A. Jayalakshmi vs The Director of Teacher Education, Research and District Institute of Education and Training

D. Murugesan, J.—The Petitioner has filed this Writ petition seeking for a direction to the Respondents to select and admit the Petitioner for the Diploma in Teacher Education for the Academic year 2000-2002 in the third Respondent- Institute.

The brief facts as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner has passed her higher secondary examination in the year 1998, and secured 1024 marks out of 1200 in the Higher Secondary Course Examination and therefore the Petitioner is eligible to apply to the course of Diploma in Teachers Training (Vocational). The Petitioner belongs to backward community. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the third Respondent-Institute called for applications for the Diploma course in Teacher Training on 23.8.2000 through an advertisement in newspaper. According to the advertisement, the eligibility to join the course is pass in Higher Secondary Course. On seeing the advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the said course with all her certificates and she was given the Application No. 397. According to the Petitioner, there was no interview prescribed for the selection of the candidates and the admissions are made on the basis of marks of the candidate.

The third Respondent-Institute had 40 seats in total and more particularly, 10 seats for vocational subject. After the results of the candidates, who were selected, were published, the Petitioner was surprised to note that all the candidates who were selected to the Course have obtained the lesser marks than the Petitioner. On enquiry, the Petitioner was given to understand that out of 40 candidates, 37 candidates belonged to Minority Community. The third Respondent, in all fairness, ought to have selected the Petitioner to undergo the Diploma Course, as the Petitioner has obtained higher marks than the other candidates, who have been selected. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition for a direction to the Respondents to select and admit the Petitioner for the Diploma in Teacher Education for the Academic year 2000-2002.

Mr. R. Subbiah, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would contend that the Petitioner is eligible and qualified to apply for the first year Diploma in Teacher Training Course. In view of the fact that the candidates who have obtained lesser marks than the Petitioner were admitted in the Institute, the Petitioner''s non-selection is bad and this Court has to issue suitable direction to the third Respondent to admit the Petitioner to the first year Diploma Course in Teacher Education.

Mr. M. Rathinam, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the third Respondent-Institute has got permission to admit 40 students in three disciplines. The third Respondent-Institute, being a Minority Institute has to admit only 50% of the candidates from the Minority Community and the remaining 50% should be filled up from the candidates, on merits, under open category, of course following the necessary Rules.

The Apex Court in the judgment reported in St. Stephen''s College etc., etc. Vs. The University of Delhi Etc., Etc., has clearly held that the Minority Institution, imparting the education, can admit only 50% of the seats from the Minority Community and the remaining 50% of the seats can be filled up from the candidates applied for under open category, purely on the basis of merits and following the rule of reservation.

In this context, the learned Additional Government Pleader also admitted about the model agreement prescribed in the National Council for teacher Education wherein in Clause 3, it has been clearly stated that admission has to be made as per the norms and guidelines prescribed by the State Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the norms adopted by the State Government to admit the candidates under open quota system are based on the marks. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the third Respondent ought to have filled up the 50% of seats as per the norms adopted by the State Government. Admittedly, the third Respondent has not adopted the norms prescribed by the State Government in admitting the students and therefore, the admissions made by the third Respondent in so far as 17 candidates, over and above the permitted 50% of seats, are invalid.

Mr. R. Subramaniam, Learned Counsel for the third Respondent would contend that the third Respondent was not aware of the fact that the third Respondent can admit the students from Minority Community only to the limit of 50% of seats. Without knowing the same, the third Respondent admitted 37 seats from Minority Community out of 40 seats and the said list was also approved by the first Respondent herein. Therefore, the admission of the 17 candidates, over and above the permitted strength of 50% from Minority Community was made in violation of the Apex Court Judgment, but without any knowledge of the same, and therefore, the third Respondent can find fault with.

Mr. S. Parthasarathy, Learned Counsel appearing for the students who have been directed to be impleaded by virtue of an order dated 19.1.2001 in the implead petition, submitted that these Respondents viz., the students who were admitted by the third Respondent-Institute, applied to the third Respondent on the basis of the marks secured by them and they were selected by the third Respondent. The candidates were not aware of the norms that should be followed by the third Respondent while making admission of students to the first year Diploma in Teacher Training Course. Moreover, the selection and admission of the candidates have been approved by the first Respondent. The candidates had been undergoing the course for the last four months. Therefore, the Learned Counsel would contend that the selection of these Respondents need not be disturbed.

I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions made by the respective counsel.

It is well-settled law that the Minority Institutes like third Respondent, imparting education in Teacher Education are entitled to admit only 50% of seats earmarked for the Institute from among the candidates belonging to Minority Community. It is also well-settled in law that the remaining 50% of the seats shall be filled up only by following the norms laid down by the State Government, namely, by admitting the students applied under open category on the basis of marks and also by following the rule of reservation. This Proposition has been reiterated in the judgment reported in St. Stephen''s College etc., etc. Vs. The University of Delhi Etc., Etc., , more particularly, in para 102 wherein it has been stated as follows:

In the light of all these principles and factors, and in view of the importance which the Constitution attaches to protective measures to minorities under Article 30(1), the minority aided educational institutions are entitled to prefer their community candidates to maintain the minority character of the institutions subject of course to conformity with the University standard. The State may regulate the intake in this category with due regard to the need of the community in the area which the institution is intended to serve. But in no case such intake shall exceed 50 per cent of the annual admission. The minority institutions shall make available at least 50 per cent of the annual admission to members of communities other than the minority community. The admission of other community candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit.

