AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to write the second year examination in respect of Diploma in Teachers Education Course to be held on 08.10.2007 for the academic year 2007-2008, and consequently declare the result and issue certificate to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner completed +2 in March 2005 by securing 539 marks out of 1200 marks. The Petitioner applied for admission in Diploma in Teacher Education Course in the Emmanuel Teacher Training Institute, Duraiyur, Trichy District.
The Petitioner was admitted to the course under the management quota. The management sent a proposal containing a list of 25 candidates, admitted by them under management quota for approval to the second Respondent. The Director, Teacher Education, Research and Training approved the admission of 24 students out of 25, but, did not approve the admission of the Petitioner, as she had obtained 539 marks instead of 540 marks, which was the minimum requirement for being eligible for admission i.e., 45% marks.
The decision was communicated to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 9678 of 2006, to challenge the non-approval of the admission, for want of 45% of marks.
The Writ Petition was allowed on 10.04.2006. The said Writ Petition, the operative part of the judgment reads as under:
The said clause does not refer to the marks totally secured by the candidate out of 1200. But it refers only the percentage of marks secured by a candidate. As the petitioner has secured 539 marks out of 540(1200),the admission has not been approved. However, if 539 marks is converted into one of percentage, the petitioner has secured 44.914% which is above 45%.It would be reasonable to hold that if a candidate secures more than44.5% of marks, the said marks has to be rounded of as45%.Equally,it should be held that if a candidate secures 44.45% and lesser percentage marks, then it should be computed as one of 44% if this yardstick is applied, the Petitioner should be considered as a candidate secured 45% and in such case, she would be eligible as per clause 1.1 of the information to the candidate issued by the Respondent for the admission to the Teacher Training Course for the academic year 2005-2006.
On the other hand, the approval has been denied solely by taking into consideration of the total number of marks, namely, 539 marks secured by the petitioner.
For my above reason, the impugned order is unsustainable and accordingly, it is set aside. The writ Petition is allowed. The first Respondent Director, Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai is directed to approve the admission of the Petitioner as proposed by the second Respondent Institute. No costs, Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 10776 of 2006 is closed.
It is not in dispute that the judgement has attained finality. Inspite of judgement referred to above, the Respondents did not allow the Petitioner to take up examination of first year nor complied with the judgement in approving the admission of Petitioner.
This forced the Petitioner to file W.P. No. 48170 of 2006, which was also allowed on 30.12.2006.
The operative portion of the order passed in W.P. No. 48190 of 2006 reads as under:
I have heard Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Pa. Kathirvel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
The admission of the Petitioner has already directed to be approved by an earlier order of this Court in W.P. No. 9678of2006dated 10.4.2006. The Respondents ought to have passed orders in the past eight months and they should not have allowed the student to be kept under suspense. The examinations are scheduled to be held on 18.12.2006. Under such circumstances, the Writ Petition is ordered directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the first year examination in respect of Diploma in Teacher Education Course to be held from 18.12.2006 or any other date. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
When the Petitioner was to appear for the second year examinations, the Respondents again did not permit the Petitioner to appear for the examination which has forced the Petitioner to file the present Writ Petition and an interim order was passed by this Court on 03.10.2001 which reads as under:
Interim direction as prayed for by directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to write the second year examination in respect of Diploma in Teacher Education Course to be held from 08.10.2007 or on any other subsequent date, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
In pursuance of the interim direction issued by this Court, the Petitioner has appeared in the second year examination and has completed the course, however, the result has not been declared for the reason that her admission has not been approved.
The action of the Respondents therefore on the face of it is contemptuous and arbitrary, which is depreciated.
The conduct of the Respondents show that they have no respect for the orders of this Court as even after the decision by this Court in W.P. No. 9678 of 2006, vide which specific direction issued by this Court, approval to the admission was not granted and Petitioner was not allowed to sit for the examination.
The action of the Respondents therefore is arbitrary, which cannot be sustained in law.
Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to declare the result of the Petitioner, and in case, she passed the exams, issue necessary certificate etc., within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of this writ Petition, which was assessed at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), as she has been forced to file repeated Writ Petition, inspite of specific directions by this Court for approval of her admission.
The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.