Madras High Court
K.M.Benedict Crizal vs The Director Of Teacher Education on 15 June, 2010
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/06/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 & W.P.(MD)No.299 of 2008 and W.P.(MD)No.4139 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2008 & M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 W.P.(MD)No.299 of 2008: K.M.Benedict Crizal, The Correspondent, Muthaiyah Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Appicode, Tholayavattam Post, Kanyakumari District-629 157 ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of Teacher Education, Research & Training, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Principal, District Institute of Teacher Education & Training, Kulasekharanputhur, Theroor, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil-629 001. 4.The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.299 of 2008 Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorified Mandamus,to call for the records relating the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Principal of the District Institute of Teacher Education & Training in Na.Ka.No.1401/A/2007, dated 26.11.2007 and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent Director of the Teacher Education Research & Training to give his countersignature forthwith to the appointment of the additional faculty members in the petitioner-institution(names given in the Annexure). In W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 K.M.Benedict Crizal, The Correspondent, Muthaiyah Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Appicode, Tholayavattam Post, Kanyakumari District-629 157 ... Petitioner vs 1.The Director of Teacher Education, Research & Training, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Principal, District Institute of Teacher Education & Training, Kulasekharanputhur, Theroor, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the 48 students admitted in the petitioner-college for the academic session 2006-2007 to take their examinations slated to commence on 06.02.2008 and publish the result and award degree. In W.P.(MD)No.4139 of 2009: 1.Elavarasi 2.Krishnaveni 3.J.A.femi 4.R.Kavitha 5.V.M.Selvi 6.K.Alagu Rani 7.R.Sudha Rani 8.K.Veluthai 9.A.Vijaya 10.R.Jenifer Dayana 11.g.Indiragandi 12.G.Thamaraiselvi 13.M.Selvakani 14.S.Kavitha 15.M.S.Sreeja 16.M.Kannagi 17.T.Subitha ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of Government Examinations, DPI Compound College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teaching Education, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031. 4.The Principal, District Institute of Teacher Education and Training, Kulasekharanpthur, Thaerur, Kanyakumar District. 5.The Correspondent, Muthaiyah Memorial Teaching Training Institute, Appicode, Tholayavattam Post, Kanyakumari District 629 157. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.4139 of 2009 Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorified Mandamus, directing the respondents to publish the results of the examination, for Diploma in Teacher Education Course underwent by the petitioners, conducted on 18.02.2007 to 20.02.2007 and 25.08.2008 to 29.08.2008 respectively for 1st and 2nd year in Muthaiyah Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Appicode and issue mark list and Diploma Certificate. !For Petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.299/08 & 806/08 ... Mr.Issac Mohanlal For Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.4139 of 2009 ... Mr.T.Arul ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Vijayakumar Special Government Pleader for NCTE :COMMON ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.As the issues involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same and interconnected, common order is passed.
3.Muthaiyah Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Appicode, Kanyakumari District, is run by M.M. Educational Trust a public charitable Trust and it is a self-financing unaided minority Institution. The said institution is offering diploma courses in Elementary Teacher Education (D.T.Ed.) and the NCTE granted recognition to the Institution with effect from 2004, by its order, dated 03.12.2004 for taking 50 students per annum. The petitioner institute is running the institute by admitting 50 students and in course of time, having regard to the large scale need for trained teachers and the enormous demand for teaching course, the petitioner institution applied to the NCTE Regional Committee for the grant of additional intake of 50 seats and submitted the application on 31.08.2006 along with the requisite deposit and sought for approval for taking additional intake of 50 students from the academic year 2006-2007. The NCTE appointed an inspection team, which visited the institution on 23.01.2007 and on the basis of the report submitted by the inspection team, conditional recognition for the additional intake was granted by the NCTE on 30.07.2007. The NCTE also directed the petitioner to submit certain particulars and it is the case of the petitioner that as required by the conditional recognition order, the petitioner submitted necessary particulars and also submitted the details of the additional teachers appointed in the institute for the additional intake of 50 students. The petitioner submitted the names of 6 additional teachers viz, R.Daniel Swaminathan, T.Kamala Bai, R.Sree Rekha, M.Jeya Kumar, R.Venkatachalam and M.Jain, to the second respondent seeking approval of the 2nd respondent and by proceedings, dated 16.08.2007, the 2nd respondent returned the proposal submitted by the petitioner, pointing out two deficiencies viz., the Principal Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan and the Mathematics Lecturer, Mr.M.Jeya Kumar did not possess the minimum required marks viz., 55% in the M.Ed. Degree. It was further stated in the said proceedings that the details of the staffs already working in the institution for the approval of the Director were not furnished. Realising that Mr.M.Jeya Kumar is not having the required qualification, the petitioner appointed one Mr.A.Somasundram in the place of Mr.M.Jeya Kumar and resubmitted the proposal to the 2nd respondent, by letter, dated 20.08.2007 enclosing service certificates and furnishing the details regarding the details of change of the staffs. The petitioner also furnished the details of other staffs, who were approved by the Director earlier. Thereafter, the first respondent issued proceedings, dated 16.10.2007 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 16.08.2007 on the erroneous presumption that the petitioner has not resubmitted the proposal after it was rejected on 16.08.2007. The petitioner resubmitted the proposal to the first respondent, by letter, dated 12.11.2007 stating that as per the revised list Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan and Mr.A.Somasundaram are having necessary teaching experience, enclosing the teaching experience certificate countersigned by the District Education Officer. That proposal was returned by the 2nd respondent stating that the teaching experience certificate ought to have been counter-signed by the Chief Educational Officer and the petitioner has submitted the teaching experience certificate counter-signed by the District Educational Officer and therefore, the staffs list submitted by the petitioner cannot be recommended for approval. Further, the list of teaching staff working in the institute, as per the original recognition granted by NCTE was also not submitted. This order of the 2nd respondent, dated 26.11.2007 is challenged in W.P.(MD)No.299 of 2008.
