Madras High Court
C. Shalini vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 November, 2023
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
WA No. 145 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No. 145 of 2023
and
CMP. Nos.1331, 1333 and 2014 of 2023
---
C. Shalini .. Appellant
Versus
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Department of School Education
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Erode District - 638 001
3. District Educational Officer
Gobichettipalayam
Erode District
4. St. Francis Xavier Higher Secondary School
rep. by its Correspondent
Periya Kodivery, Gobichettipalayam
Erode District
5. Tamilnadu Teachers Education University
rep. by its Registrar
Karapakkam, Chennai - 600 097
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/26
WA No. 145 of 2023
6. Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education
Thadagam Road, Kanuvai
Coimbatore - 641 108 .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
Order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No.
25970 of 2022 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mrs. N. Kavitha Rameshwar
For Respondents : Mr. Silambanan, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs. S. Anitha
Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 3
Mr. Father Xavier Arulraj, Senior Advocate
for M/s. Father Xavier Associates for R4
Mrs. S. Bhuvaneswari for R5
Mr. K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi for R6
JUDGMENT
R. MAHADEVAN, J The appellant has come forward with this intra-court appeal aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge in the Writ Petition bearing No. 25970 of 2022 filed by her.
2. The appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings dated 13.09.2022 of the third respondent and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to take any adverse action against her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/26 WA No. 145 of 2023
3.(i) According to the appellant, she had passed S.S.L.C. in the year 1997 and completed class XII in the year 1999. Thereafter, she completed B.Sc. Mathematics from Bharathiar University in the year 2002. Pursuant thereto, she also completed B.Ed. (Special Education) during the year 2005 from Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore. That apart, the appellant also passed M.Sc. (Mathematics) in the year 2018 from Annamalai University. By G.O. Ms. No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department dated 24.04.2012 issued by the Government, the B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed. (General Education) for the purpose of employment in public service.
(ii) It is further stated by the appellant that on 01.06.2010, she was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the fourth respondent school and had successfully completed 12 years of service. The appellant also stated that she is taking Mathematics subject to the students studying in the fourth respondent school. According to her, the fourth respondent school is a Government aided institution and is receiving aid from the Government which is being utilised for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff.
(iii) While the facts stood thus, the fourth respondent vide letter dated 30.05.2022, had sought approval from the third respondent for conferment of increment to the staff working in the fourth respondent school, including the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 appellant herein. Upon receipt of the same, the third respondent issued a communication dated 30.05.2022, seeking certain clarifications, purportedly with respect to the approval given to Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore, wherefrom some of the staff members have acquired higher qualification. According to the appellant, she had pursued B.Ed. (Special Education) from the said Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore, during the year 2005 and such educational qualification acquired by her has been questioned by the third respondent indirectly. However, the third respondent has not issued any notice to the appellant seeking her explanation.
(iv) The appellant would state that the Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore had obtained recognition from the Rehabilitation Council of India, besides recognition and approval from the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, the fifth respondent herein. In this context, Mary Kanagam Memorial Educational Trust, which administers Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore has issued a letter dated 27.05.2022 in which the particulars relating to approval have been furnished to the fourth respondent. Notwithstanding the same, the third respondent once again issued a letter dated 12.07.2022 to the fourth respondent school by stating that the clarifications sought for in the earlier letter dated 30.05.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 have not been furnished and hence, called upon the fourth respondent to show cause as to why the grant-in-aid by the Government, should not be withheld. In such circumstances, apprehending that the respondents may not pay the monthly salary and/or increments payable to her, the appellant preferred WP No. 25355 of 2022 praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take any adverse action against her in discharge of her service in the fourth respondent school pursuant to the letter dated 12.07.2022 of the third respondent. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the third respondent sent a communication dated 13.09.2022 to the fourth respondent intimating that the grand-in-aid to the fourth respondent school towards the appellant's salary will be stopped from September 2022 due to non-submission of the required documents by them. Challenging the said communication of the third respondent, the appellant filed the instant Writ Petition No. 25970 of 2022, for the relief stated supra.
