U JAHANGEERBASHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.K.V.Venkatapathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.N.Srinivasan for the appellants. Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appears for respondent No.1. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appears for respondents 2 and 3. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned counsel appears for respondent No.4. Respondents 5 to 55 are joined in this appeal since they were petitioners in the original writ petition. But in the cause title of this appeal, it is stated that respondents 5 to 55 are given up (as parties) in this writ appeal.

(2.) THIS writ appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge on the petition which was filed by the present appellants along with other students, some of whom are from among these respondents 5 to 55. THIS writ petition bearing W.P.No.18087 of 2009 sought a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to publish the results of the appellants in B.Ed. Degree Examination held in May 2009. Prior thereto, the institution to which they had taken admission, i.e. respondent No.4 - Annai College of Education, Salem, had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.5974 of 2009 to approve the admission of 55 students to the B.Ed. Degree Course admitted by that institution for the Academic Year 2008-2009 and to permit them to write the B.Ed. Examination. Both these petitions came to be heard together and dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order, dated 03rd February 2010.

(3.) MR.K.V.Venkatapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the students submits that there is no fault on the part of the students. The students are unnecessarily made to suffer. They have paid the fees to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The institution is supporting them. The institution states that the institution is also not responsible. It did not get the names of 50 students from the Government. It forwarded the names immediately thereafter. But in any case, there is no letter in the hands of the institution granting any approval to these 50 students. All that it is having is this letter dated 29th January 2009 issued by the Chief Educational Officer, Salem, wherein some students are allotted some schools for the purpose of training. The letter, however, states that this is subject to affiliation with the University. The affiliation for these 50 students is not there on record. The institution is not in a position to produce it. The institution did not even care to file a counter before the learned Single Judge. Hence, considering the fact that there is no affiliation for these students from the University, the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the petitions for the relief that these students be admitted and their results be declared.