COMMON JUDGMENT M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J The Official Respondents in W.P.No.31976 of 2007 are the appellants. The first Respondent in the above said writ appeal is the petitioner in W.P.No.16364 of 2008. The second and third appellants in the writ appeal are the Respondents in the said writ petition.
2. The writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The facts in brief for the disposal of the writ appeal and the writ petition are as follows:-
The first Respondent in the writ appeal namely Jayasuriya College of Education, represented by its Managing Director, Mr.R.Jeya Rayar, has filed W.P.No.31976 of 2007 praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit 74 students who are studying in the petitioner institution for the academic year 2006-2007 to write the first year Diploma in Teacher Education examination to be held on November 2007.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner institution got approval from the National Council for Teacher Education on 24.11.2004 to start a Diploma in Teacher Education (D.T.Ed.,) for 50 students. The petitioner institution submitted a list of qualified teachers consist of a Principal and 5 teachers as required under the relevant Rules to run the institution for a strength of 50 students. The list was approved by the third Respondent on 21.6.2005.
5. It is further averred by the petitioner that the National Council for Teacher Education (In short 'NCTE') has passed an order dated 15.7.2006 for increasing the strength of students from 50 to 100. In pursuant to the increase in strength of students, the petitioner institution submitted an additional staff list on 18.11.2006 for additional 8 teachers.
6. According to the petitioner, as on the date of filing the writ petition, they had on their rolls, one Principal and 13 teachers which is required strength for a class of 100 students. As the staff list submitted by the petitioner institution has not been approved by the second Respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5559 of 2007 and this Court vide order dated 19.2.2007, has directed the concerned authorities to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. After the disposal of the writ petition, number of representations have been submitted for passing orders. The petitioner further averred that the recognition was granted only after the NCTE being satisfied that the availability of the qualified teachers. The students strength was increased from 50 to 100 and therefore the petitioner appointed 8 more teachers totalling 13 teachers and besides one Principal who is already discharging his duties.
7. The petitioner institution has submitted a list of students eligible to appear for first year and second year examinations to be conducted in October-November 2007 respectively. On 15.7.2006, the NCTE, Bangalore passed an order increasing the students strength from 50 to 100 and on 18.11.2006, faculty list was submitted for approval for the academic year 2005-2006. Since no orders were passed on the application submitted for approval of staff strength, the students admitted for the academic year 2005-2006 were not permitted to sit and write the examination and hence W.P.No.48239 of 2006 was filed. The Managing Trustee and her husband were arrested on the basis of some complaint. W.P.No.48239 of 2006 was also dismissed on 19.12.2006 holding that the recognition was for the academic year 2006-2007 only and not for the academic year 2005-2006.
8. The petitioner averred that W.P.No.5559 of 2007 was filed to approve the faculty list submitted on 18.11.2006 and it was ordered on 19.2.2007 directing the first Respondent therein to consider the faculty list and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, no orders have been passed. The grievance of the writ petitioner that 74 students who had been admitted in pursuant to the order of recognition dated 15.7.2006 and who were studying in the institution may not be issued with Hall Ticket even though the procedural formalities have been complied with. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition.
9. The petitioner also filed an additional affidavit stating among other things that the writ petition is confined only to 75 students who were admitted during 2005-06 and prayer is made to permit the said students to sit and write their first year examination to be conducted in the year 2006-07.
10. The second Respondent is the second appellant in this writ appeal has filed his counter for himself and on behalf of the third Respondent also. In the counter affidavit it is averred that the petitioner institution is a self-financing non-minority private Teacher Training Institute and it was granted recognition by the NCTE by an order dated 24.11.2004 to admit 50 students. The staff list of one Principal and 5 Teachers was also approved by the second Respondent for the academic year 2005-2006 vide proceedings dated 21.6.2005. As per the order of recognition and the staff list approval, the petitioner institution was eligible to admit 50 students only.
