekaran,
S/o. Murugaiyan
17. V. Kalyanasundaram,
S/o. Vinayagam
18. A.M. Elumalai,
S/o. Muniyan
19. C. Chinnadurai,
S/o. Chinnathambi
20. R. Lawrance Feklix Thomas,
S/o. Rayappan
21. H. Siraj
S/o. Hussain
22. K. Saravanan,
S/o. Kamaraj
23. V. Vijayakumar,
S/o. Vaithiyalingam
24. A. Palani,
S/o. Ammavasai
25. R. Kanagaraj,
S/o. Ramalingam
26. N.P. Kumar,
S/o. Perumal
27. S. Senthil Velavan,
S/o. Madappan
28. A. Sagayaraj,
S/o. Arulanantham
29. P. Ramachandran,
S/o. Parthasarathy
30. M. Ravichandiran,
S/o. Murugesan
31. K. Chandran
S/o. Kandi Gounder
32. C. Ananthan,
S/o. Cinnamuthu
33. A. Lila,
D/o. Syed Ameer
34. R. Tamilarasi,
D/o. Rangasami
35. E. Vennila,
D/o. Edumann
36. J. Umamaheswari,
M/o. Mallika .. Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Govt.,
Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director,
Teacher Education Research and
Training, College Road,
Chennai 6. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M. Vijayan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A. Chandrasekar
For Respondents 1-2: Mr.P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram
Addl. Govt. Pleader
:J U D G M E N T
Prayer in this writ petition is to issue Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the order dated 26.12.2002 in Na.Ka.17837/C4/2001 issued by
the second respondent and direct the respondents to admit the petitioners in
Diploma Teacher Education in the respective Government District Institute of
Educational and Training.
2. To appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is
necessary to notice the chequered events. Royal Teacher Training Institute,
Krishnagiri was established in 1989. Since there was some disputes regarding
recognition, W.P.No.14756 of 1991 had been filed and by virtue of interim
order in WMP.No.22140 of 1991, temporary recognition was granted to such
institute with effect from 3.4.1992. Subsequently, however, order dated
22.9.1992 was issued indicating that temporary recognition was effective from
14.6.1989. This recognition, however, was shortlived inasmuch as the
recognition granted to this institute as well as many other teacher training
institute was quashed pursuant to the order of the High Court in WP.No.9494 of
1992. To alleviate the difficulties faced by the students who had studied in
such institutes, which were subsequently de-recognised, the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.685 dated 16.7.1993 stipulating that the students shall undergo a
refresher course. The above order of the Government to extricate the
unfortunate students also proved futile as the said order was quashed by the
High Court in W.P.No.15463 of 1993 and other connected matters.
3. Long thereafter the Government again thought of helping
the unfortunate students who had undergone training in such de-recognised
institutes and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 7.8.2001 was issued wherein it was decided
that 60% of the total seats would be allotted to the regular candidates and
remaining 40% of the seats would be allotted to the affected students who have
studied in de-recognised teacher training institutes. Since the aforesaid
G.O. has got some bearing in deciding the present case, it is desirable to
extract the relevant portions :-
. . . 2. While admitting the students through Single Window
System, the Govt. orders that the following norms should be followed:
i) . . .
ii) Excluding the above 60% of seats, the remaining 40% of seats will
be allotted through Single Window System for affected students who had studied
in de-recognised Teacher Training Institutes. If such affected candidates are
not available for 40% of allotment, they would be filled by the regular
candidates of the respective communities.
iii) For the 40% of seats allotted for the affected candidates, at the
first level those who had written the second year public Examinations but were
not issued the diplomas, and if such candidates are not available, the
affected students those who had written the First year Public Examinations and
were not issued the diploma mark sheets will be selected through communal
reservations. If sufficient number of candidates are not available in
selecting the students who had written the Second Year Examinations but were
not issued diplomas through Communal reservations, the students of the
respective communities who had written the first year Examinations but were
not issued the marksheets will be selected. If sufficient number of
candidates are not available for the above two categories, the students who
had undergone First Year Teacher Training course may be considered.
iv) In 40% of seats allotted for affected students in the sections of
minority languages, if such applications are not available for the above,
chances may be given to affected students who had not completed First Year
Teacher Training Course. However the details of such students who had
undergone short term refresher Course in Government Higher Secondary Schools
allotted for them will be checked with the School list obtained. Even then if
sufficient number of applications are not received, those seats will be filled
up from the respective communal candidates of regular candidates. Only those
who had studied in de-recognised Teacher Training Institutes alone are
eligible.
v) There will be separate applications for regular students and
affected students.
vi) The genuinity of the affected students who had written the
examinations will be verified with TMR maintained by the Director of Govt.
