AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—The Appellant got herself qualified for Teachers Training by obtaining a certificate from the Karnataka State. She
completed the training course in the academic year of 1988-89. She also enrolled herself before the employment exchange. When an opportunity
of seeking employment was rejected on the ground that Teacher Training Certificate obtained from the Karnataka State has to be evaluated, the
Appellant sought for evaluation of the said certificate. The first Respondent in his proceedings O. Mu. No. 4981/C2/97 dated 4.9.1997 rejected
the claim of the Petitioner for evaluation of the certificate on the ground that the Tamil Nadu State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 906, Education
(U.l) Department dated 16.6.1987 has prescribed the minimum qualification of a pass in Plus Two for joining the training institute. Since the
Petitioner has got into the training institute after passing S.S.L.C, she cannot be considered to be a candidate having minimum qualification and as
such her certificate cannot be evaluated. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 14217 of 1997 challenging the impugned proceedings of the first
Respondent dated 4.9.1997. The learned single Judge by his order dated 11.2.1998, agreeing with the reasonings given by the: first Respondent
for the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner for evaluation, has dismissed the writ petition. As against the same, the present writ appeal is filed by
the Appellant.
Mr. C. Selvaraj, Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the procedure of evaluation of the candidates having the Teacher Training
Certificate from the Karnataka State is prescribed under G.O.Ms. No. 1236, Education Department dated 17.9.1984 which prescribes the
minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. for joining the Teacher Training Institute. The said Government Order having been issued under Article 162 of
the Constitution of India, is having force of law and as such the State Government has no jurisdiction to modify or amend the procedure laid down
in G.O.Ms. No. 1236, by exercising legislative power.
In this case, the Government has issued letter dated 22.12.1987 wherein it has been mentioned that the Government has prescribed the
qualification for joining Teacher Training Institute of a pass in Plus Two. Those who had passed S.S.L.C. got admitted in the teachers training
course and appearing in the final year examinations during the academic year 1987-88 will be exempted from such basic qualification of pass in
Plus Two. Those who got admitted in the Teachers Training Institute of other States having passed the S.S.L.C. in the academic year 1987-88 will
not be considered to be qualified for the teacher training. This letter being an administrative instructions cannot override the qualifications
prescribed under G.O.Ms. No. 1236 Education dated 17.9.1984 which had been issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Hence, so
long as the G.O.Ms. No. 1236 Education Department dated 17.9.1984 is not superseded by another Government Order, the Government has to
implement the procedure laid thereunder.
G.O.Ms. No. 906, Education, dated 16.6.1987 would govern the educational qualification within the State of Tamil Nadu as the said
Government Order specifically refers to the training institutions within the State. The Government Order cannot have any application to the
candidates who got themselves qualified by obtaining the teachers training certificate from other States and hence the Appellant is entitled for
evaluation. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. Before the learned single Judge the G.O.Ms. 906 dated 16.6.1987 was not produced and
as such the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was under the impression that G.O.Ms. No. 906 had a bearing on G.O.Ms. No. 1236 dated
17.9.1984. Only after the judgment was delivered he perused the G.O.Ms. No. 906 dated 16.6.1987 and found that the same has no bearing at
all with the qualifications and procedure laid down in G.O.Ms. No,1236 dated 17.9.1984. Hence the learned single Judge is not correct in holding
that the Petitioner has not challenged the G.O.Ms. No. 906 and dismissed the writ petition.
On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate contended that the G.J. Ms. No. 906 dated 16.6.1987 prescribes the minimum qualification
of pass in Plus Two for joining the Teachers Training Institute. When the minimum qualification is prescribed by a subsequent Government order it
goes without saying that the earlier Government Order is impliedly superseded or withdrawn. The letter dated 22.12.1987 issued by the
Government is virtually a clarification of G.O.Ms. No. 906 dated 16.6.1987 in order to clear any doubt on the question of the minimum
qualifications for the admission in the Teacher Training Institute as well as those who got themselves admitted in the Teacher Training Institute of
other States. Hence the learned Judge has rightly considered this aspect and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, no interference is called for.
We have carefully considered the above contentions of both the counsel. It will be relevant to consider the salient features of the Government
orders under reference G.O.Ms No. 906 Education (U.l.) Department dated 16.6.1987 has been issued prescribing the revised guidelines for
admission of students to the Teacher Training Institute with effect from 1987-88. In the annexure of the said Government Order, the qualification of
the candidates has been prescribed which is as follows:
The minimum Educational qualification required for admission to the Diploma in Teacher Education Course shall be as follows:
A pass in Plus Two (Higher Secondary) Examination both under General and Vocational Streams other than Secondary Grade Teachers Training
under Vocational Course.
