C. Krishnan and Others vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

S.S. Subramani, J.—In W.P.14261 of 1998, Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of declaration declaring the fixation of 30 years as maximum

age for the candidates who are seeking admission to Diploma in Teacher education under the reserved category of 15% seats for candidates who

underwent Teacher Training Certificate and written their examination and the institutions are subsequently de-recognised is invalid in so far as the

Petitioner is concerned and direct the Respondents to select and admit the Petitioner in the third Respondent District Institute for Diploma in

Teacher Education Course for 1998-2000 batch and pass further orders.

In W.P.14304 of 1998, the relief sought for is a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the application of the Petitioner

submitted to the third Respondent institute for Teacher Training Course for 1998-99 sympathetically and thus render justice.

In W.P.14375 of 1998, Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the G.O. Ms. 230, dated

6.8.98 and quash the same and direct the first Respondent to issue instruction to Respondents 2 and 3 to admit the Petitioner for secondary grade

teachers training in any one of the Institution applied for and pass such further orders.

The relevant facts may be summarised thus: All the Petitioners are students of Teacher Training Institution earlier and they have also completed

the course and all were successful in examinations. But the Institute in which they underwent the course was subsequently de-recognised by virtue

of decision reported in 1994 Writ L.R. (Dr. Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu). Since the institute was de-recognised, none of the Petitioners could

get their diploma certificate and the course which they underwent could not be made use of for useful purpose. The first Respondent has now

taken a policy decision in August 1998 and reserved 30% of seats in all the District Institutes of Education and Training institutions ""exclusively for

candidates who underwent diploma in Teachers Educational courses and who could not get their certificate due to de-recognision of the institution.

It is said that the candidates who have passed with 50% marks in Plus Two alone are eligible to apply and the age limit prescribed is 30 years for

the 15% reserved seats and 25 years for others. In all these cases, Petitioners scored more than 50% marks in Plus Two examinations but their

age exceeds more than 30 years. In W.P.14261 of 1998, Petitioner has completed 31 years; in W.P.14304 of 1998 Petitioner completed 30

years and 4 months and in W.P.14375 of 1998, the age of the Petitioners exceed by 36 days. Since they are over-aged their applications were not

considered and that is why the Petitioners have come to this Court for the relief stated above.

I do not think that any of the Petitioners are entitled to the relief. It is admitted even by the Petitioners themselves that a Policy decision has been

taken by the Government and the Court cannot have any say in such matters unless it is said to be arbitrary. None of the Petitioners are in a

position to substantiate their case that the act of the Government is arbitrary.

Again, the 30% reservation itself is given as in the nature of concession, by the Government taking into consideration the hardships of the

students who underwent the course that the purpose of their education is not to be wasted. It is only taking into consideration this hardship the

Government thought of giving concession to them by providing them admission in the various D.I.E. Ts.

It could also be seen from the application format and the impugned Government Order that the Government is not recognising then-education

which they underwent in various educational institutions. The eligibility qualification is that not less than 50% marks in the Plus Two examinations.

Only in respect of these students who have studied in unrecognised institution the age is increased to 30 years taking into consideration their

hardships. Even that relaxation of age was in the nature of concession.

Once it is shown that the Government granted order in the nature of concession, it follows that there is no question of issuance of Writ of

Mandamus nor the same could be quashed by issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus. The Petitioner has no legal rights to insist that the

Government shall fix only 35 or 40 years and they must accommodate the Petitioners somehow or other. The Government will have to take the

employment opportunity aspect as to how far such persons could be provided with employment in various Schools and what is the age fixed for

getting employment etc. It is only for the Government to decide regarding the age of candidates who are eligible for admission taking into

consideration various circumstances. The Government is an expert body which alone can decide the same and the Court cannot sit over the policy

decision as an Appellate Court.

The learned Counsel for one of the Petitioners submitted that they themselves have wasted their energy and little more sympathy is required that

the Government must be little more merciful in accommodating them in various institutions. Admission to institution on the basis of sympathy cannot

be accepted Only because the Government was sympathetic towards such candidates, the concession was given.

I do not find any merit in the Writ Petitions and hence all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected Writ

Miscellaneous petitions are closed.