Examinations. The candidates who had undergone short term refresher course
will be verified with the list sent by the Headmasters of the Govt. Higher
Secondary Schools in which such programme was conducted.
. . .
4. Soon thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 7.9.2001 was issued
creating additional seats in the District Teachers Training Institutes and
Government Teachers Training Institutes. The relevant portion is to the
following effect:-
. . . The plight of the affected 28366 students of the
derecognised private teachers training institutes consequent on the judgments
of the High Court of Judicature, Chennai, and the Supreme Court was duly
examined and considered earlier. By revising 40% of seats in the District
Teachers Training Institute and Government Teachers Training Institutes for
such of those affected students, 2391 students alone have so far been
admitted. It will take about 20 years time to give such training as aforesaid
to all the remaining students. Keeping this in view and in the interest of
such kind of affected students, it is proposed to create additional seats in
District Institutes for Teacher Education and Training and Government Teachers
Training Institutes and admit all the qualified affected students relaxing the
maximum age limit, for regular two years training in such institutes and the
Government after taking such decision issue orders as follows :-
(i) A Regular two years training will be given to the affected
students in the following DIETS and Government TTIS as mentioned against
each Institute in 2001-2002 by creating 10729 additional seats excluding 1048
seats i.e.40% of seats already admitted in accordance with the discussion in
the National Council for Teachers Education Meeting, held on 29.08.2001.
The Principals of the concerned Institutes shall apply in the
prescribed form to the National Council for Teacher Education Committee for
necessary permission for creation of the above additional seats.
(ii) Relaxation of maximum age limit for admission to the training
will be granted to the affected students. As for the educational
qualification for admission to the teachers training, the existing educational
qualification (i.e., a pass in +2 examination for SC and ST students and 50%
of the total marks in +2 examination for other community students) will be
followed. . . .
5. In the background of the above admitted developments, the
petitioners and others claiming to be the students of Royal Teacher Training
Institute filed WP.No.19757 of 2001 to get the benefit of G.O.Ms. No.136
dated 7.9.2001 as they had not been permitted to attend the counselling for
admission in DTE course in District Institute of Educational and Training. By
interim order dated 17.10.2001, 72 applicants in the said writ petition were
permitted to attend the counselling subject to the result of the writ
petition. However, due to want of proper communication, only present 36
petitioners were able to attend the counselling on 23.7.2002.
6. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the
following observation :-
. . . Without going into the merits and as the 36 Petitioners
have already attended the counselling, the respondents are directed to declare
the result of the counselling conducted on 23.7.2002, if according to the
respondents, the 36 petitioners are eligible, and if they are qualified in all
respects as per the Government Order, on merits the respondents may declare
the result of the counselling. This Court is not expressing any opinion in
respect of the merits of the contentions or the claim of the 36 writ
Petitioners, who attended the counselling. the result of the counselling
conducted on 23.7.2002 shall be declared within two weeks from today. ..
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the order dated
26.12.2002, which is impugned in the present writ petition, was issued
rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for being admitted on the ground that
the petitioners had not written second or first year examinations nor they had
undergone the short-term refresher course and their names were not found in
TMR.
8. It is the contention of the petitioners that Royal
Teachers Training Institute, where they have undertaken their studies, was
given temporary recognition only in 1992 with retrospective effect from 14
.06.1989 as a result of which none of the students had appeared at the
examination and similarly had no occasion to undergone short-term refresher
course. It has been submitted that in order to eligible for undergoing
present two years training programme, there is no requirement that a person
must have undergone short-term refresher course and the application of the
petitioners had been rejected on erroneous and unsustainable grounds.
9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents wherein after narrating various facts and developments, which have
already been noticed above, it had been stated that since the petitioners had
not appeared at the examination nor had undergone the refresher course, they
were found ineligible. It is stated that
. . . out of the 36 petitioners 21 candidates studied in the
Institute during 1989-91 and 15 candidates during 1990-92. They have
completed the two year course and have to appear for the examination. But
they have not written their examination since the institution was not
recognised during that period. According to the selection procedure of the
affected students, selection was made based on the marks obtained in the +2
examination from among the candidates who have written the second year Diploma
in Teacher Education Examination. Since the petitioners have not written
their II year of (or) I year examination they were not considered for
selection.