4.The petitioner without awaiting for the recognition to be granted by NCTE, admitted 48 students for the academic year 2006-2007 in the month of August 2006 and contended that those 48 students have completed 248 working days and have also under-gone practical training as prescribed by the NCTE and therefore, those students may be permitted to write the examination slated to commence on 06.02.2008 and for the purpose, filed the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the 48 students admitted in the petitioner's college for the academic session 2006-2007 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008.
5.Out of 48 students, who were allegedly admitted in August 2006 for the academic year 2006-2007, 17 students filed the Writ Petition (MD)No.4139 of 2009 for the issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to publish the result of the examination, for Diploma in Teacher Education Course, underwent by the petitioners conducted on 18.02.2008 to 20.02.2008 and 25.08.2008 to 29.08.2008 respectively for 1st and 2nd year and issue mark list and Diploma Certificate.
6.It is stated by the petitioners in the affidavit that the additional intake of 48 students were permitted to write the examination for the first year from 18.02.2008 to 20.02.2008 and also the second year examination from 25.08.2008 to 29.02.2008, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008, dated 15.02.2008, M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008, dated 21.08.2008 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008, dated 30.09.2008. It is further stated that on the basis of the interim order passed in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008, dated 30.09.2008, the petitioners were also permitted to undergo practical examination for the 2nd year and as they have successfully completed the course, and written the examination, the result must be published and they must be given certificates.
7.The first respondent filed counter affidavits in W.P.(MD)Nos.299 of 2008 & 806 of 2008 stating that the petitioner's institute was granted recognition by the Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, on 03.12.2004 to offer Elementary Education Course of two years duration from the academic session 2004-2005 with an annual intake of 50 students under section 14(1) of NCTE Act 1993. Thereafter, a conditional recognition was granted for an additional intake of 50 students, by the proceedings of the Southern Regional Committee (NCTE), vide his letter No.F.SRO/NCTE/2006-2007/7141, dated 30.07.2007. In the said conditional recognition letter itself, it has been made clear that admission should not be made until unconditional letter of recognition is issued by the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE and the petitioner was also required to get the staff list duly approved by DTERT, Chennai-6 viz., the first respondent. A proposal for approval of the staff list submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent, dated 16.08.2007 on the ground that that Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan, who was appointed as Principal and Mr.M.Jeya Kumar, appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics have not secured 55% marks in M.Ed., and the list of staff as approved by the Director of Teacher Education,Research and Training, Chennai, in Rc No.8969/C1/2005, dated 08.03.2005 was not furnished.
8.It is further stated that as per Appendix-V, Norms and Standards of NCTE Gazette Notification, dated 13.02.2002, the Principal/Head and Lecturer should possess 55% marks in M.Ed. and as the aforesaid two persons did not possess the same, it was returned. As the petitioners did not employ, person who satisfies the educational qualification as per the norms fixed by the NCTE as stated in the Appendix V stated above and the list of staffs already approved by the Director, by order, dated 08.03.2005 was not furnished, the proposal sent by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner without rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the first respondent, re-submitted the same and therefore, the 2nd respondent confirmed the order of the first respondent and rejected the proposal sent by the petitioner, by his proceedings, dated 16.10.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated 12.11.2007 stating that as per the revised Norms of NCTE, there is no need to have 55% of marks in M.Ed., and it is enough if those person have secured M.Ed., degree and have requisite teaching experience and the aforesaid two persons are having more than the required number of teaching experience, to the 2nd respondent and that was returned by the 2nd respondent stating that the teaching experience certificate was not counter-signed by the Chief Educational Officer as required and the petitioner has also not sent the list of teachers, which was approved for the original intake of 50 students. Therefore, it was contended by the respondents that without submitting the proper details and necessary certificates counter- signed by the proper authority, the petitioner has resubmitted the proposal and therefore, it was returned.
9.It was further stated that as per the conditional recognition granted to the petitioner, it was specifically stated that admission should not be made without getting unconditional recognition order and without getting the staff list approved by the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner has admitted the students even before the grant of conditional recognition order and on the basis of the interim orders obtained in this Court, permitted the students to write the examination and as the petitioner institute was not granted unconditional recognition, when the students were admitted for the academic session 2006-2007 and as the staff list was not approved by the respondents 1 and 2, the additional intake of 47 students cannot claim any right to have the result to be declared even if they have undergone the course and written the examination and as per the order passed in W.A.278 of 2008, it has been made clear by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court that unless and until the staff list is approved, even if the students write the examination, they are not entitled to have the results declared and therefore, the students are not entitled to get the result published or to get the market sheet. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10.Mr.Issac Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing or the petitioners submitted that admittedly the Institute was granted recognition for taking 50 students and for taking 50 more students, the institute applied for recognition and applied to NCTE on 31.08.2006 and inspection was conducted on 31.03.2007 and conditional recognition was granted for the additional intake on 30.07.2007. He further submitted that as per the Norms and Standards of NCTE Gazette notification, the petitioner submitted the list of staffs, who satisfy the necessary qualification and initial objection was raised in respect of Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan and Mr.M.Jeya Kumar on the ground that they have not secured 55% marks in M.Ed. degree. Thereafter, Mr.M.Jeya Kumar was substituted by Mr.A.Somasundram and according to the revised Appendix II, Norms and Standard for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Third Amended ) Regulations, 2006 published on 11.12.2006 in the Gazette, there is no necessity to have 55% marks in the M.Ed., examination and it is enough if the persons are having M.Ed., qualification with 5 years teaching experience in recognised Elementary School or Elementary Teaching Educational Institution or Master Degree in relevant school subject and teaching of Elementary Educational or B.Ed., with Diploma in Elementary Education with 5 years teaching experience and Elementary School/ Teacher Educational Institution and therefore, there is no need to have 55% marks in M.Ed., examination. He further submitted that Mr.Daniel Swaminathan and A.Somasundram are having Post Graduate qualification and also have passed B.Ed., and M.Ed., examination and Mr.Daniel Swaminathan is having teaching experience in Government Higher Secondary School, Munchirai from 11.10.1985 to 08.06.1993 and has taught classes from 6 to 12 Standard and that was also certified by the District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai and he also worked in the 2nd respondent's institution as Headmaster from 26.06.1994 and 30.06.2005 and certificate was issued by the the 2nd respondent to that effect and Mr.A.Somasundram is also having teaching experience as certified by the District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai and therefore, as per the revised Gazette notification published by NCTE, the two persons satisfy the qualification prescribed and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have approved the staff list and should not have returned the same.
11.He further submitted that regarding Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan, certificate was issued by the 2nd respondent and therefore, the order of the 2nd respondent in returning the proposal of the staff list sent by the petitioner on the ground that the certificate has to be approved by the Chief Educational Officer cannot be accepted. He further submitted that the role of the 2nd respondent, while approving the staff list is to verify whether the staffs mentioned in the staff list are having necessary qualification and necessary experience so as to avoid any bogus list as stated by the respondents in the counter and counter signature of the Chief Educational Officer is only a procedural one and when the teaching experience certificate is signed by the equivalent Competent Educational Officer viz., District Educational Officer, the respondents ought to have accepted the same and should not have returned the same on flimsy ground that it was not counter-signed by the Chief Educational Officer. He further relied upon the judgment rendered in W.P.(MD)Nos.5398 of 2007 and 7610 of 2008, dated 04.12.2009 wherein this Court has held that getting countersigned in the service certificate is only to prove the experience and the same is only a procedure and when it could be easily culled out from the record available, the appointment needs to be approved without sticking on to the procedural formalities in respect of the countersignature by the proper Educational Authorities. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has submitted the list of teachers, their qualification and experience and therefore, the respondents ought to have approved the staff list so as to enable the petitioner to admit the students for the subsequent academic year.
12.In respect of W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 is concerned, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that NCTE granted conditional recognition on 03.07.2007 and unconditional recognition was granted on 11.12.2007 for intake of 100 students. He further submitted that the institution is having all the infrastructural facilities as it is imparting teacher training course to 50 students and the petitioner has employed the qualified teachers for the additional intake of 50 students and the list of staff was sent for approval to the respondents 1 and 2 on 03.08.2007 and when the staffs appointed by the petitioner institute are having necessary qualification, the students who were admitted and were imparted education by the qualified staff should not be denied the benefit of their course. This Court has permitted them to write the examination and they were also permitted to under-go practical examination and considering all these facts, the results of those additional students viz., 47 students should also be permitted to be published as they were given training, teaching by the qualified teachers and they should not be denied the result on the technical ground that the staff list was not approved and the unconditional recognition was granted on 11.12.2007.
13.He further submitted that as per the judgement of this Court made in W.P.No.18798 of 2008, dated 19.01.2009, the petitioner may be directed to pay some substantial amount towards costs and the result of those 47 persons may be declared.
14.On the contrary, Mr.K.Vijayakumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that as per the conditional recognition order, dated 30.07.2007, the petitioner should not have admitted the students till the unconditional letter of recognition is granted by the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE and without awaiting for the unconditional recognition order and without awaiting for the approval of the staff list from the 1st and 2nd respondent, the petitioner at its own risk admitted 47 students for the academic year 2006-2007 and as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1991(3) SCC 87, the students who were admitted in the unrecognised institutions cannot claim any right to have the result to be declared.
15.He further submitted that the State Government has written to the NCTE to retain the qualification for teachers as prescribed in Appendix V of the Gazette Notification, dated 13.11.2002 instead of qualification prescribed in Appendix II of the NCTE Notification, dated 11.12.2006 and that was also recorded by the Division Bench in the judgment reported in 2008(WLR) 592 in the case of 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George,Chennai and another vs. Kumaran Ashram Medical Trust Teacher Training Institute and therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that the State Government should follow the Appendix II of the NCTE conditional recognition, dated 11.12.2007 and as per Appendix V of the NCTE 2002, the teaching faculty must possess maximum 55% in the M.Ed., and as two staffs viz., Mr.Daniel Swaminathan and A.Somasundaran did not possess the minimum qualification in M.Ed., examination, they are not eligible to be appointed and hence, the teaching staff list sent by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents 1 and 2.
16.He further submitted that the petitioner did not send the staff list already approved by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai, by its order, dated 08.03.2005 and the respondents 2 and 3 insisted upon the said list of staff to confirm that two different set of staffs are appointed for the intake of 50 students and the additional intake of 50 students and though, the petitioner claims to have sent the list of staffs appointed for the original intake of students the list of staff was not submitted by the petitioner and that was also mentioned in the impugned order and hence, the rejection of the staff list sent by the petitioner is in order.
17.He further relied on the observation of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2008 Writ L.R.592, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 2. The Director of Teaching Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai-6 vs. Kumaran Ashram Medical Trust Teacher Training Institute, run by Kumaran Ashram Medical Trust, Kumaran Nagar, Tharamaankottai, Pattukottai-614 615 Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Correspondent, R.Veerappan wherein it has been stated that until the staff list is approved, even if the students write the examination they are not entitled to any relief.
18.Mr.T.Arul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4139 of 2009 adopted the argument of Mr.Issac Mohanlal.
19.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of both the counsels.
20.It is admitted that the petitioner institute was given recognition for taking 50 students by NCTE and the list of staff was also approved by the respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner institute was imparting teaching training course from the year 2005. On 31.08.2006, the petitioner applied for recognition from the NCTE for additional intake of 50 students by submitting necessary application along with the requisite deposit and an inspection team was appointed and inspected the petitioner institute on 23.01.2007 and submitted a report. According to the petitioner, NCTE sent a letter, dated 08.03.2007 to the State Government asking for the recommendation for increasing intake of students and as per the provision of NCTE, the State Government is expected to respond within 60 days and the State Government has not sent its response, even after the expiry of 60 days. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.5290 of 2007 for the issuance of writ of Mandamus, directing the NCTE to consider and pass suitable orders forthwith on the application, dated 31.08.2006 for the additional intake of 50 students and the counsel appearing for the NCTE submitted that they would consider and pass orders within a period of eight weeks and recording the said submission, that writ petition was disposed of.