11. It is further averred in the counter that NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner for additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07 and out of the total intake of 100 students, only 50 students can alone be permitted to write the examination as the petitioner institution has not obtained approval of the staff list for the additional intake of 50 students. The second Respondent has granted approval for 41 students even though the petitioner institution has submitted a list of 116 students for the academic year 2005-06.
12. The second Respondent has further stated in the counter that the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 18.11.2006 for approval of staff list along with similar proposals in respect of two other Teacher Training Institutions were considered and the following deficiencies were noted:
" 1. A certificate to the effect that the photographs have been verified and found correct to be furnished.
2.A certificate to the effect that the certificates have been verified with the originals and found correct to be furnished.
3.A certificate to the effect that the staff working in this institute is not working in any other institute to be furnished."
Therefore, the proposal was returned for compliance and the petitioner institution has submitted a proposal for approval of staff list and in pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.No.5559 of 2007. The proposal was once again returned on 8.3.2007 due to the following deficiencies:
" (i) the particulars of teaching faculty containing 30 columns should be enclosed.
(ii) since the Lecturers shown in Sl.No.1,2 and 3 have secured less than 55% in their M.A., and M.Ed. degree, the proposal for grant of approval cannot be recommended."
13. In the interregnum, the petitioner filed W.P.No.48239 of 2006 to direct NCTE to grant recognition for an additional intake of 100 students for the academic year 2005-06 and this Court has dismissed the said writ petition on 19.12.2006 on the following ground:-
"no affiliation was granted to the petitioner by the respondents 3 to 5 therein for the additional intake and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance and in view of the fact that the appellate authority namely the National Council of Teacher Education, New Delhi on 15.12.2006 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner"
14. It is further averred by the second Respondent that even though the petitioner is eligible to admit only 25 students under the Management quota for the academic year 2005-06 and 16 students allotted to them under the Government quota for the said year aggregating to 41 students, it has admitted 74 students over and above the permitted strength. The petitioner can admit students only after the approval of list by the second Respondent and that such approval was granted only on 21.6.2005 and therefore, the admission could be made for the academic year 2005-06 for an intake of 50 students only.
15. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued by the second Respondent on 21.9.2006 for violating the NCTE norms and the petitioner was called upon to offer its explanation as to why recognition should not be made to NCTE and for withdrawal of recognition granted to the institution, under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. The petitioner has not offered any explanation. The second Respondent has also made a visit to the petitioner institution since complaints were received. The second Respondent after visit, has also submitted a report to the NCTE requesting them to initiate appropriate action. The second Respondent further averred that pendency of Writ Petition No.31976 of 2007, the petitioner filed one more writ petition in W.P.No.2552 of 2008 praying for appropriate direction to direct the Respondents herein to issue Hall Tickets for 150 students who are now studying in the petitioner institution for the academic year 2006-2007 to sit and write examination to be held on February, 2008. 70 students who were studying in the institution also filed W.P.No.7734 and 12237 of 2007 respectively praying for permission to attend the second year classes and consequently permit them to sit and write the examination. The said writ petitions were dismissed on 21.4.2007 by this Court, holding that they are not entitled to any sympathy and if the students aggrieved by the acts of the petitioner institution, it is open to them to initiate appropriate civil and criminal proceedings.
16. It is the stand of the second Respondent that the students were admitted in excess of approved strength and also admissions have been made without getting approval of the staff strength. More than 75 students were admitted by the petitioner institution against the norms and standards of NCTE and as well as against the orders of the State Government.
