CONCORD TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE Vs. DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING D P I CAMPUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P.No.14840 of 2008, the petitioner institution, viz., Annai Sathya Men Teacher Training INstitute, has prayed for a writ of Mandamus against the second respondent, the Director of Government Examinations, Chennai-6 to issue hall tickets to 50 students who are stated to have undergone their D.T.Ed. for the academic year 2007-08 to sit in the examinations (Theory and practical) conducted from 26.6.2008. By an interim order dated 25.6.2008, this Court permitted them to sit in the examinations held on 26.6.2008, directing that the results shall not be declared until further orders and making it clear that the order is subject to the result in the writ petition and shall not confer any additional right on the petitioner institution or its students.

(2.) THE petitioner institution is stated to have been granted recognition by the Regional Director of the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) viz., the 4th respondent for the academic year 2005-06 subject to the condition that the institution should ensure that the Principal and five faculty members are duly approved by the Director of Teacher Education Research & Training (DTERT), Chennai viz., the first respondent, before commencement of the course and report the same to the Southern Regional Committee. It is stated that after obtaining recognition from the 4th respondent, the petitioner submitted a list of teaching and non-teaching staff including the Principal for approval from the third respondent who is stated to have forwarded the same to the second respondent for approval. 2(a). THE case of the petitioner is that as per the NCTE Regulations, 2002, Appendix V, the qualification required for Principal is M.A. M.Ed.(Education) with 55% marks preferably with specialization in elementary education and five years teaching experience in elementary teaching education and for lecturers, the qualification is M.Ed./M.A.(Edn.) with 55% and in the Master Degree, they should obtain 55% marks in relevant school subjects or B.Ed. preferably with specilisation in elementary education and five years teaching experience in recognized elementary schools. It is stated that relaxation of 5% may be given from 55% to 50% at the Master degree level for SC/ST category. 2(b). THE petitioner is stated to have sent the proposal of teachers list on 18.11.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has found that all teaching staff were found qualified as per NCTE Regulations, 2002. However, the second respondent rejected the proposal on 30.11.2006, by finding certain deficiencies in respect of three teachers. In respect of Mrs.Baktha Gowri, English Lecturer, it is stated that S.C. community certificate has not been produced, with regard to Mr.R.Raghavan, Maths Lecturer, it is stated that elementary education certificates are not countersigned by the competent authority and in respect of Mr.T.Nedumaran, Science Lecturer it is stated that elementary education certificates are not countersigned by the competent authority. It is stated that the said mistakes/defects were rectified and the same were sent to the second respondent on 8.12.2006 and in spite of the same, the second respondent has not passed orders. 2(c). In the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No,49645 of 2006, the challenge was against the Government Order in G.O.Ms.(2D) No,59 (U1) School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006. While upholding the said G.O. for the academic year 2006-07, this Court directed the second respondent to grant approval to the teachers and students immediately but since the second respondent has not passed any orders, contempt application was filed in Cont.P.No,606 of 2007 and there was an interim direction passed by this Court on 9.7.2007 directing the second respondent to include the petitioner institution in the list of approved institutions for counselling to be conducted for the academic year 2007-08. 2(d). Pending the contempt petition, the second respondent once again rejected the proposal for staff on three grounds viz., (i) in respect of Maths Lecturer Mr.P.Elango, though eligible as per qualification, as the photograph affixed was a different one and the said photograph belonged to one Mr.K.S.Elangovan (ii) in respect of Tamil Lecturer Mr.Thirugnanasambandam, his experience certificate has not been countersigned by the District Educational Officer and he was working as a teacher in a Middle School under the same management and (iii) in respect of English Lecturer Tmt.Baktha Gowri, her certificate was not countersigned by the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer and she had only four years of experience. It was against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed W.P.No,31281 of 2007 which is pending. 2(e). In the Sub Application filed by the petitioner in Sub Appln.No.1/07 in the Contempt Petition No,606 of 2007, this Court passed orders dated 16.7.2007 directing the first respondent to include the petitioner institution in the list of approved institutions for the academic year 2007-08. THErefore, according to the petitioner, the delay in granting approval of staff was purely on the part of the first respondent and in the meantime, the students have completed their second year course in D.T.Ed. and are ready to take up their examinations from 26.6.2008 and at the request of the second respondent, the examination fees were also paid. THErefore, it is also stated that 50 students who have completed their first year course in the academic year 2007-08 and who have been permitted to sit in examinations, as stated above, by the interim orders of this Court subject to the condition that they should undergo more than 220 days of study. In these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed for the prayer as stated above.

(3.) BY order dated 24.6.2008, this Court directed the respondents to permit the students to sit in the examinations commencing from 26.6.2008, with condition that the results should not be published until further orders of this Court.