21.It is further admitted that without awaiting for the conditional recognition to be granted by the NCTE extending the approval for the intake, the petitioner admitted 48 students in addition to the existing 50 students for the academic year 2006-2007. The petitioner also submitted the list of additional intake of 48 students to the first respondent for verifying the qualification and approval for admission and the first respondent, by letter, dated 25.04.2007 directed the petitioner to collect the application in respect of additional intake of 48 students and refused to approve the admission. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.5731 of 2007, directing the 2nd respondent to forward the applications of the 48 students to the first respondent and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court, dated 02.07.2007. Thereafter, the NCTE granted a conditional recognition for the additional intake, by its order, dated 30.07.2007 and instructed the petitioner to submit certain particulars in the proforma enclosed and the petitioner submitted those particulars as stated in the enclosure and also appointed the qualified teachers and submitted the same, for the approval by the first respondent, by letter, dated 3.08.2007, As there was no response from the first respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.7026 of 2007 for direction, directing the first respondent to give his counter-signature approving the staff list furnished by the petitioner for the appointment of the additional faculty members and this Court, by order, dated 24.08.2007 directing the first respondent to process the application and if satisfied shall grant his counter-signature within a period of two weeks from the date receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent returned the proposal, by proceeding, dated 16.08.2007 pointing out two deficiencies viz., the persons R.Daniel Swaminathan and Mr.M.Jeya Kumar did not have 55% marks in M.Ed. degree and the details of the staffs already working in the institution with the approval of the Director was not furnished. The petitioner having realised that Mr.M.Jeya Kumar did not have any requisite marks in M.Ed., replaced him with Mr.A.Somasundaram, who is qualified, resubmitted the proposal to the 2nd respondent, by letter dated, 20.08.2007 enclosing the service certificate and furnishing the details regarding the staff. It is also stated by the petitioner that the list of staff, which was already approved by the first respondent was also enclosed, in their letter, dated 20.08.2007 and the petitioner has stated that R.Daniel Swaminathan and A.Somasundram though did not possess 55% marks in M.Ed., examination, they have got the teaching experience as stated by NCTE Regulation 2006 and hence, the staff list may be approved. They also stated to have enclosed the list of teaching staffs, which were earlier approved by the first respondent, but the first respondent returned the same stating that R.Daniel Swaminathan and A.Somasundaram did not have 55% marks in M.Ed. and the list of staff, which was approved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 08.03.2005 was not enclosed. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another letter, dated 12.11.2007 enclosing teaching experience certificates of those two persons, countersigned by the District Educational Officer and also the list of staff for the original intake of 50 students and that was returned by the 2nd respondent, by proceedings, dated 26.11.2007 stating that the working experience of those two persons are to be countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer and it was countersigned by the District Educational Officer and the list of staff approved earlier was not also enclosed. This order is challenged in W.P.(MD)No.299 of 2009.
22.As per NCTE Regulations 2002 and in Appendix V of Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme, the qualification prescribed for Principal and Lecturer is good academic record with M.Ed./M.A. (Education) with 55% marks, preferably with specialisation in Elementary Education or good academic record with Master's Degree with 55% marks in the relevant school subject and Bachelor of Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.,) or B.Ed., preferably with specialisation in Elementary Education, and with five years' teaching experience in recognised elementary school. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 32(2) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the National Council issued the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Third Amendment) Regulation, 2006, revising the Norms and Standards for Teacher Education Courses leading to Certificate in Education (C.Ed.,) and Diploma in Education (D.Ed.,). The said Amended Regulations were published in the Gazette on 11.12.2006. By the said Amended regulations, the Norms and Standards prescribed under Appendix III, IV and V under the Regulations of the year 2002, were replaced by Appendix I and II to the Amended Regulations. Appendix II under the said Amended Regulations of the year 2006, prescribed the "Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme leading to Diploma in Education (D.Ed.). As per the Regulation 2006, the qualification is prescribed for Principal and Lecturer is M.Ed., (or M.A. Education with B.Ed.,) and Diploma in Elementary Teacher Education/5 years' teaching experience in recognized elementary school or Master's Degree in relevant school subject and Bachelor of Elementary Education or B.Ed., with Diploma in Elementary Education with five years' teaching experience in elementary school/ teacher education institution. The revised circular was published in the Gazette, dated 11.12.2007 and therefore, when the petitioner applied for approval of the staff list, the revised Regulation 2006 came into force and Appendix II stated therein is applicable to the petitioner institution.
23.It is seen from the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondent that in respect of the staff list sent by the petitioner for the additional intake of 50 students, the same was returned on the ground that Mr.Daniel Swaminathan and Mr.A.Somasundaram did not have 55% marks in the M.Ed. Examination. It is true that as per the NCTE Regulation 2002, 55% marks in M.Ed., examination is necessary, but after the amendment of the NCTE Regulation 2006 revised Appendix I and II came into effect and the Appendix II of the Amened Regulation of 2006 prescribed the Norms and Standards for Elementary Teaching Educational Programme and as per the said Norms, 55% marks in M.Ed., is not necessary and it is sufficient if the candidates possess M.Ed., Post Grade and Diploma in Elementary Teaching Education and 5 years teaching experience in recognised elementary school and elementary teaching training institution. Therefore, the petitioner re-submitted the list of staff by stating that as per the revised Regulation Appendix II, the aforesaid two persons viz., R.Daniel Swaminathan and A.Somasundaram having necessary qualification and the teaching experience was also stated in detail, counter-signed by the District Educational Officer and nevertheless, the same was returned by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the teaching experience was not counter-signed by the Chief Educational Officer, who is the competent authority. Therefore, we will have to see whether the return of the staff list submitted by the petitioner with the teaching experience certificate countersigned by the District Educational Officer, the 2nd respondent, is proper or not?
