S VASANTHAKUMARI Vs. DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of respondent in Na.Ka.No.358104/E1/97 dated 23.12.1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue Duplicate Diploma Teacher Education Examination Marksheet to the petitioner bearing Registration No. 11049/89 as per her application dated 6.8.1997

(2.) PETITIONER after her completion of the Higher Secondary Examination underwent Teacher Training Course from 1987 to 1989 in Syro Malabar Mission Jubilee Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Varuthattu, Medukummal Post, Kanyakumari District. During the said period, the said Institute was recognised. PETITIONER also wrote her Examination in April 1989 and obtained First Class marks. The result of the petitioner alongwith other candidates was ordered to be published in W.P.No.5271 of 1991 dated 18.4.1991. Consequently, the respondent published the results and also issued the Diploma Certificate on 31.10.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner registered her name with the Employment Exchange. Whileso, PETITIONER lost her marksheet and after completing the formalities such as paper publication, etc. moved an application for issuance of Duplicate Certificate on 6.8.1997 after remitting necessary fees on 1.8.1997. The Principal of the District Institute of Education Training (DIET) recommended for the issuance of Diploma Certificate by his letter dated 22.10.1997. But the respondent rejected by virtue of the decision reported in P.M. Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 W.L.R.604. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner underwent the Training in a Recognised Institute, and the state of affairs as on the date of admission of the petitioner is the matter to be considered and during the entire period during which the petitioner underwent the Course, it was a recognised Institute. A subsequent derecognition by order of court will not take away the validity of the course which the petitioner has already undergone. It is further said that once the respondent has found the petitioner eligible and she has been issued a Certificate, naturally they are also bound to issue the Diploma Certificate, for, it is not an additional relief that is claimed, but she is claiming only a right which she has already obtained when the certificate was issued by the Government.

(3.) IN Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) SCC 445 : AIR 1987 SC 2027 a similar question came for consideration. IN that case, petitioner therein joined a Physical Training INstitute at a time when it had recognition. Long thereafter the Government de-recognised the certificate course with the result the certificate obtained by petitioner became useless for appointment as Physical Training INstructor in government schools in Haryana. A writ petition was filed by aggrieved candidates before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, for a direction to the State Government to recognise the Certificate obtained by them, on the basis that they joined the Course in view of recognition granted by the State, and the recognition was also in force at the time when they joined the Course. It was summarily rejected by the High Court, and the matter was taken up before the Honourable Supreme Court. While considering the same, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus: