VENKATESWARA TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the issue involved relate to the admission and the consequential permission to be given to the students of the petitioners/institutions to complete their D.T.Ed. course by directing the Director of School Education, Puducherry to approve the admission of various students.

(2.) 1.While W.P.No.14813 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner/ institution, namely Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry challenging the government order in G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 which stipulates the domicile requirement in admission of students in respect of the professional educational institutions by way of a regulation called the Pondicherry Private Professional Educational Institutions (Domicile Requirement in Admission of Students) Regulation, 2006, the said institution has filed W.P.No.11698 of 2009 seeking for a direction against the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry to permit the students of the said petitioner/institution to complete their D.T.Ed. course and to get their Diploma certificates. 2.2. It is stated that the said Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry has commenced D.T.Ed. course from the academic year 2004-2005 on the basis of a No Objection Certificate issued by the Government of Puducherry in the order dated 30.1.2004 for an intake of 100 seats as per the norms of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). It is stated that the NCTE has also granted recognition on 28.10.2004 for an intake of 100 students. The petitioner/institution is unaided self-financing institution and even though it is entitled to fill up all the 100 seats by itself, it has originally surrendered 20% of the seats to Government of Puducherry and thereafter offered 50% of the seats for students sponsored by the Government of Puducherry in the year 2006 to be filled up through CENTAC. As per G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 in respect of 50% of the seats to be filled up through CENTAC, the same has been directed to be filled from the candidates domiciled in the Union Territory of Puducherry. 2.3. It is stated that in the year 2006 many of such seats to be filled up from CENTAC were unfilled for want of candidates domiciled in Puducherry. It is stated that the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry in the order dated 29.1.2007 has permitted the private managements of unaided Teacher Training Institutes to fill up the above said lapsed seats as per the domicile rule prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006. It is stated that since students domiciled in Puducherry were not available, the petitioner/ institution and others to avoid the seats to go waste, were forced to admit students from outside Puducherry and it is the case of the petitioner that the said admissions were subsequently approved by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry. 2.4. Even in the year 2007 when the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has called for applications for admission to D.T.Ed. course in respect of the 50 seats, there was no adequate response and in that year the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has sponsored only 36 students for admission. Since 14 seats to be filled through CENTAC remained unfilled, the petitioner sought permission by representations dated 10.9.2007 and 12.10.2007 to fill up the lapsed seats. The Government has issued a further notification for admission in respect of seats to be filled through CENTAC category and there was no response. 2.5. It was in those circumstances the petitioner/institution has advertised in the leading newspapers for admission in respect of the said lapsed seats. Since no candidate domiciled in Puducherry has come forward, the petitioner/institution has admitted 14 students from Tamil Nadu and thereafter forwarded the list of students admitted in the lapsed category on 28.11.2007, 29.11.2007, 11.12.2007 and 20.12.2007 for approval. It is stated that the students admitted under CENTAC quota and management quota were approved by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry, except in respect of one student, G.Elayakanni by way of endorsement dated 20.12.2007 on the ground of "belated admission" and she has also discontinued. However, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has not passed any orders in respect of approval of admission of 14 students in the lapsed category under CENTAC who are stated to belong to OBC, MBC and SC category. In the meantime, the students admitted in the year 2007 have completed minimum required 220 working days along with the mandatory 40 days teaching practice. 2.6. The Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has issued hall tickets on 14.6.2008 for first year examination scheduled from 26.6.2008. Since the hall tickets for 14 students admitted in the lapsed category were not issued, the petitioner/institution made a representation. However, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has orally informed that the 14 students admitted in the lapsed category cannot take their first year examination since their admission is not as per the domicile rule in G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I) , dated 25.5.2006. 2.7. The writ petitioner challenges the validity of the said G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 as without jurisdiction that the government order is not even followed in the Union Territory of Puducherry in respect of other institutions, especially relating to medical colleges and that it was not the wilful conduct of the petitioner in admitting those students and the admission was due to the reason that in spite of the efforts taken by the Government of Puducherry also to find out the students of domicile character as per the G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 there were no students available and therefore their admission was made as a matter of necessity, and seeks for a direction against the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry to permit the students of the petitioner/institution to complete their D.T.Ed. course. The list of such students whose results are sought to be declared, as given in the type set of papers, are: Sl.No. Name of the candidate Date of Joining 1 Annapackia Pushpa.A. 24.10.2007 2 Cilintha Julie Thaddeus.K 31.10.2007 3 Kalaimathi.S 26.10.2007 4 Karunakaran.R 12.11.2007 5 Mallika.G 02.11.2007 6 Manimegalai.M 15.11.2007 7 Manjula.M 30.10.2007 8 Neela.S 30.10.2007 9 Saritha.A 11.12.2007 10 Sathya.C 14.11.2007 11 Soruba Rani Sumathi.G 19.11.2007 12 Sumithra.P 14.11.2007 13 Tamilselvi.M 26.11.2007 14 Vijaya.V 26.11.2007 2.8. In the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.14813 of 2008 referred to above, the writ petitioner/institution has challenged the said G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 and also sought for a direction to approve the admission of the said 14 students admitted under the lapsed category of CENTAC for D.T.Ed. course in 2007-2008, which is for the same relief.

(3.) 1. Likewise, the petitioner/institution in W.P.No.10819 of 2009, viz., Senthil Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry has also challenged the said guidelines of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry dated 4.6.2008 seeking for approval of admission of 15 students listed at S.Nos.86 to 100 in the petitioner's representation dated 30.9.2008 which has been listed in the annexure to the type set as follows: Sl.No. Name of the candidate 1 S.Govindaraj 2 A.Arulmozhi 3 S.Soniya Gandhi 4 D.Dhanavel 5 K.Vijayakarpagam 6 S.Uma 7 N.Jothimeena 8 A.Jayapratha 9 S.Arun 10 K.Jawahar Prabhu 11 M.Mani 12 P.Bamasantha Regini 13 P.Somasundaram 14 E.Pragash 15 K.Suresh 5.2. In this case also like that of the petitioner in W.P.No.10923 of 2009, the petitioner being an institution whose students are to write examination conducted by the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai scheduled to commence on 22.6.2009, and the Government of Tamil Nadu having prescribed a mere pass for admission of candidates belonging to SC/ST community, it is contended that respondents 2 and 3 cannot claim under the guidelines that the minimum qualification should be 60% of marks for admission with 5% relaxation for SC/ST candidates. In this case, all the 15 students who were rejected belong to SC/ST community and they secured above 40% and below 45% of marks in the qualification examination and the challenge to the guidelines is also similar as that of W.P.No.10923 of 2009.