The writ petitioner Institution was recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education on 7.12.2005 for the academic session 2005-06, to run D.T.Ed course with the intake of 50 students.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after the approval granted by the National Council for Teacher Education, the petitioner Institution has approached the first respondent for approval of the faculty list and that list was sent on 7.1.2006. However, the case of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed by the first respondent, which resulted in filing of a writ petition in W.P.No.46523 of 2006 and this Court, while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 30.11.2006, has directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 7.1.2006 for the approval of faculty members and pass appropriate orders based on the norms and standards prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. In the meantime, it appears that there was some change in respect of one teacher and the petitioner Institution has submitted a fresh list for approval on 29.12.2006.
3. The petitioner Institution has admitted 50 students based on the approval granted by the National Council for Teacher Education for the academic year 2005-06. W.P.No.48665 of 2006 filed by the petitioner Management, was disposed of by order of this Court dated 15.12.2006, recording the statement made by the learned Government Advocate that the said admission of 50 students for the academic year 2005-06 had been approved and consequentially, the students were permitted to write the examinations.
4. Based on the said direction, it appears that 50 students, who were admitted unauthorisedly without the sanction of the faculty approval issued by the first respondent, have written their first year examinations took place between 18.12.2006 to 20.12.2006. It appears that on 3.4.2007, the first respondent has rejected the proposal dated 7.1.2006 given by the petitioner for approval of the staff list without referring to the revised proposal given by the petitioner dated 21.12.2006. As against the said rejection order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.13766 of 2007. In the meantime, the students, who were admitted in the first year in 2005-06, have gone to the second year and by order dated 20.8.2008 passed in a miscellaneous petition in the said writ petition in W.P.No.13766 of 2007, the said students were also permitted to write their second year examinations. Accordingly, it is stated that 50 students have completed their second year course by writing their examinations conducted between 25.8.2008 to 29.8.2008.
5. It is also stated that in the meantime, the petitioner Institution has admitted another 43 fresh students for the subsequent year 2006-07 and pursuant to an interim order dated 18.2.2008, passed in W.P.No.3827 of 2008, the second batch of students numbering 43, who were admitted in the year 2006-07, have written their first year examinations. Since those students have entered into the second year after writing the first year based on the interim order of this Court, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.20267 of 2008. By virtue of the interim order passed in the said writ petition, dated 21.8.2008, those second batch of candidates have also written their second year examinations and completed the course.
6. The writ petition in W.P.No.18368 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner Institution for a direction against the first and second respondents to send the first batch of 50 students and the second batch of 43 students admitted in the academic year 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively for internal examinations so as to complete their course in D.T.Ed.
7. It is not in dispute that pending the above the said writ petition, all the said students were permitted to write their internal examinations and it is also not in dispute that after the year 2006-07, the petitioner Institution has not admitted any student. Even though there has been some dispute that the petitioner Institution has changed its name in respect of which action taken by the education authority and certain writ petitions are pending, the fact remains that as far as the writ petitioner Institution is concerned, the above admissions made in 2005-06 and 2006-07, which are unauthorisedly made before approval granted for the teacher list by the first respondent, competent authority, no further admission has been made.
8. The only question to be decided in this writ petition is that on the admitted fact that the petitioner Institution has committed a gross violation of the procedure and acted against the instructions given by the first respondent in admitting the students without even obtaining the approval of the teacher list and therefore, in normal circumstances, such admission would not be accepted by this Court but on the factual matrix as has been explained, the students, who were admitted as stated above of course at the instance of the petitioner Institution for the reason best known, are not in fault. More so, when such students have been permitted to appear the examinations at various points of time including the practical examinations and by virtue of the directions of this Court the students, in fact, completed their course. At this point of time, to hold that the admission in respect of those students should be set aside would result in greater disorder in the life of the students and therefore, even though it is prima facie proved that the total fault is on the part of the petitioner, this Court has no interest in spoiling the carrier of the innocent students who have been admitted and written examinations and completed their course.
9. In those circumstances, the second respondent is directed to release the result in respect of all the above said candidates. By ordering the release of the result in respect of those candidates does not mean that the unlawful conduct of the petitioner is condoned. The petitioner, who has deliberately done the violation by admitting the students without approval of the staff strength, are to be certainly inflicted with some punishment so as to see such conduct should not be repeated in future. I am of the considered view that the petitioner Institution must be directed to pay fine in respect of each of the students admitted by them and such amount, which is to be paid by the petitioner Institution, is to be spent for some charitable and public benefits.
10. The learned Government Advocate is kind enough in producing details of some of the Institutions recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which are performing the functions of helping the students, especially blind and deaf and orthopaedically challenged students.
11. The writ petitioner Institution is directed to pay the penalty/fine at the rate of Rs.5,000/- in respect of each of the students numbering 93. Such amount, which comes to Rs.4,65,000/- for 93 students at the rate of 5,000/-, shall be paid by the petitioner by way of a demand draft obtained in the name of the Principle Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu/State Commissioner of disabled, Chennai-600 006. On receipt of the said demand draft, the Principle Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu shall distribute the said amount to the following institution run by the Government of Tamil Nadu equally.
1. The Government Higher Secondary School for the Blind, Karaiyan Chavadi, Poonamallee, Chennai-56
2. The Government High School for the Deaf, Sulakarai Virudhunagar-626 003
3. Severely Orthopaedically Handicapped School, Villupuram, Housing Unit Madurai-625 011
12. The distribution of the said amount to the said three institutions shall be effected by the Principle Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu by submitting a report to this Court in detail within a period of three months. It is made clear that the second respondent shall release the result of the students, as directed above, after receiving the information from the Principle Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu about the receipt of the demand draft as above.
13. In the event of the petitioner failing to comply with the above said condition of payment by way of a demand draft within the stipulated time, all the writ petitions will automatically stand dismissed. It is also made clear that after complying all the above said directions, the students, who completed the course shall be entitled to receive their certificates including the mark sheets from the third respondent, the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Perunthurai, Erode District. The petitioner shall forward all the necessary certificates in respect of the students, including transfer certificates and conduct certificates to the third respondent forthwith.
14. It is stated that the students, who have completed two years, have not yet been permitted to write their internal examinations, if that is so, the third respondent shall permit those students to undergo their internal examinations within a period of two weeks. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 of 2008, M.P.No.3 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 are closed.
lan To:
1. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training College Road, Chennai-600 006
2. The Director of Government Examinations College Road, Chennai-600 006
3. The Principal District Institute of Education and Training Perunthurai, Erode District