In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 18/09/2003
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice A.K.RAJAN
Writ Petition No.2767 of 2002
O.M.Jessymol ..... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Director of
Teachers' Training Research Education
College Road
DPI Complex
Nungambakkam
Chennai.6.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary
Education Department
Fort St. George
Chennai.9.
(R2 impleaded as per order
dated 13.12.2002 in
W.M.P.No.60276 of 2002) ..... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. K.Vasudevan
For respondents : Mr. R.Vijayakumar G.A.
:O R D E R
The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue
a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
order O.Mu.No.12423/C3/2001 dated 18.12.2001 and quash the same and further
direct the respondent to issue evaluation certificate to the petitioner.
2. The brief fact that is necessary for the disposal of the
writ petition is that the petitioner has passed Under Graduate Teacher’s
Training Course at Nagaland in the year 1993, after completing her Secondary
School studies in Kerala State. The petitioner got married in the year 1995
and her husband is an advocate practicing in Chennai. The petitioner applied
for the Evaluation Certificate on 23.08.2001 to the first respondent and in
spite of repeated requests and lawyer’s notice dated 10.11.2001, the first
respondent passed the impugned order dated 18.12.2001 rejecting her request
regarding the evaluation of her ‘Teacher’s Training Certificate’ on the ground
that the petitioner has passed the said course without undergoing the plus Two
course with 50% of marks and the petitioner has not secured 50% of marks in
any one of the subjects. Hence, the above writ petition.
3. The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Mr.K.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law; the
petitioner has got Teacher’s Training Certificate at Nagaland which cannot be
rejected and it cannot be said to be invalid in Tamil Nadu on the ground that
it does not conform to the rules and regulations framed by the Tamil Nadu
Government for getting admission to Teachers Training Certificate Course in
Tamil Nadu. The respondent failed to consider that in India, there are number
of States; each and every State would fix the eligibility for getting
admission to these course and degrees. More over, India is a secular state
where all the States are united and one state respects the other state.
Without considering all these vital aspects, the first respondent passed the
impugned order.
6. Learned counsel further submitted even within the country
some of the institutions are not recognised by other parts of the country.
The University will recognise only certain certificates and certain degrees.
Those certificates recognised by the authorities are valid and equivalent. If
the authorities passed spe cific orders that certain certificates cannot be
recognised for the purpose of admission for higher studies or for employment,
that orders are to be held as unenforceable. It is violative of provisions of
Constitution of India or other provisions of law.
7. Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of this Court in
K.Anthony Savarimuthu v. The Director of School Education Madras.6 and
another (1985 WLR 178), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held when
a dispute arose with resepct to certificate issued by Karnataka State that it
was equivalent to the certificate issued in Tamil Nadu State; this Court has
refused to recognise those cadres and set aside the order. Relying upon the
judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the
above cited judgment, the impugned order is invalid. In the above cited
judgment, this Court has held as follows:
” … Once the two certificates are treated as equivalent of
each other, the State could not show any preference to any particular class of
teachers merely on the ground that they were holders of certificates issued by
an institution in Tamil Nadu.
Once we place this construction on the G.O.dt. 5-8.1981 the
natural results would be that equivalence of the Karnataka certificate with
the Tamil Nadu Certificate would continue to be effective till 17-9-1984, when
the G.O.Ms.No.1236 was issued. The only impediment for the evaluation of the
certificates of the Karnataka certificate holders was G.O.dated 5-8-1981.
Once that is out of the way in view of the construction placed upon it, then
obviously whatever certificates were submitted to the State Government till
17-9-1984 would have to be dealt with on the footing that the Karnataka
Certificate was equivalent with the Tamil Nadu Certificate.”
Ultimately, in the above Judgment, it was further held as follows:
” … In all these three categories of cases the certificate holders will
have a equivalent to the Tamil Nadu certificates, provided the certificates
have been handed over prior to 17.9.1984.”
Therefore, a perusal of the judgment cited supra shows that as long as G.O
passed in Tamil Nadu State recognised the certificates issued by the Karnataka
State, such certificates was held to be valid,and when G.O.No.1236 dated
17.9.1984 was passed not recognising Karnataka State Certificate, this Court
held that only such of those certificates which were submitted prior to
17.9.1984 was to be recognised. Such of the certificates submitted subsequent
to that date were not considered as equvalent. Therefore, the authority has
got the right to recognise or not to recognise the certificates. The
authorities have chosen not to recognise the certificates of the Karnataka
thereafter no person can ask that certificate should be recognised in Tamil
Nadu. Therefore, this judgment is not helpful to the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that 50% marks limit is
prescribed as a pre-requisite for getting admitted into the higher studies or
Teachers Training Course. Once having got admitted in the higher education,
the required marks at 50% cannot be insisted upon. Therefore, once a
certificate had been obtained and the same has to be looked into and not the
fact that whether he obtained the requisite minimum marks in the qualifying
course. Therefore this certificate has to be taken on the face of it and the
Government cannot go behind it to verify whether the person has got minimum
number of marks for getting admission into the Teachers Training course. This
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable because
the authorities have prescribed the minimum marks and issued Government Orders
to that effect. It is a matter of policy and it cannot be challenged.
9. Considering the facts that there is a specific G.O. which
requires that a person must obtain 50% of marks for getting admitted in the
Teachers Training Course and the petitioner has not acquired the minimum marks
in the Teachers Training Course examinations, and When the terms of the G.O.
has not been complied with, the petitioner has no right to challenge the
impugned order and get her certificate evaluated.
In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is
liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Index: Yes
Internet Yes
kvsg
To
1. The Director of
Teachers’ Training Research Education
College Road
DPI Complex
Nungambakkam
Chennai.6.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary
Education Department
Fort St. George
Chennai.9.