CONCORD TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE; ANNAI SATHIYA MEN TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE RUN BY THE SOCIETY FOR MINORITY PEOPLE MOVEMENT AIMING DEVELOPMENT IN SEVERAL ASPECTS Vs. DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING AND ORS

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.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in the above said case it is stated that though deficiencies were found in respect of three teachers in the proposal of the petitioner dated 13.11.2006, yet a fresh proposal was not submitted before the cut-off date viz., 20.11.2006 as stipulated in G.O.Ms.(2D). No. 59 (U1) School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006 and therefore, approval for the year 2006-07 could not be granted and the students admitted by the management without staff approval cannot have any right. It is also stated that the validity of the above G.O.Ms.(2D). No. 59 (U1) School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006 was upheld in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 49645 of 2006 and therefore, the first respondent by the letter dated 26.7.2007 informed the petitioner that approval cannot be granted for the academic year 2006-07 on three grounds as stated above, viz., the deficiencies in respect of Mr. Elangovan, Mr. Thirugnanasambandam and Tmt. Baktha Gowri. While it is admitted that in the Sub-Appln. No. 176 of 2007 in Cont.Petition No. 606 of 2007 in W.P. No. 49645 of 2006, this Court granted an interim direction to include the name of the petitioner institution in the approved list of institutions for counselling, it is stated that the same is subject to further orders.