17. Writ Petition No.21583 of 2007 has been filed by the students praying for permission to sit for the first and second year examinations. W.P.No.25927 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 11.5.2007, issued by the second Respondent in so far as it relates to condition No.3(iv) of the order and for the quashment of the said order and W.P.No.31976 of 2007 which is the subject matter of the present writ appeal had been taken up together by the learned Judge and the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order. The learned Judge after considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material records, has passed the following order:-
"The records further show that as it is seen in the annexure to the counter affidavit of the second respondent that the petitioner as on date had at least filed three list of students for approval, namely, list 'A, B and C'. It is seen that List 'A' contains 75 names of students, who are admitted for the academic year 2005-06, which includes the nine writ petitioners in W.P.No.21583 of 2007. Very curiously, List 'B' has also been submitted by the petitioner institution on 5.2.2007 containing another 100 students. The said list also includes the students, who were admitted under Single Window System. Further the third list has been sent as List 'C' containing 150 students stated to have been admitted for the academic year 2006-07. It is also found from records that it is in respect of these 150 students, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2552 of 2008,even without getting recognition for further intake of students strength. As on date, the total students strength which is permissible to the petitioner institution as approved by the NCTE originally was 50 for the academic year 2005-06, for the additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07. The NCTE admittedly has not passed any orders even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently orders have been passed. In any event, this Court is concerned about the students especially the 75 students, who have been admitted even in the year 2005-06 under the pretext that they will be permitted to write examination for the year 2005-06 itself. It is due to the above said reason, the NCTE has not granted approval, those unfortunate students have not been permitted to write examination and they have also agreed to continue their first year course in the year 2006-07 and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the said 75 students should not be shown any mercy. Any order harsh to the petitioner, who may be otherwise entitled, should not affect the unfortunate students, who have been admitted in the year 2005-06 itself.
In view of the same, the present writ petition is ordered with a direction to the second respondent to permit the following students, who are admitted in the petitioner institution for the academic year 2005-06 and continued in 2006-07 in the first year Diploma in Teacher Education for the academic year 2006-07 to be held on 18th February 2008. It is made clear that the petitioner institution shall not be eligible for permission to write examination for the academic year 2006-07 except the following students. In addition to the above, the following students admitted in the petitioner institution, who are sponsored by the Government under Single Window System shall also be permitted to write examination for the academic year 2006-07. The said students shall be permitted to write examination subject to the other requirements like attendance etc."
The Respondents in W.P.No.31976 of 2007 aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No.31976 of 2007, had preferred this writ appeal.
W.P.No.16364 of 2008
18. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the Director of Teacher Education and Training, Chennai, who is the second appellant in the writ appeal. Under the said order, the approval sought for the staff list pertaining to the academic year 2006-07 was rejected stating that it is not in compliance of Appendix -V of the norms and standards notified in the NCTE Regulations 2002. It is contended by the petitioner that the number of teachers required to only 50 students is 1+5 and not for additional intake of 50 students, and therefore, more teachers are required as per the new Regulations of NCTE. Total number of staff/faculty required is 1+8, but the petitioner has sent a list of 1+13. It is further contended by the petitioner that even assuming that 5 teachers are found to be unqualified, the same cannot be put against them as the petitioner institution has sufficient strength that is 1+8. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second Respondent rejecting the approval is unsustainable.
19. The first Respondent namely the Director of Teacher Education and Training, Chennai, has filed his counter affidavit in which, sequence of events that took place had been enumerated. In paragraph No.7 of the counter, it has been stated that on 23.1.2008, the petitioner submitted a staff list for approval for additional intake and it was scrutinised by the second Respondent. It was found that two Lecturers appointed did not possess the required qualification in terms of the NCTE Regulations which is extracted below:-
"The following qualification has been prescribed as per NCTE Regulations: Norms and Standards notified in the NCTE Regulations 2002-Appendix-5.
The names of Thiru.P.Kumaravelu, Lecturer in English, Tmt.J.Sheela, Lecturer in Mathematics and Tmt.S.Vetri Selvi, Lecturer in Social Science given in the staff list, according to the first Respondent, are not in fulfilment of the above said Regulations. It is further averred in the counter that the petitioner institution appointed one Principal and 6 Lecturers for which approval was requested and it has been found that the same staff have been appointed in Mother College of Education and as such, the proposal dated 23.1.2008, received from the petitioner institution for approval of staff list for additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2005-2006 was rejected by the second Respondent vide order dated 13.2.2008.