4. Before the writ court, on behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the third respondent has sought for certain particulars from the fourth respondent school through a communication dated 30.05.2022 but they were not furnished, which resulted in issuance of the communication dated 13.09.2022. In reply, it was stated on the side of the appellant / writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is ready to submit the documents sought for by the third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 respondent in the communication dated 12.07.2022, which was impugned in the writ petition. Taking note of the said submissions on either side, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition on 27.09.2022 and directed the appellant / writ petitioner to furnish the documents as sought for by the third respondent in the communication dated 12.07.2002 within a period of one week and on receipt of the same, the third respondent shall pass final orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. While so, it was directed by the learned Judge that payment of salary to the appellant / writ petitioner shall not be disturbed till the final orders are passed by the respondents.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.25970 of 2022, the appellant / writ petitioner has come up with this writ appeal.
6.(i) Mrs. Kavitha Rameshwar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the direction issued by the learned Judge in the order dated 27.09.2022, directing the appellant to produce the documents such as recognition order obtained by the sixth respondent institution, where she had pursued the B.Ed. (Special Education) course, is unsustainable. According to the learned counsel, the appellant cannot be directed to furnish the documents, such as the order of recognition in favour of the sixth respondent or the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 approval obtained by the sixth respondent for conducting B.Ed. (Special Education) Course. The learned Judge has misconstrued the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is ready to submit the documents available with her, such as, marksheets, degree certificates, etc., issued by the sixth respondent college and directed the appellant to produce the documents of recognition and/or approval accorded to the sixth respondent. Those documents cannot be in possession of the appellant and it is for the sixth respondent college to produce the same.
(ii) The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant had rendered more than 13 years of service in the fourth respondent school. After rendering such service, the third respondent is not justified in examining the validity of the B.Ed. (Special Education) certificate issued by the sixth respondent. Even otherwise, the third respondent has not issued any show cause notice or any other communication to the appellant directly, however, by issuing notice to the fourth respondent, the third respondent is attempting to indirectly stop the payment of salary to the appellant. The stoppage in payment of salary to the appellant will have a civil consequence, in which event, the third respondent ought to have issued a show cause notice to the appellant in adherence to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 learned Judge ought to have interfered with the order impugned in the writ petition, instead of relegating the appellant to produce certain documents to the third respondent, which were not in her possession. In any event, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Judge, the appellant produced all the educational testimonials in her possession to the third respondent, but the third respondent refused to accept the same and directed her to produce documents such as recognition and/or approval of the sixth respondent institution, which is uncalled for.
(iii) According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant, being a student, cannot be expected to remain in possession of the documents such as recognition and approval accorded to the sixth respondent institution. This was not taken note of by the learned Judge. In fact, the third respondent, after refusing to receive the documents produced by the appellant, did not accord approval for payment of salary to the appellant, as a result of which, she worked in the fourth respondent school without salary from December 2022. Subsequently, the second respondent passed an order dated 11.01.2023 cancelling the appointment of the appellant for non-production of the documents by her. By a consequential order dated 18.01.2023, the appellant was also relieved from service. However, by virtue of the interim orders https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 granted by this Court, the appellant is continuing in service. With these submissions, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order dated 27.09.2022 of the learned Judge and to allow the writ appeal, as prayed for.
