BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/08/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.11378 of 2006 and W.P.(MD)No.11381 of 2006 and MP(MD)Nos.1,2,2,3 and 3 of 2006 1. N.Uma Sundari ..Petitioner in W.P.No.11378/2006 2. A.Jainul Zulaiga ..petitioner in W.P.No.11381/2006 Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Director of Collegiate Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, D.P.I.Compound, Chennai -6. 3. The Controller of Examinations, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai 625 021. 4. The Principal, Crescent College of Education for Women, Seethakathi Nagar, Natham-Alagarkoil Link Road, Chathirapatti Post, Madurai - 625 014. 5. The National Council for Teacher Education, represented by its Member-Secretary, New Delhi. ..Respondents in both W.Ps'
Prayer in W.P.No.11378 of 2006
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records in respect of the impugned order in Ref.No.E/B.Ed(Non-Sem)/2006-
07, Madurai Kamaraj University,dated 06.12.2006 and to quash the same insofar it
relates to the petitioner herein.
Prayer in W.P.No.11381 of 2006
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records in respect of the impugned Government order in G.O.Ms.No.185,
Higher Education G-1 Department, dated 13.6.2005 and the annexure therein issued
by the first respondent and the consequential communication vide No.E/B.Ed(Non-
Sem)/2006-07, dated 06.12.2006 issued by the third respondent and to quash the
clause 1(i) under the heading “Bachelor of Education Eligibility” at the
annexure to the said G.O issued by the first respondent and the consequential
communication dated 6.12.2006 by the third respondent insofar it relates tothe
petitioner herein.
W.P(MD)No.11378 of 2006
!For Petitioner … M/s.T.Govindasamy
^For Respondents … M/s.R.Janakiramulu
1 and 2
For Respondent-3 … M/s.R.Chandrasekaran
For Respondent-4 … M/s.K.Gokul
For Respondent-5 … M/s.S.C.Herold Singh
W.P(MD)No.11381 of 2006
For Petitioner … M/s.R.Vijayakumar
For Respondents … Ms.S.Bharathi
1 and 2 Govt.Advocate
For Respondent-3… M/s.R.Janakiramulu
For Respondent-4… M/s.K.Gokul
For Respondent-5… M/s.S.C.Herold Singh
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11381 of 2006 has challenged the Government
order laying down the eligibility condition for appointment to B.Ed course,
whereas, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11378 of 2006 has challenged the
consequential order arising out of the Government order, in not allowing the
petitioner to sit in the B.Ed examination.
2. Both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by common order, as
common question of law, and facts arise for consideration.
3. The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions have obtained Bachelor’s
Degree from a recognized University. The petitioners, had, joined graduation
course by not following the regular stream of study i.e., 10+2+3.
4. The eligibility criteria as per the statutory provisions, and the
guidelines laid down by the National Council for Teachers Education, for
admission to B.Ed Course is graduation with 45% marks.
5. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued the impugned Government Order,
laying down that the students who have passed the graduation examination without
completing 10+2+3 system will not be eligible for B.Ed examination. Nothing has
been disclosed in the Government Order as to under what authority of law, the
said Government Order, is issued to regulate the admission of candidates in
different Universities, which are regulated by respondent No.3, and the
University Act and the Statutory rules, framed therein.
6. However, there is no necessity to deliberate on this matter any
further, as both the Writ Petitions deserves to be allowed, being fully covered
by the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)492 of
2007, decided on 11.02.2008(V.Vijayalakshmi .vs. The Director of Collegiate
Education, Chennai – 600 006 and others, wherein, the Honourable Division Bench
of this Court was pleased to lay down as under:
“4. On the above said contention, this Court posed a question to the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent University to point out any
such requisition is available in the University to say that the candidates who
underwent 10+2+3 pattern alone are eligible to join B.Ed Course, for which he is
unable to point out any such Regulation. However, he submitted that the
guidelines stated to have been issued by the Director of Collegiate Education
stipulate that the candidates who have done their degree course under 10+2+3
pattern alone are eligible to join the B.Ed Course.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent College submitted
that in identical cases, where the candidates studied degree through
correspondence course were permitted to pursue B.Ed Course, this Court passed
orders directing the Universities and the Colleges to declare their results as
no valid regulations preventing such persons are found mentioned in the
University Regulations or Statutes and hence the relief sought for by the
appellant can be granted.
6. In spite of the fact that the second respondent University has not
produced any Regulation, they justified their stand. Even the guidelines stated
to have been produced for our consideration. In any event, once a particular
degree has been introduced/offered by the Universities, it is for the
authorities to prescribe guidelines. As mentioned above, no such
guidelines/regulations formulated by the second respondent University making the
candidates like the appellant ineligible to pursue B.Ed course. In view of the
above said fact, this Court has no option except to grant the relief sought for
by the appellant. Moreover, no valid reason is mentioned by the learned single
Judge for dismissing the writ petition.
7. For the above said reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The second respondent University
is directed to declare the results of the appellant within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 is closed.”
7. Therefor, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents are
directed to declare the result of the petitioners, and issue necessary
certificates etc to the petitioner, without any further delay.
8. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
9. No costs.
vsn
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to
Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
D.P.I.Compound,
Chennai -6.
3. The Controller of Examinations,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai 625 021.
4. The National Council for Teacher Education,
represented by its Member-Secretary,
New Delhi.