M GNANA VANITHA MARY CORRESPONDENT ANNAI MARY TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE PANRUTI SOUTH ARCOT DISTRICT Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first of the writ petitions is filed by the correspondent of Annai Mary Teacher Training Institute (for Men and Women) for issue of a writ of declaration declaring that G. O. Ms. No. 645, Education, dated 20. 7. 1992 providing for Teacher Training Courses in Government-aided institutions which do not conform to the standards prescribed in G. O. Ms. Nos. 535 and 536, Education, dated 17. 5. 1989 as illegal, improper and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India . In the second writ petition, which is filed by the Correspondent of Annai velankanni Teachers Training Institute, the prayer is to issue a mandamus forbearing the respondents therein from in any manner conducting or running the diploma Course in Teachers Education or admitting the students to the first year Diploma Course or to the second year Teacher Training Course in the academic year 1993-94 and subsequent years so long as the institutions as detailed in Annexure-I do not satisfy or fulfil the conditions stipulated in g. O. Ms. No. 645, Education, dated 20. 7. 1992 and G. O. Ms. No. 535, dated 17. 5. 1989. In the third writ petition filed by Little Flower Girls'Teachers Training school, the prayer is for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to G. O. Ms. No. 645, Education, dated 20. 7. 1992, quash the same and direct the respondents to cancel all the permission/recognition granted to Government Girls Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to the said G. O. In the fourth writ petition filed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 14725 of 1993, the prayer is for issue of a writ of declaration to declare G. O. Ms. No. 645, education Department, dated 20. 7. 1992 and the consequent proceedings of the director of School Education in R. C. N0. 51347/w26/wiii/92, dated 7. 8. 1992 as illegal and violative of Arts. 14 and 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, so long as the institutions are not conforming to the present syllabus standard prescribed in G. O. Ms. Nos. 535 and 536, Education, dated 17. 5. 1989. In the fifth writ petition, the prayer by Asir Teacher Training Institute is the same as that in the second writ petition viz. , W. P. No. 14822 of 1993.

(2.) THE main question in all these writ petitions is whether G. O. Ms. No. 645, dated 20. 7. 1992 is valid and the consequential proceedings issued by the Director of School Education is valid. THE substance of the contention of the petitioners in all these cases is that the Government having prescribed certain rules in G. O. Ms. Nos. 535 and 536 to be followed by private Teacher Training Institutes, is not entitled to open Diploma Courses in government Girls'Higher Secondary Schools which do not admittedly fulfil the requirements of the aforesaid two G. Os. It is the contention that the Government cannot prescribe two standards one for private institutions and another for Government institutions and Government-aided institutions. It is also argued that the Higher Secondary Schools selected by the Government for running Diploma course in Teacher Training pursuant to G. O. Ms. No. 645, do not fulfil the conditions set out in the said G. O. and they should be prevented from conducting the courses.

(3.) IN all the writ petitions it is slated categorically by the petitioners that the Girls Higher Secondary Schools in which the Teacher training Course has been introduced pursuant to the impugned G. O. do not satisfy the requirements of the said G. O. itself. IN paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in support of W. P. No. 14822 of 1993, the following averment is made: 'the petitioner states in Annexure II he has given details of some of the schools which do not possess or satisfy the conditions as set out in the G. O. No. 645, dated 20. 7. 1992 and G. O. Ms. No. 535, Education, dated 17. 5. 1989.' IN Annexure II a list of ten institutions is given. It is stated that none of the institutions has ten acres of land, adequate class rooms or fully qualified teachers. An additional affidavit is filed in the said petition on 11th August, 1993. IN the Annexure thereto, a list of 12 institutions is set out. The particulars of the facilities which are not available in those institutions are mentioned in coloumn 3. IN the counter-affidavit filed in W. P. No. 14822 of 1993, in reply to paragraph 21 of the petitioner's affidavit, the following statement is made in paragraph 7 thereof: 'regrdingparas. 19 to 23 of the affidavit under reply it is submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the above writ petition as a Public INterest Litigation as his institution is one of the institutions affected by the orders of the Division Bench dated 22. 3. 1993 upholding the G. O. Ms. No. 536, Education, dated 17. 5. 1989 and by the orders of the Division Bench dated 27. 4. 1993.' Thus, the crucial averments made in the petitioner's affidavit have not been denied factually in the counter-affidavit. Apart from that, there is no statement in any of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents that the Girls Higher Secondary Schools which are selected for introducing Diploma in Teacher Training Course have fulfilled the conditions prescribed in G. O. Ms. No. 645, dated 20. 7. 1992. The only inference to be drawn by this Court is that the conditions have not been fulfiled by those institutions. The action of the Government is, therefore, arbitrary.