7.(i) Per contra, Mr. Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the appellant passed 10th Standard in the year 1997 and higher secondary/plus two during 1999. In the year 2002, she completed her B.Sc. (Mathematics) from Bharathiyar University and in the year 2005, she passed B.Ed. (Special Education) from the Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore. Based on her qualification, she was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Mathematics) in the fourth respondent school on 01.06.2010. As per G.O. Ms. No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department dated 24.04.2012, the Government directed that the B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed. (General Education). However, it must be noted that the appellant was appointed on 01.06.2010 and much after her appointment, G.O. Ms. No.56 dated 24.04.2012 came to be issued. While so, the benefits conferred on the said G.O., cannot be extended to the appellant, inasmuch as she was appointed as B.T. Assistant only in the year 2010 on the basis of B.Ed. qualification obtained from the sixth respondent college in the year 2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/26 WA No. 145 of 2023
(ii) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would further contend that on examining the educational testimonials of the appellant, it was found that she did not complete her Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore, but through Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. When a clarification was sought for from the fourth respondent, a reply dated 11.04.2022 was sent stating that instead of typing as Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore, it was mistakenly typed as Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. Therefore, the third respondent, by communication dated 31.05.2022 directed the fourth respondent to produce the copies of recognition as well as approval issued by the University Grants Commission in favour of Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore. The fourth respondent, in turn, by a communication dated 31.05.2022 directed the appellant to produce all those documents to the third respondent. The appellant, in her communication dated 13.06.2022 stated that she was in 10th Standard question paper evaluation duty and requested some more time. Accordingly, time was given but even thereafter, the appellant did not produce the documents. Therefore, the third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12.07.2022 to the fourth respondent stating that the documents sought for in the communication dated 31.05.2022 have not been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 produced and explanation was sought as to why the grant-in-aid should not be stopped. Subsequently, the fourth respondent sent a letter dated 12.10.2022 and produced the certain documents. On scrutiny of the documents, it was noticed that they relate to the approval and/or recognition given to Indira Gandhi College of Special Education, but the appellant pursued the B.Ed., course in Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore. Even otherwise, as per the documents furnished by the fourth respondent, it was found that the Rehabilitation Council of India has given approval to Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore only from the academic year 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, but the appellant had completed the B.Ed. degree in the year 2005. Thus, at the time when the appellant completed the course, there was no recognition or approval accorded to Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the course pursued by the appellant from Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore is valid, cannot be accepted. Placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others [AIR 2011 SC 63], the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the State Government in its discretion is entitled to prescribe such qualification as it may consider appropriate for candidates seeking admission for pursuing a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 course. As long as the qualifications so prescribed are not lower than the one prescribed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, it is valid.
(iii) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent authorities also brought to our notice the judgment dated 02.03.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 1424 of 2014, wherein, the first respondent / writ petitioner therein was not selected to the post of Project Co-ordinator and Block Resource Educator in Tamil on the ground that the B.Ed. degree obtained by her was through Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore, which is an unrecognised University. The writ court allowed the writ petition but it was set aside by the Division Bench, on appeal. The paragraph 8 of the said Judgment is relevant and is extracted below:
"8. A perusal of the degree certificate produced by the first respondent-writ petitioner would go to show that for the examination written by the writ petitioner in the month of May 2005, degree was issued on 16.06.2006. Even presuming that the college which the first respondent has studied from, is affiliated, the affiliation is only after the University itself is established. When the University itself is established in the year 2008, it is not possible for the said Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore to get affiliation on the date when the first respondent passed her examination in B.Ed., course. Therefore, on that day, when the first respondent had qualified herself, it is from an unrecognised College without any affiliation from any of the recognised Universities. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be said to have possessed the requisite qualification of B.Ed., degree for the said post of Project Coordinator and Block Resource Educator in Tamil and she does not deserve the right of being appointed to the said post at that point of time."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 In the present case also, the B.Ed. degree obtained by the appellant from the sixth respondent University is unrecognised and therefore, her appointment as B.T. Assistant itself is illegal.
(iv) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 also submitted that the appellant has voluntarily submitted that she is ready and willing to furnish the documents called for by the third respondent and based on such statement, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition. However, in the present appeal, she had turned around and stated that she cannot be expected to produce the documents which were not in her possession. Furthermore, the appellant also filed a contempt petition in Contempt Petition No. 2787 of 2022 to punish the respondents for having wilfully disobeyed the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge in WP.No.25970 of 2022 and the contempt petition was disposed of on 27.01.2023 in view of the pendency of the present writ appeal.