20. The first Respondent also placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 1.4.2008 in W.A.No.137 of 2008 wherein it has been held that unless and until the staff list has been approved, even if the students write the examination, they are not entitled to have the results declared. Therefore, the first Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
21. Heard the submissions of Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader in W.A.No.249 of 2008 and the Respondents in W.P.No.16364 of 2008, and Mr.N.R.Chandran,learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents in writ appeal and the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.16364 of 2008.
22. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that even though the Nominal Roll pertaining to the 150 students for the academic year 2005-2006 was sent by the petitioner, approval was granted only for 41 students on 17.12.2006 which is as follows:-
(i)Eligible under Management quota 50% of 50 students = 25 (ii) Students allotted under Government quota under Single Window System = 26 ----- Total = 41 -----
23. The petitioner institution submitted a staff list for approval with regard to the additional intake of 50 students and it was referred by the second appellant to the third appellant for verifying the genuineness educational qualification and experience certificate. It is further submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that though the petitioner institution was eligible to admit 50 students both under Management as well as Government quota, they have admitted 116 students. Thus, 75 students were admitted in excess over and above the approved strength. In view of the same, 75 students were not approved by the Department and therefore, they were not allowed to write first year examination. The students approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7734 and 12237 of 2007 and this Court has dismissed the writ petition on 21.4.2007.
24. The petitioner institution also filed W.P.No.48239 of 2006 praying for a direction to the first Respondent namely NCTE to grant recognition for an additional intake of 150 students for the academic year 2005-2006. By virtue of NCTE (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance No.2 of 2006 as gazetted on 11.9.2006, and consequently permitted the students to write first year examination to be held on 18.12.2006, this Court by order dated 19.12.2006, has rejected the case of the petitioner institution holding that they are not entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance.
25. The petitioner institution once again submitted a proposal on 23.1.2008 to the second appellant praying for approval of the staff list and it was scrutinized with reference to Appendix-5 of NCTE Regulations 2002. On verification, certain deficiencies were noted as stated in the earlier paragraphs and therefore, it was rejected vide order dated 13.2.2008.
26. On behalf of the appellants, a status report was also filed, wherein, it has been indicated that as per the interim orders passed by this Court, 70 students were permitted to write the examination and candidates numbering 25 admitted under the Management quota were eligible to appear for the examinations. Deducting 25 students under Management quota, from the number of students who have been permitted to write examination, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, 45 students were admitted by the petitioner institution in violation of NCTE Regulations.
27. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader (Education), the learned senior counsel appearing for the first Respondent in the writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition has contended that the order of rejection of staff list approval dated 13.2.2008 on the face of it is unsustainable for the reason that NCTE Regulations 2002 were superseded by the Regulations passed by the NCTE in the year 2005 dated 27.l2.2005 which came into force on 13.1.2006. Therefore, Annexure-V of NCTE Regulations 2002 cannot be made applicable and Annexure-II of NCTE Regulations 2005 alone can be applied and in that event, the staff list submitted by the petitioner for approval ought to have been granted. Reliance was also placed upon the order dated 3.4.2007 made in W.P.No.47503 of 2006 batch etc. In the batch of writ petitions, the vires of Government order dated 14.11.2006 prescribing the date i.e. 20.11.2006 as the last date for approval of the list of faculty members of Newly Recognised Self-financing Private Teacher Training Institutes and the subsequent extension of time prescribed in the cut-off date was challenged. In paragraph No.27(b) of the order it has been held as follows:-
"27(b) since the last date for approval of faculty members had been extended by the State Government under G.O.2(d) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007 from 20.11.2006 to 9.8.2007, the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training shall approve the admission of students in all Private TTIs, if their admission had taken place before 30.11.2006 and the list of Faculty Members had been submitted before 09.03.2007. This concession is only in respect of the current academic year 2006-2007, since the Amended regulations, 2005 were notified on 13.01.2006 and the revised Appendix-II Norms and Standards under Amended Regulations 2006 were notified only on 11.12.2006."