24.In a batch of writ petition Nos.20569 of 2007 etc., reported in 2008(2) MLJ 436, in the case of Self Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association, (Regd.) rep. by its President vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary School Education Department, Chennai and others = 2008 WLR 456, the Honourable Justice Mr.P.Jyothimani had occasion to deal with the power of the State Government and the respondents 1 and 2 in approving the staff list submitted by the institute and it was observed by the learned Judge in para '70' as follows: "It is the duty of the first and second respondents to approve the appointment of teachers made by the Institutes, when the qualification of the concerned teachers is in accordance with the norms prescribed by the NCTE Regulations and on verification if it is found to be true and there is absolutely no justification for the second respondent in keeping it pending on various grounds like, obtaining counter signature, etc.
25.Considering the plight of the management of the institution, the learned Judge has given direction, directing the first respondent herein to clear within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of that copy of the order, all the applications pending with the first respondent herein in respect of the approval of the teachers list. The learned Judge rely upon the judgment of this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.26630 of 2004 etc. batch cases, by order, dated 09.11.2004 [Vivekananda Teacher Training Institute for Women, Elayampalayam, Tiruchengode and Others vs. Regional Director, NCTE and Others) wherein this Court has held that "By imposing the impugned condition, the Regional Committee has only directed the DTERT to approve the faculty list on the basis of the educational and professional qualification awarded by the University or the examining body. It is a matter of procedure for verification and the condition does not invest any power on the DTERT either to prescribe the academic or professional qualification or to impose any additional conditions that one prescribed under clause 5 of Appendix 5......"
Therefore, from the above judgment of this Honourable Court, it has been made clear that the respondents 1 and 2 have no power to prescribe any other qualification or to impose any additional conditions other than one prescribed by the Regulation of NCTE and as stated supra, Appendix II Regulation 2006 prescribes the qualification of M.Ed., with 5 years teaching experience and the petitioner has submitted the requisite teaching experience of those two persons, which was also countersigned by the District Educational Officer and without considering the same, the 2nd respondent returned the same on the ground that it was not countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer.
26.In this connection, it is pertinent to mention the counter affidavit filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the reason for getting the experience service certificate by a proper Educational Officer and it is stated in para '14' of the counter filed in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 that "the earlier instances were brought to the notice of the first respondent, wherein experience certificates produced before the authorities on behalf of the staff were found to be bogus and therefore, it has become necessary for the authorities to insist for the counter-signed the experience certificate from the competent authority concerned. According to the respondents, the competent authority to counter-sign in the experience certificate in respect of higher secondary school, is the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer is the competent authority to counter-sign in the experience certificate in respect of primary and middle school.
27.In this case, the staff list sent by the petitioner was returned not on the ground that the teaching experience stated by the petitioner in respect of those two teachers are not correct. On the other hand, it was returned on the ground that the teaching experience was not countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer and it was counter-signed only by the District Educational Officer. As admitted by the respondents, the purpose of countersigning the teaching experience is to avoid any fraud or production of bogus certificate. Therefore, when the teaching experience certificates are certified and countersigned by a qualified Educational Officer it stands to no reason why the certificates counter signed by the District Educational Officer cannot be accepted. In this context, It is relevant to refer to the judgment of this Honourable Court rendered in W.P.(MD)No.5398 of 2007 and 7610 of 2009, dated 04.12.2009 wherein the Honourable Justice Mr.S.Nagamuthu has held that "the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the countersignature has not been made by the Educational Authorities needs to be considered. In my considered opinion, getting countersigned service certificate is only to prove the period experience and the same is only a procedure. When it could be easily culled out from the records available that the petitioner had gained more than five years of experience as on the date of appointment, viz., 02.06.2006, the said appointment needs to be approved without sticking on to the procedural formalities in respect of the countersignature by the Educational Authorities. As we have already noticed, the service Records have been verified by none else that the third respondent and he has countersigned the same, and therefore, in my considered opinion, it would be suffice.
28.I am in complete agreement with the observation of the learned single Judge and having regard to the purpose of getting countersignature, in my opinion, it is sufficient if it is properly authenticated by a qualified Educational Officer and in this case, it is countersigned by the District Educational Officer. Further, in respect of Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan, it was stated that he worked in the 2nd respondent institution as 'Headmaster' from 26.09.1994 to 30.06.2005 and that was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the experience certificate was not countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer. As held by this Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Shri Ponniah Ramajathammal Educational & Charitable Trust, Thanjavur vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, in W.P.No.8700 of 2006, dated 19.04.2007 wherein the learned Judge has criticised the entire system. In that case, the learned Judge came across a very curious situation that the person, who has issued the impugned proceedings refusing to accept the approval of the appointment of staff, himself happened to be the Competent Authority to put countersignature, which is really making the entire system a mockery. In this case also, it is stated that Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan served as 'Headmaster' of the High School in the 2nd respondent institute and the 2nd respondent without verifying the same, returned the proposal stating that it was not countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer. As stated supra, the purpose of getting counter-signature in the experience certificate is to verify the authenticity of the experience certificate and when it is signed by the Educational Officer, the respondents 1 and 2 have to find out the experience certificate given by the petitioner in respect of two teachers whether they were genuine or not. The act of the 2nd respondent in returning the same on the ground that it was not countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer is nothing, but childish and is making the entire systemic a mockery as held by this Court.
