Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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?

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.

(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.