The above orders passed in the batch of writ petitions were the subject matter of challenge before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.137 of 2008 etc., the Division Bench in the order dated 1.4.2008 has confirmed the orders passed by the learned Judge as regards communal reservation and directed the deletion of direction relating to piecemeal approval of staff list. With regard to the approval list of teachers, the Division Bench held that the approval of the list of teachers sent by the private institutions is not automatic and it shall be considered whether there is compliance with the NCTE Regulations as applicable and the cut-off dates, and appropriate orders would be passed. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the first Respondent in the writ appeal that in W.P.No.3852 of 2008 this Court has passed an order that the petitioner in the said writ petition made a request for consideration of its case for staff list approval in accordance with the Appexdix-II of Regulations of the year 2007 alone and the writ petition was disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the staff list submitted by the petitioner therein for approval, in accordance with the Appendix-II and passed orders. The learned senior counsel heavily placed reliance upon the above said order and submitted that application of Annexure-V on the face of it is unsustainable. It is further submitted that with regard to three teachers who are sufficient to take classes for additional intake of 50 students, no objection was raised by the concerned authority. The attention of this Court was also invited to the orders passed in W.P.No.3599 of 2008. The relevant portion of this is extracted below:-
"In this case, the petitioner-institute has submitted a staff list containing more number of teachers than required for the intake at present as per the present Regulations. One of the reasons for rejection is that the experience certificate of one Sekar was found to be not genuine. Even if this name excluded, the number of lecturers satisfies the NCTE Regulations and an undertaking is given on behalf of the petitioner that Sekar will not be appointed. The writ petition is disposed of, subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner, and the staff list submitted by the petitioner shall be considered and orders passed, and if the orders are in favour of the petitioner, the results of the students will be declared. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2008 is closed."
Therefore, on behalf of the first Respondent, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ appeal and allowing of the writ petition.
28. This Court has carefully considered the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) for the appellant/Respondents in the writ petition and the learned senior counsel appearing for the first Respondent/petitioner in the writ petition.
29. In 2007(4) L.W. page 97 (SC) - Minor Sunil Oraon Tr.Guardian & others vs. C.B.S.E. & others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the practice of Educational Institutions admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India taking in to consideration the plea that the career of innocent students who have fallen in the hands of a mischievous school authorities, has held that though the ultimate victims are innocent students, that cannot be a ground for granting relief. Since the students having suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India granted them liberty to seek such remedy against the school as available to them in law.
30. In 2007(4) MLJ page 129- Tvl.Aruna Malai College of Education vs. Secretary to Government, Higher Secondary Education Department, Chennai and others, the petitioner institution therein was granted recognition by NCTE for the academic year 2005-2006 and thereafter, it applied for affiliation to the University. In anticipation of grant of affiliation, the institution admitted the students who also attended the classes. However, the University granted affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007 and aggrieved by the same, writ petition was filed directing the University to grant affiliation for the academic year 2005-2006. The University took a stand that it cannot grant retrospective affiliation, this Court taking into consideration the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court, held that a college does not have a right to admit students even before the grant of affiliation and the said conduct amount to fraud on those students.
31. In 2008 (1) MLJ page 1217 (FB) - Rukmani College of Education vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Higher Secondary Eduction Department, Chennai and others, on behalf of the petitioner institution it has been contended that once recognition is granted by NCTE, affiliation must be necessarily granted by the University. This Court has rejected the said contention, and held that as soon as the order of recognition from University is produced from NCTE before the University, it is not necessary for the University to close its eyes and straight away grant affiliation. It is open to the University to make a limited enquiry as to whether the institution has provided facilities competent teaching staff etc., in consonance with 14(3) of NCTE Act.