29.Further, as held by the learned Judge in the judgment reported in 2008(2) MLJ 436, the respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in keeping the staff list pending on the ground that it was not countersigned by a proper person when the qualification of the concerned teacher is in accordance with law and the Norms prescribed by the NCTE Regulation. Therefore, the order of the 2nd respondent in returning the staff list on the ground that in respect of Mr.R.Daniel Swaminathan and A.Somasundaram, the teaching experience certificate was not countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer, is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
30.Further, as per the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench reported in 2008 WLR 592, the learned Advocate General has submitted that the State had requested the NCTE that it will follow Appendix V of the 2002 Regulations and not Appendix II of the 2005 Regulations as regards the staff list, unless the individual TTIs specifically exercise their option that they shall be governed by Appendix II and that was recorded. In this case, the petitioner exercised their option under Appendix II of the 2006 Regulations and submitted the staff list and that was not accepted by the Government insisting the countersignature by Chief Educational Officer. Therefore, the respondents cannot insist that they are entitled to insist the educational qualification as the Appendix V of Regulation 2002.
31.Further, the 2nd respondent returned the staff list on the other ground that the petitioner has not sent the staff list, which was approved by the 2nd respondent in the year 2005. It is stated by the petitioner in their letter, dated 20.08.2007 and 12.11.2007 that they have sent the approved staff list of the 2nd respondent, dated 08.03.2005, but the 1st and 2nd respondent have reiterated in their reply stating that those lists were not furnished. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be directed to furnish the list approved by the respondents, dated 08.03.2005 and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to verify the same and after the verification of the list approved by the 1st respondent, dated 08.03.2005 and the list of staffs submitted by the petitioner in respect of additional intake of 50 students, the respondents are directed to approve the staff list. Therefore, the W.P.(MD)No.299 of 2008 is disposed of with the following directions:-
(1) The petitioner is directed to send the list of staff approved by the first respondent, by his proceedings, dated 08.03.2005 within a period of one weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to forward the list of staff submitted by the petitioner, without insisting on the teaching experience certificate countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer, to the first respondent, after verifying the genuineness of the teaching experience stated by the petitioner in respect of those two teachers within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the list of staff furnished by the petitioner, as stated above and the first respondent shall within 15 days thereafter, approve the list of staff provided after confirming the qualification prescribed by the NCTE Regulation 2006 as stated above.
32.W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 and 4139 of 2009: The petitioner sought for the issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the 48 students admitted in the petitioner college for the academic session 2006-2007 to take the examination and in W.P.(MD)No.4139 of 2009, 17 persons out of 48 students filed the writ of mandamus to publish the results of the examination, written by them, which was conducted 18.02.2008 to 20.02.2008 and 25.08.2008 to 29.08.2008 respectively for the first and 2nd year, in the petitioners institution.
33.As stated supra, the petitioner's institution was granted recognition only for the intake of 50 students for the year 2005-2006 and the petitioner sought for additional intake of 50 students by submitting application on 31.08.2006, enclosing necessary deposit as stipulated by the NCTE. It is also admitted that NCTE granted conditional recognition on 30.07.2007 and it has been stated clearly in the said conditional recognition order issued by the NCTE, in para 3 that the institution shall undertake appointment of the faculty/staff by a duly constituted Selection Committee and ensure the selection of candidates possessing qualifications as prescribed under Rules. It is stated in para '5' that after appointing the requisite faculty/staff, the institution shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned and the Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal unconditional recognition order. It has been made clear that the institution is also required to submit an affidavit regarding the particulars of staffs appointed as per the NCTE/State/University Norms and also an affidavit by the individual faculty member appointed by the institution. It has also been made clear in the conditional recognition order that admission should not be made until unconditional letter of recognition is issued by Southern Regional Committee, NCTE and the institution shall make admissions only after it obtains affiliation from the examining body. Therefore, the petitioner institution is not entitled to admit students until unconditional recognition is granted by the NCTE and the staff list is approved by the examining body viz, the State Government.
34.In this case , it is seen from the affidavit of the petitioner filed in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 that even before the grant of conditional recognition by the NCTE, the petitioner institution has admitted the students for the academic year 2006-2007. It is stated in para 11 of the affidavit that being sure of getting approval for the additional intake for the academic year 2006-2007 students were admitted in addition the existing 50 students. It is not stated when additional strength of 50 students were admitted and the exact date of admission of those 50 students was not given. It is further admitted that the 2nd respondent, by his letter, dated 25.04.2007 returned the application in respect of 48 students, who were admitted as additional students. Therefore, it is seen from the above facts that even before getting conditional and unconditional recognition and even before the staff list is approved by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner institution has admitted 48 students and by filing successive application in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 and after getting interim orders in that writ, those students were also permitted to write the examination and the practical examination. As stated supra, by virtue of the order passed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008, dated 15.02.2008, the additional 48 students were permitted to write the examination held in the month of February 2008. By virtue of the order passed in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008, dated 30.08.2008, 47 students were also permitted to attend the practical examination for the 2nd year, for the academic year 2006-2007. Therefore, on the basis of the above interim orders passed by this Court, the additional intake of 47 students were permitted to write the examination and therefore, they want the examination result to be published so as to enable them to get the Diploma Certificate. Therefore, the question arises in these two writ petitions is whether examination result of those additional 47 students, who have written the examination on the basis of the unauthorised admission made by the petitioner institution for the academic year 2006-2007 and who were permitted to writ the examination on the basis of the interim orders of this Honourable Court can be published or not?
35.Mr.Issac Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in a similar circumstances, in W.P.(MD)No.18798 of 2008, this Court has imposed a cost of Rs,5,000/- for each student and permit the results to be published in respect of those students, who were admitted before the list of staff approved by the respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Issac Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2008(2) MLJ 436, wherein a batch of writ petitions were considered by the learned Judge and while allowing the write petition in part, the learned Judge has observed that the students admitted in the Self-Financing Private Institutions till 16.03.2007 for the academic year 2006-2007 shall be treated as students admitted for the first year of the academic year 2006-2007 and it is open to the respondents to fix the date for examination, after calculating the required number of days for attendance from the said cut-off date made by the Government itself for admission,
36.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Issac Mohanlal further submitted that on the basis of the interim order passed in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008, the additional students, who have completed their course were permitted to write the examination for the year 2007-2008 and therefore, even though the conditional recognition was granted on 11.12.2007 and staff list was not approved, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the students who have under-gone the course and training by qualified teachers must be given the benefit of their course and the result must be published.