(v) As regards payment of salary, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the authorities submitted that on the basis of the interim order granted by this Court in this appeal, a sum of Rs.1,84,232/- was paid to the appellant representing salary for the month of September 2022, December 2022 and January 2023 (18 days) on 28.02.2023. Further, the salary for the subsequent period was also remitted into the bank account of the appellant. In https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 such circumstances, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Mr. Fr. Xavier Arulraj, learned Senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the appellant was appointed in a sanctioned post and her appointment was also approved; and she is in the employment of the fourth respondent since 2010. In response to the request made by the third respondent, the fourth respondent has furnished whatever documentary evidence made available with her. The sixth respondent is also on record and they have also filed the documents relating to recognition as well as approval accorded by the Bharathiyar University. Therefore, it is for the third respondent to consider those documents and pass appropriate orders. In fact, the second respondent has already passed an order dated 11.01.2023 cancelling the appointment of the appellant for non-production of the necessary documents by her. However, by virtue of the interim order granted in this appeal, the appellant is continuing in the post of B.T. Assistant and received salary.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that Mary Kanagam Memorial Educational Trust has obtained No Objection https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 Certificate from the competent authority for starting B.Ed. Special Education Course in the name and style of Indira Gandhi College of Special Education. Subsequently, on 12.03.2005, an application for opening of unaided private B.Ed. Special Education College by private educational agency was submitted by enclosing all the requisite documents. Considering the application dated 12.03.2005, the Rehabilitation Council of India, by a proceeding dated 31.08.2006, accorded approval for the academic session i.e., 2006-2007. Following the same, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore has issued provisional affiliation to the sixth respondent institution on 07.03.2007 from the academic year 2007-2008. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent also produced a typed set of papers furnishing the documents referred to above and prayed for appropriate orders in the writ appeal filed by the appellant.
10. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11. The writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 13.09.2022, under which, it was stated that they will be stopping the grant-in-aid towards the salary of the appellant / writ petitioner from September 2022 due to non-submission of certain documents. The primary question would be, whether the respondents, who themselves satisfied https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 with the credentials of the appellant on her eligibility including educational qualifications for the post of BT Assistant/ Graduate Teacher and approved her appointment in the fourth respondent school as early as in 2010, can now direct the appellant to submit documents like recognition order of the sixth respondent institution from which she had completed her B.Ed. (Special Education), approval for the said course, etc.
12. The specific case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that these documents i.e. the order of recognition in favour of Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education as well as the approval issued to B.Ed. (Special Education) course, are within the exclusive knowledge and possession of the 6th respondent College. The further question that would arise is, whether the writ petition ought to have been disposed of directing the appellant/writ petitioner to submit these documents, i.e., the recognition order and course approval order in favour of the 6th respondent. The obvious answer to these questions would be in the negative. No student or candidate can be reasonably expected to have in their possession documents such as the recognition order granted in favour of an institution as well as the approval granted in respect of course being imparted by an institution. As such, prima facie, this court finds that the third respondent may not be correct in law in calling upon the appellant/writ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 petitioner to produce these documents and make the production of these documents a condition precedent for continuing the grant-in-aid towards her salary.
13. Be that as it may, once the issue relating to the eligibility of a candidate in public employment has arisen, this Court cannot shut its eyes on mere technicalities. Hence, it has become necessary for us to get into the question as to whether the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to hold the post of BT Assistant in the fourth respondent school, her salary being funded by the state government. In this regard, the respondent institution from which the appellant / writ petitioner had completed her B.Ed. (special education), has also been added as a party, i.e., the sixth respondent in the writ appeal. This court also directed the sixth respondent to produce all relevant documents evidencing that the sixth respondent institution had the recognition for imparting the course B.Ed. (Special Education) during the relevant point in time.
14. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the sixth respondent filed a typed set of papers, which reveal that as the course involves special education, the appropriate authority for granting recognition would be the Rehabilitation Council of India, and hence, the sixth respondent had applied to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 Rehabilitation Council of India as early as in the year 2002. The sixth respondent had also applied for affiliation from the Bharathiar University, Coimbatore. It is further seen from the documents produced that from 19.06.2002 onwards, the process of obtaining recognition has been on. The communications between the institution and the Rehabilitation Council of India would also make it clear that the Rehabilitation Council of India had pointed out certain deficiencies, which were to be rectified by the sixth respondent, and after the rectification of the same, recognition came to be granted for B.Ed. (Special Education) for the academic year 2006-07, by order dated 31.08.2006. It has also been seen that thereafter, year after year upto date, the sixth respondent has the recognition as well as the approval of the Rehabilitation Council of India for imparting the course - B.Ed. (Special Education).
