IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8020 of 2008(D)
1. JINURAJ R.,
... Petitioner
2. PRIYA S.R.,
3. NIHA RANJAN,
4. LAISY I.J.,
5. ASWATHY RAJ,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.PRATHEESH.P
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) Nos. 8020, 8248 & 10840 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 3rd June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners in W.P(C) Nos. 8020 and 8248 of 2008 are students
admitted to T.T.C Course in private institutes during the year 2007-
08. the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 10840 of 2008 is an institute
conducting TTC Course who have admitted students irregularly for
the same year. In these writ petitions, the petitioners seek a
direction to the respondents to permit the irregularly admitted
students for the TTC Course for which they have been admitted.
Their admissions became irregular because the students did not
possess the minimum qualifying marks of 50% in the qualifying
examinations. They seek the relief prayed for on the ground that the
Supreme Court of India has, in similar writ petitions, permitted
similarly placed students to continue their studies.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. The minimum marks of 50% for the qualifying examination is
fixed by the NCTE. Even the Supreme Court has held that the State
Governments have no power to dilute the qualifications so prescribed
by the authorities like the NCTE. That being so, it is settled law that
admissions for TTC Course in Kerala shall only be in accordance with
the criteria fixed by the NCTE. 50% marks in the qualifying
examination is the minimum qualification prescribed by the NCTE is
not disputed. It is also not disputed before me that the students
involved in these writ petitions do not possess 50% marks in the
qualifying examination. The NCTE has fixed this minimum criteria for
ensuring standards of education in the country. When the Supreme
Court itself holds that State Governments cannot dilute such minimum
W.P.C. No. 8020/08 etc., -: 2 :-
criteria fixed by institutions like NCTE, I do not think that this Court
can pass orders regularising admissions made in violation of the
minimum qualification prescribed by the NCTE. That would also lead
to reduction of standards of education in the State which cannot be
permitted. When such minimum qualification has been prescribed
and admissions have been made violating those minimum
qualifications, if such admissions are allowed to be regularised, that
would encourage unscrupulous managements to make admissions in
violation of the standards prescribed in future also and later claim
that since they have already been admitted, they may be allowed to
continue their studies. A large number of writ petitions are coming
before this Court for similar reliefs. In fact, in two of these writ
petitions, there are a total of 15 petitioners who have been so
admitted without possessing the minimum qualification prescribed.
If all these admissions are regularised, the future of the children
whom these students passing T.T.C. have to teach would be in serious
peril. Such situation cannot be permitted in law in the interest of
educational standards in the State which knowledgeable persons are
lamenting, is going down day by day because of wrong policies.
4. The contentions raised by the petitioner on the interim order
of the Supreme Court is also misplaced. Such powers are vested
solely with the Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional powers
to do justice in a particular case which power the High Courts do not
have. The question as to whether the admission of the students not
possessing the minimum marks of 50% can be regularised has already
been held against such students by this Court, which has been
confirmed in writ appeal also. That being so, this Court cannot now
W.P.C. No. 8020/08 etc., -: 3 :-
countenance such admissions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in
these writ petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/