From the above terms of the Government Order, it is clear that the minimum qualification for admission to the Diploma in Teacher Education
course shall be a pass in Plus Two examination. This Government Order is not challenged before this Court as rightly pointed out by the learned
single Judge. The letter dated 22.12.1987 issued by the Secretary to the Government is as follows:
(a) Clause (1) of the letter reiterates the minimum qualification prescribed under G.O.Ms. No. 906.
(b) Clause (2) of the letter gives relaxation to the students who are doing final year of the Diploma Course during the academic year 1987-88.
(c) In order to avoid any doubt Clause (3) specifically mentions that those who joined in the academic year 1987-88 in the training institute of
other States with the qualification of S.S.L.C. are not qualified.
When the State Government had prescribed the minimum qualification of pass in Plus Two as early as 16.6.1987 in G.O.Ms. No. 906 and
especially when the same is not challenged we have to take it that the minimum qualification for joining in the Teacher Training Institute is a pass in
Plus Two from the academic year 1987-88. The letter dated 22.12.1987 only reiterates what the Government Order prescribes and avoid any
speculation in interpreting the same.
When that be the case, now the question for consideration is as to whether the Appellant who joined in the Training Institute of Karnataka in the
academic year 1987-88 for the first year with the qualification of pass in tenth standard can claim the evaluation?
When there is no dispute with regard to the fact that G.O.Ms. No. 906 Education dated 16.6.1987 is also one which is passed under Article
162 of the Constitution of India, it has the same legal force as that of the enacted law. The letter of the Government dated 22.12.1987 is only a
clarification of the said Government Order to avoid any misinterpretation of the same. As per Clause (3) of the said letter, it is categorically stated
that those who joined in the training institute of other States during 1987-88 with a pass of tenth standard cannot be considered on par with those
candidates who got the Diploma in the Teacher Training in Tamil Nadu. Hence the claim of the Appellant is liable to be rejected. Clause (3) of the
Government letter more specifically deals with the candidates like the Petitioner and it is very clear that such candidates cannot be treated on par
with those Diploma Holders of the training institute in Tamil Nadu.
When that be so, the Petitioner''s claim for evaluation cannot be gone into. Only if the Petitioner can be considered for the appointment within
Tamil Nadu State on par with those who got a Diploma from the training institutes within the Tamil Nadu, then only the evaluation is necessary.
Hence a reading of the G.O.Ms. No. 906 as well as the Government letter dated 22.12.1987 clearly supersede the earlier G.O.Ms. No. 1236
Education Department dated 17.9.1984, prescribing the procedure for evaluation as well as prescribing the qualification for the candidates who
got Diploma from Karnataka State. Hence we do not find any merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that G.O.Ms. No. 906 does not refer to G.O.Ms. No. 1236 and letter of the
Government dated 22.11.. 1987 also does not refer to the G.O.Ms. No. 906 and as such it cannot be said that the G.O.Ms. No. 906 at any rate
supersedes G.O.Ms. No. 1236 and the said G.O.Ms. No. 1236 has to be treated as an independent one conferring a right of evaluation on the
candidates who obtained the Diploma from the State of Karnataka. We are unable to agree with the said contention. If the G.O.Ms. No. 1236 has
to be considered as a separate and individual one, and will hold good for ever in spite of G.O.Ms. No. 906, then there will be two different
qualifications for the Diploma Holders from the training institute and both should be treated on par. To make it clear that the candidates who claim
the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 1236 can get admitted in the State of Karnataka in the Teachers Training Institute lifter passing S.S.L.C. and after
obtaining the Diploma, would apply for evaluation to get the employment within the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas the candidates who seek
admission in the Teacher Training Institute in Tamil Nadu will have to pass Plus Two and then seek for the admission in the Teachers Training
Institute. When the State Government prescribes the minimum qualification for admission in the Teachers Training Institute itself, then those who
had not obtained the said minimum qualification cannot enter into Teachers Training Institute in the State. When that be the case, those who
obtained lesser qualification by getting a Diploma from other States cannot be treated on par with those who obtained the Diploma in the Teachers
Training within the State. We find no merits in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Consequently connected CMP also dismissed. No
costs.