J. Sasikumar vs State of Tamil Nadu and The Principal, Govt. Teacher Training School (DIET)

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents herein to include the name of the Petitioner in the Examination Nominal Roll and permit him to write his Second Year Final Examination of the Diploma in Teachers Education Course al the 3rd Respondent Government Teacher Training School (DIET), Kalayarkoil, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam District, and publish the result of the same, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Petitioner who belongs to a denotified community, applied for Teacher Training Course 1994-95, and he was selected for the Course. He joined the Government Teacher Training School at Kalayarkoil and the classes also commenced on 18.9.1994. While he was undergoing the Course, the third Respondent, on 12.10.1994, called the Petitioner and informed him that he could not continue his studies since his selection itself was wrongly made. Even though the Petitioner explained orally that he is not responsible for any mistake committed by the Department or by the third Respondent, it did not yield any result. Petitioner was, therefore, asked to leave the School. Petitioner, thereafter, brought his father who was 100 per cent handicapped before the third Respondent, and he also pleaded before him as to why the Petitioner should not be allowed to continue the Course. The said request was also not considered, and ultimately the Petitioner came to this Court in W.P. No. 20658 of 1994 for a direction forbearing the Respondents from interfering with his right to attend and continue the Teacher Training Course Classes for Academic Year 1994-95 and 1995-96 in Government Teacher Training Institute (DIET), Kalayarkoil. The Writ Petition was admitted and an interim order was granted on 14.12.1994, permitting the Petitioner to attend the Course, and the Authorities were directed not to interfere with the Petitioner''s attending the Course, and, by the time the, Writ Petition came up for final arguments, Petitioner had completed the Course. Finally, the Writ Petition itself was dismissed as infructuous. Petitioner wrote the First Year Examination when the earlier Writ Petition was pending. The Second Year Examination was not held due to various administrative reasons. But the same was notified, third-Respondent informed the Petitioner again that he will not be allowed to sit for the Second Year Examination in view of the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition as infructuous. According to Petitioner, he is eligible to be admitted, and he is also entitled to undergo the Course, and, there is no other reason why he should not be permitted to write the Examination. It is under these circumstances, the Petitioner has come to this Court for the aforementioned relief.

When the matter came up for admission, the same was admitted by a learned Judge, and an interim Order was also granted on 6.3.1997, which reads thus:

Admittedly, the Petitioner had been permitted to undergo two years Diploma Course in Teachers I education Course and Training during 1994-95 and 1995-96 and he had also appeared for the first year diploma examination. There will be a direction, directing the Respondents to include the same of the Petitioner in the examination, namely, nominal roll and permit the Petitioner to appear in the final year examination of the diploma in Teachers Education Course through the 3rd Respondent-Institution.

On the basis of the interim Order, Petitioner has also written the Examination, and what remains now is, only the publication of the result and consequential issuance of Diploma and mark sheet .

In the counter affidavit filed by third Respondent, it is said that the Petitioner was not entitled to be admitted for Teacher Training Course. It is his case that the cut off marks for Vocational Subjects is 875, and Petitioner has scored only 845 marks in Plus Two Examination. Since he is far below the cut off marks, he was not eligible to be admitted. But, the then Principal in charge of the Institute admitted the Petitioner improperly and when the same was found out, he was asked to leave the School. Since the Petitioner is not eligible to be admitted, he is not entitled to write examination or get the results published, or to get the mark sheet or diploma.

I heard learned Counsel for parties in detail.

I do not think that the stand taken by third Respondent could be accepted in this case. Respondents have no case that the Petitioner misrepresented anything to the Authorities and obtained admission. The fact that the Petitioner has obtained only 845 marks was known to Respondents even at the time of his admission. Petitioner wanted to get admission only on the basis of those marks and third Respondent found him eligible. He has also paid the fees. He was allowed to undergo the Course for few months. There is no allegation against the Petitioner that he is responsible for the irregularity in the admission. The only allegation is that, there is a mistake on the part of the then principal in charge. For the unilateral mistake committed by third Respondent, Petitioner cannot be held responsible. The admission given to the Petitioner cannot, therefore, be cancelled. The marks obtained by Petitioner may be far below the cut off marks but, the cut off marks are not fixed by any Statute or Rule. The same is taken into consideration only when more candidates are competing for less number of seats. Once it is found that Petitioner is eligible for admission and there is also no fraud committed by him, Respondents are bound to permit the Petitioner to complete the Course and also to write the Examination. In this case, on the basis of interim order passed in the earlier Writ Petition, namely, W.P.20658 of 1994, Petitioner has completed the first year examination, and what remains is only writing of the second year examination. By virtue of interim order in this Writ Petition, he has also written the second year examination. In view of my findings above, Petitioner is entitled to have the results declared and he is also entitled to get the mark sheet and diploma.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that even though the Petitioner obtained an interim order in the earlier Writ Petition, the same was dismissed as infructuous, and the effect of the interim order goes by the dismissal of the Writ Petition. Under normal circumstances, the said argument could be accepted. But in this case, the right which has accrued to the Petitioner, cannot be taken away by dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition. When it is found that the Petitioner was illegally not permitted to continue the Course, that relief could be granted to him in this Writ Petition also. In the earlier Writ Petition, there was no dismissal on merits. In either way, the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition cannot stand in the way of granting relief in this Writ Petition.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, and I declare that the Petitioner was entitled to be admitted to the Teacher Training Course and he was also entitled to continue the Course without any interference by Respondents. His admission is not liable to be cancelled on the ground that he has not obtained the cut off marks. Since the Petitioner has written the examination, I direct the Respondents to publish the results of the Petitioner and consequently issue the Certificate and mark sheet .I direct the third Respondent to comply with the above directions within a period of one month from today. No costs.