Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has stated that she had passed the B.A. (Social Work) Degree in the second respondent College in the month of November, 1997. The said course has been approved by the first respondent University. The second respondent College is affiliated to the first respondent University. After completion of her B.A. (Social Work) Degree course, the petitioner had joined M.A. (English) course in the year, 2004. The third respondent University had issued the M.A. Degree certificate to the petitioner on her completion of the M.A. Degree course. Thereafter, the petitioner had joined B.A (English-Double Degree) course, recognised by the third respondent University, in the year, 2007. Further, the petitioner had also joined M.Phil. (English), in the third respondent University and had obtained the degree certificate in the year, 2008.
3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had joined the 4th respondent College, affiliated to the fifth respondent University, for pursuing B.Ed. course. After the perusal and verification of the certificates submitted by the petitioner, the fourth respondent College had admitted her to the B.Ed., course. The petitioner had completed the course and she had written the examinations conducted in the month of June, 2008, based on the admission card issued by the fifth respondent University. While so, the fifth respondent University had issued the impugned order, dated 13.6.2008, stating that the petitioner had not been eligible for admission to the B.Ed., course. Accordingly, it had rejected the request of the petitioner for the issuance of the eligibility certificate. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The main contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order of the fifth respondent, dated 13.6.2008, has been passed without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The said order had been issued by the fifth respondent, without jurisdiction. Further, the fifth respondent University is estopped from rejecting the request for the eligibility certificate, as the said University had issued the examination card to the petitioner for writing the examinations of the B.Ed. course. The fifth respondent University had issued the impugned order, without considering the letter, dated 12.5.2008, issued by the third respondent stating that B.A. (English-Double Degree) course is equivalent to B.A. (English) Regular Degree. Further, the fifth respondent University ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner had completed her M.A. (English) Degree, as well as an M.Phil. Degree, in English.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent University had contended that the impugned order, dated 13.6.2008, had been issued by the fifth respondent University, in accordance with the guidelines and procedures prescribed for admission to the B.Ed. course, issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.185, Department of Higher Education, dated 13.6.2005. The eligibility criteria for admission to the Bachelor of Education course have been prescribed in the said guidelines. One of the conditions is that the candidate applying for admission for the B.Ed. course should have passed the U.G. Degree examination in the 10 +2 +3 stream, with the same main subject, in Part III, for which the candidate is seeking admission.
6. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of this Court, dated 24.4.2008, made in W.P.Nos.41881 to 41889 of 2006, upholding the eligibility criteria prescribed for admission, as per the National Council for Teacher Education. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in N.Ramesh Vs. Sibi Madan Gabriel (2008 (3) MLJ 255), wherein it had been held that the degrees obtained through the Open University System can be considered equivalent to a traditional degree obtained through the regular system, provided that such degrees are in conformity with the relevant statutory provisions, including the rules and regulations holding the field. According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent the degrees said to have been obtained by the petitioner are not in conformity with the eligibility criteria prescribed for the admission of candidates to the B.Ed. course. There can be no estoppel in such matters, especially, when the petitioner had been admitted to the B.Ed. course by the fourth respondent College, in spite of the fact that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent University had stated that the said University would not be responsible for the irregular admissions. It is for the concerned College, which sends the names after admitting the candidates for the B.Ed. Course to verify and to check if the candidates possess the required qualifications. Even if such admissions do not confirm to the rules and regulations applicable to such admissions, merely for the reason that the petitioner had been permitted to write the examinations of the B.Ed. Course, she cannot claim any equity. Further, the petitioner cannot invoke the principle of estoppel in circumstances where an irregularity has been committed.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner was not in possession of a three year degree, with English as a major subject, for being eligible to be admitted to the B.Ed. course in the fourth respondent College. Once it is found that the admission of the petitioner is in contravention of the rules and the regulations applicable to such admissions the said defect cannot be cured merely for the reason that the petitioner had been permitted by the third respondent University to write the B.Ed. examinations. The principle of estoppel cannot be applicable to such cases. The initial irregularity committed by the fourth respondent College, in admitting the petitioner for the B.Ed. Course, cannot be cured by the fact that she had obtained subsequent degrees in English, from the third respondent University. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate action against the fourth respondent College for the damages caused to her, if any, by way of appropriate proceedings, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
csh To
1. The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Trichirappalli.
2. The Principal, Cauvery College, Annamalai Nagar, Trichirappalli
3. The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram.
4. The Principal Paavai College of Education, Annaipalayam, rasipuram-637001, Namakkal District.
5. The Registrar, Periyar University, Salem 636 001