St.Antony’S Teacher Training … vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 17 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.09.2010

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

W.P.Nos.41103, 49267 and 49660 of 2006 and 32739 of 2007

& M.P.Nos.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.49267 and 49660 of 2006 &
M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.32739 of 2007
		
ST.ANTONY'S TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE
REP.BY ITS CORRESPNDENT
SR.VENISSIA
PAVITHRAM VILLAGE POST
THIRUVANNAMALAI TALUK & DISTRICT	
                      [ PETITIONER IN W.P.No.41103/2006  ]

1    AMMAN TEACHER TRAINING  INSTITUTE
  	REP. BY ITS CORRESPNDENT MRS.K.UMAVATHY 
 	NO.92/1A SCHEME ROAD
	YMR PATTY  
     DINDIGUL 624 001
 [ PETITIONER IN W.P.No.49267/2006  ]

1    SAI RAM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
     REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT K.RAJA 
	14-A, PIDARI WEST ST.
	SIRKALI,  NAGAPATTINAM DIST
[ PETITIONER IN W.P.No.49660/2006  ]

1    RAJA SATHABAKKIYAM TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE 
	REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT
	E.S.SELVARAJ,  THULARANKURICHI,
	UDAYARPALAYAM TALUK
     PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.
[ PETITIONER IN W.P.No.32739/2006  ]

VS.
1	THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU
	REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
	SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
	FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 9

2.	THE DIRECTOR OF  TEACHER EDUCATION 
	RESEARCH AND TRIANING  
	D.P.I. CAMPUS,  COLLEGE ROAD
	CHENNAI 600 006
					[ 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS IN
					 ALL WRIT PETITIONS]		
3.	THE PRINCIPAL
	DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
		AND TRAINING
	KILPERNNATHUR
	THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT
	PIN CODE 604 601
					[ 3RD RESPONDENT IN
				 	W.P.41103 OF 2006]	

3    THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
     NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
	CSD BUILDING  HMT POST
	JALAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 031
					[ 3RD RESPONDENT IN
				 	W.P.49960 OF 2006]

	Prayer in all Writ Petitions:	Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent pursuant to its order in G.O (ID) No. 226,  School Education Department  dated 28.8.2006 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent  in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9468/E3/2006 dated 01.09.2006 and quash the same in so far as the  petitioner institutes are concerned.
		For petitioner   : Mr.I.Arokiasamy
		For respondents  : Mr.A.Suresh, G.A for R1 & R2

COMMON ORDER
 
	Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the 1st and 2nd respondents. 
	2. The order impugned in these Writ Petition is  G.O (ID) No. 226,  School Education Department  dated 28.8.2006 and the consequential order of the second respondent  dated 01.09.2006, directing the petitioner Institutions, which are religious minority self-financing Institutions, to follow Rules of Reservation regarding admission of students in the said Institutions.

	3. The said issue has  been covered by a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.37804 of 2006 etc., batch in the order dated 11.1.2008, wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court  in P.A.Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra (2005 (6) SCC 537), this Court has held that the said Government Order insofar as it compels unaided Non-minority and Minority Institutions imparting Teacher Education course to follow the reservation policy of the State Government in the matter of admission of students is arbitrary and unconstitutional, however holding that as held by the Supreme Court  in P.A.Inamdar's case, in the event of such Institutions voluntarily agreeing for certain seat sharing process based on the reservation policy of the State Government to take care of weaker and poorer sections of the Society, but subject to the merit as the main criterion of admission, the same is permissible. The following is the observation made in the above order:
" 27. Therefore, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court  as on date, it is abundantly clear that the State Government insisting on the  private unaided Minority or Non-minority Educational Institutions to follow the policy of reservation in respect of admission of students under the Management quota of seats is totally arbitrary and illegal and the admission shall be made only based on merit  In view of the above said legal position, the impugned Government Order in so far as it compels the unaided Non-minority and Minority Institutions imparting Teacher Education course to follow the reservation policy of the State Government in the matter of admission of students is arbitrary and unconstitutional. However, as observed by the Supreme Court  in P.A.Inamdar's case, in the event of such Institutions voluntarily agreeing for certain seat sharing process based on the reservation policy of the State Government to take care of weaker and poorer sections of the Society, but subject to the merit as the main criterion of admission, the same is permissible. 	The Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations."

	4.  Following the same,  all the Writ Petitions stand allowed with the above observations. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

					17.09.2010

Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
ajr

To
1	THE  SECRETARY
	SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
	FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 9

2.	THE DIRECTOR OF  TEACHER EDUCATION 
	RESEARCH AND TRIANING  
	D.P.I. CAMPUS,  COLLEGE ROAD
	CHENNAI 600 006
					
3.	THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
     NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
	CSD BUILDING  HMT POST
	JALAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 031


















P.JYOTHIMANI,J.

Ajr

W.P.Nos.41103, 49267 and
49660 of 2006
and 32739 of 2007

17.09.2010