37.On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.K.Vijayakumar, submitted that as per the conditional recognition letter and unconditional recognition letter granted by NCTE, it has been made clear that the petitioner institution is not entitled to admit the students before the grant of unconditional recognition letter and the approval of the staff list by the examining body and knowing fully well about the two aspects, the petitioner deliberately violated those conditions and admitted the students and it is not stated by the students that they got themselves admitted in the institution, without knowing those two facts viz., non-grant of unconditional recognition letter by the NCTE and the non-approval of the staff list by the examining body and the students also got themselves admitted knowing fully well that the institution has no right to admit the students without getting unconditional recognition letter and the staff list approved by the examining body and therefore, the petitioner institution as well as the students did not deserve any sympathy as the petitioner has deliberately violated the direction of the NCTE and admitted the students and the students also with open eye got themselves admitted in the institution which was not granted recognition to admit additional 48 students.
38.He further submitted that if the students were given the relief, it amounts to misplace sympathy with as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1991(3) SCC 87 State of Tamil Nadu vs. St.Joseph Teacher Training Institute wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has contemned the practice of admitting the students in unauthorised educational institutions and therefore, submitted that the petitioner did not deserve any sympathy.
39.Of course, it is true that in this case, students viz., the additional intake of 48 students were permitted to write the examination in the year 2007- 2008. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioners viz., the students are entitled to get the result published when the institution was not recognised by the NCTE and they underwent these course.
40.Before going into the merits, it is relevant to make it clear that the 17 students, who filed W.P.(MD)No.4131 of 2009 were the students, who are admitted pending recognition from the NCTE. It is admitted by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.806 of 2008 that they sought for recognition from the NCTE only on 31.08.2006 and anticipating recognition, admitted the students for the academic year 2006-2007. In so far as 50 students are concerned, they studied on the basis of the recognition granted by NCTE and the list of staff approved by the respondents 1 and 2. Now, the problem arises only in respect of additional intake of 48 students and though,no date of admission was mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner institution, it can be presumed that the admission must have taken place after the first week of September 2006. Even assuming that the students were admitted on 01.09.2006, as per the Norms fixed by the NCTE, in the year 2002, the students must have undergone the course for 180 days in a year, vide clause (4) in Appendix V and the NCTE of the year 2002, in 2006 Norms and Standards for Teaching Education Programme have been modified by the NCTE and as per the clause 2 of the Appendix II of the modified Regulations of NCTE 2006, which was published in the gazette on 11.12.2006, 200 working days is necessary for writing the examination. As a matter of fact, on the basis of modified Regulation of 2006, the State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(2D) No.59, School Education Department. dated 14.11.2006 and prescribed 220 days as working days for the calender of the activities and fixed the cut-off date as 30.11.2006 as the last date for admission to diploma in teaching education for the academic year 2006-2007. Thereafter, G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated. 09.02.2007 was issued extending time limit for submission of list of faculty members for approval on 09.03.2007 and a batch of writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.47503 of 2006 were filed challenging the G.O.(2D)No.59, dated 14.11.2006 and all the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, dated 03.04.2007 by Honourable Justice Mr.V.Ramasubramanian and the learned Judge, while disposing of the batch of writ petition, upheld the G.O.(2D)No.59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006. Nevertheless, the learned Judge has observed that having regard to the G.O.(2D)No.7, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007 whereby the last date for approval for faculty members had been extended by the State Government from 20.11.2006 to 09.03.2007 and the first respondent was directed to approve the admission of students in a Private Teacher Training Institutes, if their admission had taken place before 30.11.2006 and the list of faculty members had been submitted before 09.03.2007. The learned Judge also makes it clear that this concession is only in respect of current academic year 2006-2007, since the amended Regulations 2005 were notified on 30.11.2006 and the revised Appendix II, Norms and Standards of the amended Regulation 2006 was notified on 11.12.2006. The learned Judge also held in the said judgment in para 24 as follows: "From the aforesaid National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005, which came into effect from 13.1.2006, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Institutions are entitled to admit students only after the following steps are fulfilled viz., (a) Obtaining an order of recognition (b) Appointing qualified Faculty Members, putting the information on the Official Website and formally informing the Regional Committee Concerned, [c]Getting an unconditional order of recognition and (d) getting affiliation from the examining Body.
Therefore, it is seen from the order of the learned Judge as well as the amended Regulation 2005 and the revised Appendix II of the NCTE Regulation 2006 the students can be admitted only after obtaining the order of recognition and after getting authenticity from the examining body, the students must have undergone 220 working days per year to be eligible for writing the examination.
41.The Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported 1993 Suppl (I) SCC 594, in the case of State of U.P. vs. Dr.Anupam Gupta held as follows:
"Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to reach their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence.
42.In another judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the need for fixing time schedule, both for commencement of the course and for the admission of students, in the judgment reported in 2002(7) SCC 258, in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Sing held that "There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course.
