K GOVIND KAMARAJAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH initially, the writ petition was filed in the name of Puducherry Computer Science and B.Ed., Graduates Welfare Association, subsequently, it was altered in the name of the petitioner viz., K.Govind Kamarajar, who is the Joint Secretary of the said Association. The alteration came to be made on the basis of the objection raised by the Registry. Therefore, the petitioner on 21.07.2009, made an endorsement that he is restricting the relief only to the deponent of the affidavit viz., K.Govind Kamarajar.

(2.) THE first respondent viz., Director of School Education, Government of Puducherry issued a notification calling for technical and commercial Bids for supply and installation of computer hardware, peripherals, software and for providing computer education services in 169 selected Government High/Higher Secondary Schools in Puducherry State under the centrally sponsored Information and Communication Technology @ School Project. Challenging the said notification, the writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner was that the Association under which he is the Joint Secretary has its members who have completed their educational course and they are qualified and trained Teachers of Computer Science. THEy are also professionally trained to teach Computer Science both in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools. Computer Science Course was introduced in Puducherry in the year 1996. Even though, there were hundreds of qualified teachers available to teach computer education, it was taught for students through Private Agency and most of the persons appointed were not qualified. Subsequently, the Government introduced Computer Education from IV Standard to X Standard for the academic year 2007-2008. For this scheme, the Central Government was to provide computers to each High School. Without recruiting and appointing professionally trained computer teachers, when the respondents attempted to outsourced the computer education by calling for tenders, their Association had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.33943 of 2007. THE said matter heard by a Division Bench of this Court was finally disposed of by an order dated 29.04.2009. In that writ petition, they had challenged the notification of the first respondent dated 05.10.2007 as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. THE Division Bench in paragraphs 25 and 26 held as follows:-