It has been further stated that
. . . It is submitted that the criteria that affected candidates
must have written their 1st year examination or 2nd year examination or must
have undergone the refresher course is to ascertain that they have been really
affected after being enrolled in these derecognised institutes. If we do not
insist on these three criteria which are checked with Government records and
grant admission based merely on the course certificate issued by the
de-recognised Teacher Training Institutes then any number of course
certificates to any number of candidates will open a flood gate that will
throw the system to the wind. Candidates with low marks and over age, who
cannot get admission into the regular District Institutes of Education and
Training and Teacher Training Institutes, which is based on merit under Single
Window System, will manage to get any number of course certificates from such
de-recognised institutions under this cover.
(Emphasis added)
10. The relevant provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.112 have
already been extracted. A careful and combined perusal of paragraphs 2(ii),
(iii) and (iv) and (vi) would make it clear that 40% of the seats were
reserved for the affected students who have studied in derecognised teacher
training institutes, which is evident from paragraph 2(ii). Under paragraph
2(iii), it is evident that the Government wanted to give precedence to the
students who had written second year public examinations, but were not issued
the diplomas and if sufficient number of candidates are not available, the
students who had written first year examination, but were not issued
marksheets will be selected. If sufficient number of candidates are not
available for the above two categories, the students who have undergone first
year teacher training course may be considered. Under 2(iv), if such
applications are not available for the above, chances may be given to the
students who have not completed first year teacher training course. There is
no basic requirement that a student has to undergo short term refresher
course. Reference to the students undergoing short term refresher course is
with a view to ascertain and to identify as to whether such students had
completed the two years course or had studied first year course, because the
intention was to help the students who had studied in those institutes
subsequently de-recognised. Preference which was to be given was confined to
the students who had appeared at the second year final examination or at the
first year examination as the case may be.
11. As already noticed, subsequently G.O.Ms.No.136 dated
7.9.2001 was issued creating more seats for the affected students. The said
G.O. is obviously to be read along with G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 7.8.2001. From
paragraph 2(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.112, it is evident that if the candidates, who
had appeared in the second year examination or the first year examination, as
the case may be, were not available, the students who had undergone the first
year teacher training course may be considered. This latter category would
obviously include the students who had also completed the second year, as
obviously then they could have done so only after having completed first year
teacher training course. In other words, first preference was to be given to
those students who had appeared in the second year examination and thereafter
preference would be given to those who had appeared in the first year
examination and after giving preference to the above categories, other seats
would be filled up from among the students who had undergone first year
teacher training course. In order to identify the students, reference was
made to verification with TMR maintained by the Director or with reference to
the list sent by the Headmasters relating to the refresher course. But, it
cannot be held that the person who had not undergone the refresher course is
not eligible to take the benefit of the subsequent liberalised policy of the
Government.
12. From various Government Orders it is evident that it is
the intention of the Government to help the unfortunate students who had
undergone the training in such Institutes which were subsequently
derecognised. It is of course true that while considering the eligibility,
the authorities are obviously to be satisfied about the genuineness of the
claim made by a particular student regarding his undergoing study in a
particular institute which had been subsequently derecognised. That would
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
13. In the present case, even though some doubts have been
expressed at the time of hearing, in the impugned order no such doubt had been
indicated and the only ground of rejection appears to be the fact that the
applicant had not appeared at the examination and had not undergone the
short-term course. If a student is otherwise able to establish that he has
undergone the training course, he is equally eligible to avail the benefit
even though he has not undergone the shortterm refresher course. One cannot
lost sight of the fact that in the impugned order no doubt has been expressed
regarding the present petitioners having completed the training. Moreover, in
paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated by the
respondents that
. . . Out of the 36 petitioners 21 candidates studied in the
Institute during 1989-91 and 15 candidates during 1990-92. They have
completed the two year course and have to appear for the examination. But
they have not written their examination since the institution was not
recognised during that period. . . .
14. In view of the aforesaid statement in the counter
affidavit, there is no doubt that the present petitioners were genuine
students, who had completed the course, but they were not appear at the
examination and thereafter the temporary recognition stood withdrawn by virtue
of the decision of the High Court.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order
dated 26.12.2002 and direct that the petitioners should be given the benefit
of G.O.Ms.No.112. If the admission to the course for the year 2002-20 03 is
not over, benefit may be extended to them, otherwise benefit maybe given in
the current year.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk/ksr
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Govt.,
Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director,
Teacher Education Research and
Training, College Road,
Chennai 6.