IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05/09/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION.NO.10355 OF 1999
and
W.M.P.NOs.14658,14847 OF 1999 & 49346 OF 2002
Annai Sathya Women Teacher
Training Institute,
Periyakumatti,
Chidambaram Taluk,
South Arcot District,
rep. by its Correspondent
Tmt. Sheela Rani. .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The National Council for
Teacher Education,
Southern Regional Committee,
rep. by its Regional Director,
Bangalore.
2. The National Council for
Teacher Education,
rep. by its Member-Secretary,
New Delhi 16.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Govt. of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
4. The Director,
DTRT (Teachers Training),
College Road, Chennai 6.
5. The Director of Govt. Examinations,
Government of Tamilnadu,
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.P. Rajamanickam
For Respondents 1-2 : Mr.S. Udayakumar, ACGSC
Respondent 3-5 : Mr. Sivashanmuga Sundaram
A.G.P.,
:J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has prayed for issuing writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus for quashing the order in F.No.42-16/98-99/NCTE dated 24.5.1999 and
for a direction to the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner
institute in accordance with Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher
Education Act.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as
follows :-
The petitioner institute was established in the year 1984. It had
temporary recognition from 1984 to 1989. It was granted recognition by the
Government on 8.1.1992 by G.O.Ms.No.2(D) 6, Education (UI). However, such
order relating to recognition was quashed by the High Court by order dated
30.6.1993 in W.P.No.9494/1992. It was observed by the High Court that If
the institute had fulfilled all the requirements of the G.O. subsequent to
the inspection report dated 13.12.1991 , it is open to the institute to make
appropriate representation to the Government. Accordingly, a further
representation was made. However, by order dated 4.10.1994, the State
Government refused to grant recognition on the ground that the institute had
not complied with the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.535/536 dated
17.5.1989. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5022 of 1995 challenging the order of
the Government. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, the National
Council for Teacher Education Act,1993 (hereinafter called as the Act) came
into force. Subsequently, an application was filed before the National
Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, for recognition
indicating that the petitioner institute was an existing institution. In
the meantime, W.P.No.5022 of 1995 was disposed of by the High Court with an
observation that the present respondent No.1 alone has jurisdiction to decide
the question of recognition as the National Council for Teacher Education Act
has come into force. Writ Appeal No.624 of 1997 filed against the said order
was disposed of with the observation that the application of the petitioner
should be considered afresh after affording opportunity of hearing without
taking into consideration the order dated 4.10.1994. Thereafter, the first
respondent issued a notice to the petitioner indicating that no objection
certificate is required from the State Government for considering the
application for recognition. The petitioner, however, replied that no
objection certificate is not necessary as the institute was an existing
institution within the meaning of Section 1 4 of the Act. Thereafter, the
first respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.5.1999 holding that no
recognition could be given unless no objection certificate is obtained from
the State Government. The aforesaid order is being impugned in the present
writ petition.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the institute
is an existing institution, and therefore, the first respondent should not
have insisted upon the no objection certificate from the State Government.
It has been further contended that the case of the petitioner is similar to
the cases of Rosammal Memorial Minorities Teachers Institute for Women and St.
Stephen Teacher Training Institute and the Division Bench of the High Court
had given a direction to consider the case of Rosammal Memorial Minorities
Teachers Institute for Women as an existing institution as apparent from the
order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1100 & 1212 of 1995. It has
been further indicated that such order of the Division Bench was also made
applicable to St. Stephen Teacher Training Institute in W.A.Nos.152 & 169 of
1996.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents stating that the petitioner institute cannot be considered as an
existing institution and without obtaining no objection certificate from the
State Government, recognition cannot be granted.
5. Analysis of the relevant factors relating to Rosammal
Memorial Minorities Teachers Institute for Women indicates that temporary
recognition in respect of the said institute was quashed in W.P.No.9494/92 .
Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, recognition was withdrawn on 2 7.1.1994.
W.P.No.7283 of 1994 was filed against such order. During pendency of such
writ petition, the National Council for Teacher Education Act came into force.
W.P.No.7283 of 1994 was disposed of on 12 .9.1995. In these circumstances, it
was observed in Writ Appeal Nos.1100 & 1212 of 1995 that the institute was an
existing institution and direction was given to the present respondent No.1 to
consider the case of recognition relating to the said institute as if it was
an existing institution.
6. So far as St. Stephen Teacher Training Institute is
concerned, it is found that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.9494 of
1992, recognition was withdrawn on 18.4.1994 and W.P.No.16975 of 1995 was
filed. Ultimately, in W.A.Nos.152 & 169 of 1996, the Division bench followed
the earlier order in W.A.Nos.1100 & 1212 of 1995 and the institute was
considered to be an existing institution.
In respect of the petitioner institute, pursuant to the order passed
in W.P.No.9494 of 1992, actual withdrawal was on 4.10.1994. W.P.No.5022 of
1995 was dismissed on 8.7.1996 and thereafter in W.A.No.624 of 1997, it was
observed that the respondent No.1 should consider the question of recognition
afresh without taking into consideration the previous order dated 4.10.1994.
7. On a careful consideration of these aspects, I find no
difference in the factual scenario so far as the present institute is
concerned as compared with other two institutes, namely, Rosammal Memorial
Minorities Teachers Institute for Women and St. Stephen Teacher Training
Institute.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, however,contended
that so far as St. Stephen Teacher Training Institute is concerned, by virtue
of the interim stay order, the institute was continuing, and therefore, it was
considered as an existing institution. Even though there may be some truth in
the said contention, it seems that there was no such stay order so far as
Rosammal Memorial Minorities Teachers Institute for Women was concerned and
yet it was held that such institute was an existing institution.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and keeping in view the relevant circumstances as applicable to Rosammal
Memorial Minorities Teachers Institute for Women and St. Stephen Teacher
Training Institute, I am of the opinion that the application of the present
petitioner is also required to be considered in the light of the observations
made in W.A.Nos.1100 & 1212 of 1995 which has been followed in W.A.Nos.152 &
169 of 1996. The respondent No.1 was not justified in insisting upon the no
objection certificate in respect of the petitioner institute. Accordingly,
the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 24.5.1999 is quashed
and the respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the matter keeping in view
the observations made in W.A.Nos.1100 & 1212 of 1995 as well as W.A.Nos.152 &
169 of 1996 by treating the petitioner institute as an existing institution.
The matter may be decided afresh within a period of six weeks from the date of
communication of the present order.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The National Council for
Teacher Education,
Southern Regional Committee,
rep. by its Regional Director,
Bangalore.
2. The National Council for
Teacher Education,
rep. by its Member-Secretary,
New Delhi 16.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Govt. of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
4. The Director,
DTRT (Teachers Training),
College Road, Chennai 6.
5. The Director of Govt. Examinations,
Government of Tamilnadu,
College Road, Chennai 6.