15. In this regard, the pertinent point to be answered is whether - since the appellant had completed B.Ed. (Special Education) in May 2005, and B.Ed. certificate as well as consolidated mark sheet came to be issued to her in 2006, whether she can be said to have a valid degree of B.Ed. (Special Education) in her favour, in order to entitle her to hold public employment. In other words, the question would be, as to whether recognition/approval granted by the Rehabilitation Council of India from 2006 can be said to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 date back to the academic session, during which the application for approval of the course was pending with the Rehabilitation Council of India, but came to be granted only in the year 2006. In this regard, this Court has perused the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (in short, "the RCI Act") as well as the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short, "the NCTE Act 1993"). While the RCI Act is silent about the status of the courses during the pendency of the applications by the institutions to the RCI, section 14 of the NCTE Act 1993 would shed some light on the same. Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 is extracted hereunder for useful reference:
“14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education.—(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.
1 [Provided further that such institutions, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, which—
(i) are funded by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration;
(ii) have offered a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day till the academic year 2017-2018; and
(iii) fulfil the conditions specified under clause (a) of sub-section (3), shall be deemed to have been recognised by the Regional Committee.] (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,— https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/26 WA No. 145 of 2023
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations;0020 or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4), — (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.”
16. The judgement of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and Ors. [AIR 2011 SC 63] is beneficial in order to understand the meaning and import of the provisions under section 14 of the NCTE Act 1993. In the said judgement, it has been categorically held that when an application is pending with the NCTE, the institution concerned can go ahead with imparting the course for which approval is sought for from the NCTE. Once the NCTE grants recognition/approval for the course concerned, the said approval dates back to the date of application. In the event of rejection of approval/recognition, the institution will not be in a position to continue the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 said course. However, the academic session in respect of which the course was already imparted, will stand validated. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are extracted hereunder:
“18. A fair reading and analysis of the scheme of the Act with respect to recognition of the institution imparting course or training in teacher education is an essential prelude to the core questions involved. On a plain reading of the provisions it is evident that on and from the date of enforcement of the Act, every institution offering or intending to offer the course or training in teacher education, was required to make application to the Regional Committee in such form and manner as may be determined by the regulations as provided in Section 14 of the Act. The proviso to Section 14(1) states that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. What happens in case of existing institution makes application seeking recognition within the prescribed time but no decision is taken by the Council within the period of six months? Does it mean that the institution can impart training only for a period of six months and thereafter close the institution? Section 14(5) states that every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of Sub-section (3).
19. A plain reading of provisions suggests that all such institutions offering a course or training in teacher education prior to the Act coming into force, are entitled to continue such course or training until the application is disposed of provided such an application has been made within six months from the appointed day. The consequence of not being able to gain recognition is the discontinuance of the course. Once an application seeking recognition has been filed by the institution within the prescribed period of six months the institution is entitled to continue offering a course or training in teacher education until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. Once the recognition is granted by the Regional Committee to the institution offering a course or training in teacher education, the same shall relate back to the date of filing of application. Section 14(5) read with Section 14(1) enables the institution offering a course or training in teacher education on the appointed day to continue the course or training as the case may be during the pendency of the application seeking recognition and even in case of refusal of recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only at the end of academic session. The institution offering training or course is entitled to award degree or certificate as the case may be.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 VIEW OF THE NCTE
20. The NCTE made its stand clear, as is evident from the impugned order that after the enforcement of NCTE Act, the existing institutions on the appointed day offering a course or training in teacher education are entitled to continue such course or training provided such institutions apply for the grant of recognition under Section 14(1) of theAct within a period of six months and until the disposal of their application by the Regional Committee. The degrees obtained during the pendency of the application are valid and recognition of such institutions shall relate back to the date of application and all such institutions shall be deemed to have been recognized for all purposes in view of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act. The NCTE reiterated its stand before us.