32. In W.P.No.13200 of 2008 batch, number of Teacher Training Institutes challenged the validity of G.O.Ms.No.94, School Education Department, dated 3.5.2008 with regard to the staff list approval, it has been held that in the above said Government Order any of the guidelines has been encroached upon the NCTE Act or Regulations framed thereunder. It has been further held that since the State is empowered to grant affiliation only on fulfilment of conditions of recognition by the NCTE, it cannot act like rubber stamp and if there are any unusual delay not contemplated under the Act, it is for the aggrieved parties to approach the Court for appropriate remedy. The above said Government Order was upheld except relating to Single Window System and all the writ petitions were dismissed.
33. Let us see the conduct of the first Respondent in W.A.No.249 of 2008 who is also the petitioner in W.P.No.16364 of 2008. The petitioner institution was granted recognition by NCTE vide order dated 24.11.2004 to conduct two years Diploma in Teacher Education Course with permitted intake of 50 students. The approval of staff list consisting of Principal and 5 Lecturers was granted by the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, Chennai on 21.6.2005 for the academic year 2005-2006.
34. National Council for Teacher Education subsequently granted recognition on 15.7.2006 for an additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-2007. For the additional intake of 50 students, for the academic year 2006-07, the petitioner institution has not obtained approval of staff list. The institution forwarded the roll pertaining to 116 students for the academic year 2005-06 and approval was granted in respect of 41 students on 17.12.2006. Though the petitioner institution was eligible to admit 50 students, for the academic year 2005-06, it admitted 116 students by taking into account the recognition granted by NCTE for additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-2007. It is to be noted at this juncture that for the additional intake of 50 students for the year 2006-07, no staff list approval was granted. However, the institution proceeded with the admission and admitted 75 students over and above the approved strength. The writ petitions filed by the students seeking permission to write examination was dismissed by this Court holding that the students are not entitled for any sympathy and if they are aggrieved, they can take appropriate civil and criminal action against the institution.
35. The writ petitioner on 23.1.2008, submitted a list of faculty members to the second Respondent for approval of staff list for the additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07. The second Respondent scrutinised the list submitted by the writ petitioner for staff list approval in terms of Appendix-V of NCTE Regulations 2002 and found that 3 faculty members have not complied with the required norms and standards. In spite of approval of Principal and 5 Lecturers the second Respondent found that the above staff had been appointed in Mother College of Education run by the trust which is also running the petitioner institution. The second Respondent citing the said deficiencies, has rejected the proposal dated 23.1.2008 on 13.2.2008. It is the specific stand of the second Respondent that the writ petitioner institution is not entitled to admit 74 students over and above the permitted intake of 50 students for the academic year 2005-06.
36. As regards the impugned order passed in the writ petition dated 13.2.2008, the first Respondent found that approval was sought for the appointment of Tmt.G.Jeeva, who is employed as Lecturer in Tamil, who possess M.A. and M.Ed. qualification and as regards the approval of other Lecturers namely Mr.R.Kumaravelu, Lecturer in English, who possess M.A and M.Ed., Tmt.J.Sheila, Lecturer in Mathematics, who possess M.Sc. and B.Ed., and Srinivasa Senthamaraikannan, it has been found that they have secured less than 55% marks in the Post Graduate Degree as required in Appendix -V of the NCTE Regulations 2002. The contention now raised is that the said Regulation was repealed by Regulations 2005 notified on 30.11.2006. As per Appendix-II, the Lecturer shall possess M.Ed. or M.A (Education) with B.Ed., and Diploma in Elementary Teacher Education/5 years Teaching experience in recognised Elementary School/Elementary Teacher Education Institution and therefore, it is wrong on the part of the first Respondent in complying with Appendix-V of NCTE Regulations 2002.