43.It is true that in W.P.No.18798 of 2008, this Court has permitted the result of the students to be published on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- for each students, but that judgment cannot be relied upon to support the case of the petitioner in this case, A perusal of the facts of that case, would reveal that the institution was granted permission for additional intake of 50 students by NCTE and on the basis of the grant of permission by the NCTE, students were admitted and the institute did not get the approval of the staff list before the respondents. In that case, the list of staff was submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, which was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the first respondent for approval and the first respondent rejected the staff list on various grounds. Therefore, considering those circumstances, relying upon the Division Bench Judgment rendered in W.P.(MD)No.3599 of 2008 and also the Division Bench Judgement made in W.P.(MD)No.3258 of 2008 and also having regard to the fact that the students have already written the examination, this Court has permitted the result to be published by imposing costs on the petitioners institution students. In that case, the institution was granted unconditional recognition and thereafter, the institution admitted the students and in respect of some other institutions, the 2nd respondent has approved the list with retrospective effect and therefore, on the basis of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.3599 of 2008 and 3558 of 2008 and having regard to the facts of those cases, the learned Judge has permitted the result to be published on payment of costs. But in this case, unconditional recognition was granted only on 11.12.2007 and the staff list was not approved till date. In this connection, the Division Bench of this Honourable Court reported in 2008 WLR 592 is relevant. In that judgment, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court disposed of all the writ Appeal Nos.137, 220, 278 , 361 of 2008. The writ Appeal Nos. 137, 220 of 2008 were filed by the State Government against the common order passed in the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.20569 of 2007 reported in 2008 WLR 456 and W.A.No.278 of 2008 was filed by the Director of Teaching Education against the order passed in W.P.No.25164 of 2007. The batch of writ petition, W.P.No.20569 of 2007 was disposed by the learned Judge Mr.Joythimani wherein the learned Judge has upheld the power of the State Government to approve the list of teachers to conduct the examination in consonance with section 14(4) and 14(6) of the NCTE Act, In W.P.No.25164 of 2007, the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the first respondent rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for training of teachers appointed for the year 2006-2007. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the first respondent and directed the first respondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, approving the teaching staff for the year 2006-2007 so as to enable the students admitted in the year 2006-2007 to take the examination for the first year of the diploma, which had been fixed on 18.02.2008. This order was challenged in W.A.(MD)No.278 of 2008 and the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of all the four writ appeals, confirmed the order of the learned Judge Mr.V.Ramasubramaniam rendered in W.P.(M)No.47503 of 2006, dated 03.04.2006 and modified the clause 3 of the judgment of the learned Judge Mr.Joythimani, in the batch of writ petition No.20569 of 2007, reported in 2008 WLR 456 and also made it clear in the judgment that clause 4 and 5 of the judgment of the learned Judge regarding the calender of activities should not be postponed and it shall commence in 2007-2008 and the approval of the list of teachers shall be in accordance with NCTE Regulation and Act/as per G.O.Ms.108. The Honourable Division Bench further held that approval of the list of teachers sent by the Private institutions is not automatic and it shall be considered whether the NCTE regulation is applicable and proper orders shall be passed. While disposing of W.A.No.278 of 2008, which was filed against the order passed in w.P.No.25164 of 2007, the Honourable Division Bench held that unless and until the staff list is approved even though the students write the examination they are not entitled to have result declared. Therefore, it is made clear from the above Division Bench judgment that without getting the staff list approved, even though the students were admitted and were permitted to write the examination, they are not entitled to allow the result published.
44.Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2006(13) SCC 673, in Sunil Oraon vs. CBSC has held that the practice of the educational institutions admitting students without requisite recognition or affiliation has to be deprecated. The mere fact that ultimate victims are the innocent students cannot be a ground to direct the CBSE to allow them to appear in the examinations. Paras 14 to 24 of the said judgment is usefully extracted here under:-
"14.Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in various judgments to the effect that interim orders of the nature passed in the present case are detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of course, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is subversive of academic discipline.
15.In Regional Officer, CBSE vs. Sheena Peethambara, this Court has observed (SCC p.724, para 6) [2003(7) SCC 719 ]: "6.This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions."
16.In CBSE v. P.Sunil Kumar,[1998(5)SCC 377] the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education were not entitled to appear in the examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the examination under the interim orders granted by the High Court. In that context the Supreme Court observed (SCC p.381, para
4) ..4...But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students."
17.In Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Parminder Kr.Bansal,[1993(4) SCC 401], the Supreme Court observed that such interim order is subversive of academic discipline. The relevant observations are as under. ( SCC p.403, para 7) :
"7...We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. ...The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions."
18.Yet in another case i.e. in A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Govt. of A.P. reported in 1986(2) SCC 667, this Court held that (SCC p.678 para 10) : ..10..We cannot by out fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws".
19.In State of T.N vs. St.Joseph Teachers Training Institute,[1991(3)SCC 87] this Court observed that the direction of admitting the students of unauthorised educational institutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Educational Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination.
20.In CBSE vs. Nikhil Gulati,[1998(3) SCC 5], this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future.
21.In Krishna Priya Ganguly vs. University of Lucknow, [1984(1) SCC 307], the Supreme Court observed (SCC p.310, para 3):- "3....whenever a Writ Petition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the Court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible."
22.In State of Maharashta v. Vikas Sahebrao Rounale, [1992(4) SCC 435], it was held that the students of unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a Writ Petition being filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. This Court observed (SCC p.439, para 12) ..12..Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education."
23.Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institutions admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the school nonchalantly continued the violations.
24.Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against the school as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion."
Therefore, it is seen from the above judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court that the Honourable Supreme Court has come down heavily on the institution, which admitted the students without getting recognition and has also held that there cannot be any sympathy on the ground that the students will suffer in circumstances like this. Hence, having regard to the fact that the petitioner institution admitted the students without getting unconditional recognition and without getting the staff list approved by the examining body and the students also got themselves admitted knowing fully well that the institution did not have recognition to take the additional strength and having regard to the Supreme Court Judgement referred to above, the petitioners, in both the writ petitions are not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
45.In the result, both the writ petitions viz., 806 of 2008 & 4139 of 2009 fail and are dismissed. W.P.(MD)No.299 of 2008 is disposed with direction as stated above. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
er To,
1.The Director of Teacher Education, Research & Training, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Principal, District Institute of Teacher Education & Training, Kulasekharanputhur, Theroor, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil-629 001.
4.The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031.
5.The Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.