21. Prior to the enactment of NCTE Act, the degrees such as B.Ed. course for teacher education were being awarded by the Universities or by the recognized institutions by the University Grants Commission or by such bodies as authorized by the University Grants Commission. It is unreasonable to hold that all those degrees granted by the Universities or the bodies authorized by the University Grants Commission as the case may be were of sub- standard in nature in comparison to those degrees granted by the recognized institutions after the NCTE Act came into force. Such a view may amount to undermining the importance of the university education and the role played by the Universities in promoting the education and educational standards. Each of the Universities have their own systems and mechanism to grant affiliation to the institutions offering courses at the college/University level and grant of affiliation is never considered to be a matter of course. Universities always ensure maintenance of standards and degrees awarded only after successfully completing the prescribed syllabi and the examinations conducted by the Universities. The NCTE Act in no manner makes any distinction between the degrees granted by the Universities or authorized bodies recognized by the University Grants Commission prior to the enactment of the Act and the degrees granted by the recognized institutions after the Act has come into force. NCTE Act provides for the recognition of the institution offering course or training in teacher education and does not speak about recognition of the degrees granted by the institution prior to the Act coming into force. Thus, degrees granted by the institutions already in existence offering a course or training in teacher education shall be deemed to be at par with the degrees or certificates granted by the recognized institutions after the commencement of the Act provided those institutions in existence offering the course also received recognition under the Act.
22. In our considered view the State Government cannot make any distinction between the degrees obtained from the existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force but received recognition after the commencement of the Act and the degrees obtained from the recognized institutions after the Act coming into force. It is not shown how such a classification is based on an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 intelligible differentia and on a rational consideration and further how it bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof. The impugned action of the State results in the classification or division of members of a homogeneous group and subjecting them to differential treatment without any rhyme or reason.”
17. Drawing an analogy with the provisions of section 14 of the NCTE Act 1993, as expounded by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgement stated supra, it can be said that what is true for the applications pending before the NCTE will also be true for the Rehabilitation Council of India. Since the Rehabilitation Council of India deals with special education or education relating to special teachers for educating and training those with special needs, among others, the Rehabilitation Council of India is the appropriate authority for dealing with courses that include in their syllabus programs and subjects that fall within their purview. It is in this context that the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 1424 of 2014 decided on 02.03.2021 must be considered. It is seen from the said judgement that the fact that this sixth respondent institution deals only with B.Ed. (Special Education) which falls within the purview of the Rehabilitation Council of India and not under the National Council for Teacher Education, has not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench. As such, the Division Bench proceeded on the basis that since the NCTE did not recognise the sixth respondent institution, the latter is an unrecognised University and therefore, the degree obtained from the sixth respondent is not a valid degree https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 entitling a person for public employment on the strength of such degree. For the reasons detailed above, the said judgement of the Division Bench cannot have a bearing on the facts of the present case.
18. If once it is held that the recognition/approval to the course B.Ed.(Special Education) imparted by the sixth respondent institution dates back to the date of their initial application, the B.Ed. degree conferred upon the appellant/writ petitioner by the sixth respondent stands validated. In such view of the matter, there is no doubt about the educational qualification and other eligibility of the appellant/writ petitioner to hold the post of BT Assistant/Graduate Teacher in the fourth respondent school in which she has been working from 01.06.2010 with the approval of the state government who has been sanctioning the grant-in-aid to the fourth respondent school for the salary to be paid to the appellant/writ petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition, i.e. dated 13.09.2022 issued by the third respondent calling upon the appellant/writ petitioner to produce the recognition order and the course approval order in favour of the sixth respondent institution, cannot be sustained and the same must be quashed. On the same reasoning, the order under appeal is hereby set aside and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to continue the grant-in-aid to the fourth https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/26 WA No. 145 of 2023 respondent school towards the salary of the appellant/writ petitioner appointed as BT Assistant in the fourth respondent school and to continue her services.
19. With the above directions, the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.M.D., J) (M.S.Q., J)
08.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
rsh
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Department of School Education
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Erode District - 638 001
3. District Educational Officer
Gobichettipalayam
Erode District
4. The Correspondent
St. Francis Xavier Higher Secondary School
Periya Kodivery, Gobichettipalayam
Erode District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25/26
WA No. 145 of 2023
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
rsh
5. Registrar, Tamilnadu Teachers Education University Karapakkam, Chennai - 600 098
6. Indira Gandhi Institute of Higher Education Thadagam Road, Kanuvai Coimbatore - 641 108 W.A No. 145 of 2023 08.11.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/26