The Apex Court in the judgment reported in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, has also held as follows:

Since the admissions to 50 per cent of the seats have already been finalised in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 18th August, 1993, on an objective basis, and in accordance with the merit, we do not wish to interfere with the said selection at this stage. However, it is directed that the students belonging to the relevant minority (which established and is administering the college) shall not be admitted exceeding 50% of this years intake and the remaining 50% shall be given to non-minority candidates. Admissions to free seats as well as payment seats will be made on the basis of merit only.

In view of the said pronouncement of the Apex Court, the third Respondent ought not to have admitted the students from Minority Community over and above 50% of the seats according to its own admission norms. Therefore, the admission of 17 candidates made by the third Respondent-Institute, over and above the 50% of the seats, is not in accordance with the pronouncement of the Apex Court as well as the norms prescribed by the State Government in this regard and by admitting the students on the basis of merit and on the basis of rule of reservation.

However, the question that has to be considered is whether these 17 students, who were admitted by the third Respondent should be directed to forego their studies. As contended by Mr. S. Parthasarathy, Learned Counsel for these students, the students were not aware of the fact that the third Respondent-Institute can admit only 50% of seats from the Minority Community and the remaining 50% can be filled up by following the guidelines issued by the State Government. It is not a case where the admission was made by an unrecognized Institute. Admittedly, the third Respondent is a recognised Institute and therefore, the 17 students who have been admitted had no opportunity to know that the admissions were made over and above the approved limit of 50%. Further, it is also not in dispute that the admission of these students has been approved by the first Respondent. Apart from that, these students have been allowed to undergo the course for the last four months. Therefore, in that view of the matter, I am not proposed to disturb their admission at this stage. Moreover, the admissions of these candidates have not been challenged in this writ petition. Therefore, there is no question of setting aside the admission of the candidates who have been admitted over and above the 50% of the total seats viz., 17 candidates.

However, this Court expresses its strong displeasure in the manner in which the third Respondent has admitted the students over and above the 50% of the permitted strength from the Minority Community.

The contention of the counsel for the third Respondent that the third Respondent was not aware of the fact that they cannot admit the students over and above the 50% of seats from the Minority Community, cannot be accepted. It is well-settled in law that ignorance of law is no excuse. In more than one case, the Apex Court has expressed its displeasure about the admissions made by the Institutes like third Respondent, over and above the approved percentage and the Courts are ultimately compelled to legitimise the admission on sympathetic consideration. However, the Learned Counsel for the third Respondent would fairly contend that the third Respondent-Institute will not make such a mistake again in admitting the students over and above 50% from the Minority Community from the next academic year. In view of the said fair statement, I direct the third Respondent-Institute to file an affidavit of undertaking within a period of three weeks, which affidavit shall form part of the Courts records, undertaking not to admit the students over and above 50% of the seats from the Minority Community from coming academic year onwards and also to follow the guidelines prescribed by the State Government in admitting the remaining 50% of the seats on merits and also duly following the rule of reservation.

The next question now is to be decided is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled. Admittedly, the Petitioner is eligible and qualified to make application to the course in the third Respondent-Institute. It is also not in dispute that the candidates who have obtained lesser marks than the Petitioner had been admitted in the third Respondent-Institute. The Petitioner''s application ought to have been considered as against the 50% of the seats viz., 20 seats by the third Respondent had already admitted 37 students from Minority Community, the Petitioner was not accommodated. Therefore, in the interest of justice, there will be a direction to the third Respondent to admit the Petitioner to the first year Diploma in Teachers Training (Vocational) Course within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Since Mr. Subramaniam, Learned Counsel for the third Respondent submitted that the third Respondent-Institute had already filled up the 40 seats, in the event of the admission given to the Petitioner, the said admission shall be approved by the Respondents 1 and 2. Even though the Petitioner was denied a seat due to the mistake of the third Respondent, in the interest of the Petitioner, as a special case, I direct the first Respondent to take up the matter to the Southern Regional Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore to grant approval for one seat and see that the admission of the Petitioner in the first year Diploma in Teachers Training (Vocational) Course by the third Respondent-Institute is approved. The Southern Regional Council shall also consider granting permission to the third Respondent-Institute by increasing one seat. The above process shall be followed on a proper application by third Respondent to the Council for increase of one seat. The admission of the Petitioner in the third Respondent-Institute shall not be kept pending till such time the approval is granted by the Southern Regional Council for Teachers Education, Bangalore.

After the pronouncement of the order, the learned Additional Government Pleader brought to my notice that the Minority Institutions are not following the norms prescribed by the State Government, more particularly, like the case of the third Respondent, by admitting the students over and above 50% of seats from the Minority Community and also not following the norms laid down by the State Government by admitting the students on the basis of marks and following the rule of reservation. In view of the said submission, this Court takes judicial note of the fact that the admissions are made by the Minority Institutions in utter disregard to the above Verdict of the Supreme Court and guidelines issued by the State Government. Therefore, this Court is of the view that suitable directions should be issued in this regard. The first Respondent shall ensure that no minority institution admits students of their choice from Minority Community over and above 50% of the seats and the remaining 50% of seats shall be filled up from among the candidates under open category, strictly on merit and by following rule of reservation. All the Minority Institutions shall be put on notice well in advance by the first Respondent of their entitlement to fill up only 50% of the seats from candidates belonging to Minority Community and the remaining 50% of the seats shall be filled up from among the candidates applying under open category strictly on merits and by following rule of Reservation. The institutions shall be also put on notice that any violation of the above direction will automatically result in cancellation of the ad-missions made over and above 50% and contrary to the norms of admission. The institutions shall be also directed to put on the above guidelines followed for admissions in the notice board for the benefit of the students. The Southern Regional Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore, shall also take note of any violations by institutions for further renewal of approval or taking action against the erring institutions.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.