37. Assuming for the sake of argument that Appendix-II of NCTE Regulations 2005 notified on 30.11.2006 is applicable to the staff list submitted by the writ petitioner for approval, the first Respondent found that apart from finding that Lecturers namely Mr.R.Kumaravelu and Tmt.Sheila have not secured 55% of marks in M.A., M.Ed., and not obtaining M.A.(Education) and not having 5 years experience in Elementary School/ Elementary Teacher Education Institution had also found that R.Kumaravelu, Srinivasa Senthamarai Kannan, J.Sheela, M.Amsavalli, S.Vetriselvi and M.Panneerselvam have been appointed in Mother College of Education which was also run by the trust in the same name and the proposal seeking approval of the staff list with the above names has been submitted to the first Respondent by the Mother College of Education. The said reasons recorded by the first Respondent being a factual one and no grounds have been raised in the writ petition and no arguments were advanced with regard to the said finding, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first Respondent and therefore, the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the first Respondent stands confirmed.
38. As regards the writ appeal, though the learned Judge found that a reference to the documents show that all is not well in the writ petitioner institution/first Respondent in the writ appeal, however, taking into consideration of the fact that a student has committed suicide and that 75 students who have been admitted for the academic year 2005-06 under the pretext that they will be permitted to write examination for that year, has directed the second Respondent to permit the students who have been admitted for the academic year 2005-06 and continued in 2006-07 in the first year Diploma in Teacher Education for the academic year 2006-07 to be held on 18.2.2008. The students who were sponsored by the Government under the Single Window System were also permitted to write examination for the academic year 2006-07.
39. The learned Judge has also found from the records that in respect of 150 students, the institution has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2552 of 2008 even without getting recognition for further intake of students strength and as on date, the petitioner institution was having permission to admit only 50 students for the academic year 2005-06 and for the additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07, NCTE has not passed orders.
40. As per the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions the practice adopted by the first Respondent institution in admitting students over and above permitted intake, in the absence of approval of staff list, is highly deprecated. Without getting approval of the staff list it is not open to the first Respondent institution to admit students. This Court in the order dated 21.4.2007 in W.P.No.7734 and 12237 of 2007 filed by the students of the first Respondent institution, has held that the petitioner/students are not entitled for any sympathy and it is open to them to initiate appropriate civil and criminal proceedings against the institution. A perusal of the above said order would also reveal that the students who were admitted by the first Respondent were permitted to write the first year examination which resulted in problem and after an enquiry a criminal case was registered and the Correspondent and Secretary of the said institution were also arrested. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training visited the institute and found that the institution had conducted 5 different courses under the same roof in a camp building and the approved faculty members were not working in the institution, 11 other unapproved faculty members were working. A report was also sent to NCTE to take appropriate action against the first Respondent institution.
41. This Court is conscious of the fact that the interest of 74 students who have been permitted to sit and write examination in pursuant to the impugned order dated 7.2.2008 and passed in W.P.No. of 21583 of 2007 etc., is at peril. By applying the ratio laid down in 2007 (4) L.W. page 97, (SC) - Minor Sunil Oraon Tr.Guardian & others vs. C.B.S.E. & others, we find that the Respondent institution has taken the students for a ride and violated the norms Rules and Regulations. Infraction on the part of the first Respondent institution is very serious and grave in nature. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above said decision, though the ultimate victims are innocent students, that cannot be a ground for granting relief to them.
42. The learned Special Government Pleader (Education), appearing for the appellants would submit that as per the interim directions passed in W.P.No.21583 of 2007 etc., 70 students have written the examination and out of them, 34 are not eligible and if the first Respondent institution points out the names of 36 persons among 70, who are eligible, the results of the examination will be declared.
43. It is for the first Respondent institution to furnish the names of 36 students among 70 students so as to enable the appellants to declare their results and this Court is not expressing any opinion in this regard.
44. In the result,
(a) Writ Petition No.16364 of 2008 is dismissed and Rule Nisi is discharged;
(b) Writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 7.2.2008 made in W.P.No.31976 of 2007 is set aside and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
gr To
1.The Director of Government Examinations, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, G.Ariyur, Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram
4.The Natinal Council for Teacher Education,Southern Regional Council, Bangalore