AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order dated 18.11.2009 and direct the respondents to permit
the petitioner to continue B.Ed course in the second respondent college.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner studied B.A. Degree course in Sri Karumariamman Government Arts College, Chidambaram,
from September, 2004 to April, 2007 and passed the said course. The petitioner is the first graduate in her family. Petitioner joined in the second
respondent B.Ed College during the academic year 2009-2010 by paying necessary fees and also submitted her certificates and mark sheets to the
second respondent for admission. The second respondent sent the petitioner for practical training and when approval of petitioner''s admission was
sought for through the second respondent College, the first respondent passed an order on 18.11.2009 stating that the petitioner has not secured
43% of marks, which is a mandatory requirement for MBC candidates as per G.O. Ms. No. 201 Higher Education, dated 26.6.2009. Petitioner''s
admission stands cancelled and the second respondent was directed to remove the petitioner from the rolls of the college and the petitioner was
directed not to appear for the examinations to be held in May/June, 2010. The said order is challenged in this writ petition contending that the
petitioner has secured overall 43.57% marks and the minimum marks prescribed for MBC candidates as per G.O. Ms. No. 201 Higher Education
dated 26.6.2009 being 43%, her candidature for admission to B.Ed degree cannot be rejected.
When the writ petition was posted for admission on 5.1.2010, this Court granted interim stay and by virtue of the interim order, petitioner is
continuously undergoing B.Ed degree course and the course is also going to be over shortly.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent argued on instructions by submitting that the marks obtained by the
candidate in U.G. degree course part III major and allied subjects including practicals, other than the subjects Economics, Commerce, Home
Science, Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, Logic and Indian Culture alone shall be taken into account to arrive at the percentage of marks
community wise - O.C. 50%, B.C. 45%, M.B.C. 43%, S.C. and S.T. 40%. On scrutiny of the application of the petitioner it was found that the
petitioner secured only 42.45% in English Major and allied subjects. The marks secured in Environmental Studies was not taken into account for
computing the percentage of marks. Since the petitioner is having less than 43% of marks leaving the Environmental Studies paper from
computation, the petitioner is not eligible as per the University regulations and guidelines prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education
University. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that before formation of the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, the
Tiruvalluvar University was the affiliating University of the second respondent College/area and as per the norms of the said University also marks
secured in Environmental studies was not to be taken into consideration. It is also stated by the learned Special Government Pleader that prior to
the formation of the Tiruvalluvar University, the college in the said area was affiliated to University of Madras and proceedings of the University of
Madras dated 5.5.2005 also states that marks obtained in Environmental Studies shall not be computed. Thus, it is contended by the learned
Special Government Pleader that the petitioner being a M.B.C. candidate, having not secured 43%, is not eligible to be admitted in the second
respondent B.Ed college and her admission was rightly not approved.
The learned Counsel for the second respondent College submitted that the petitioner was admitted in B.Ed degree course in 2009-2010 before
communication of the admission norms prescribed by the Government as well as by the University and therefore the management calculated the
marks secured by the petitioner in the subject Environmental Studies also for computing the percentage of marks. The learned Counsel also
submitted that the petitioner having been admitted and almost completed the course, if at this stage her admission is cancelled, not only the
petitioner''s rights will be seriously prejudiced, but also the seat filled up by the second respondent College and the course undergone by the
petitioner will go waste and therefore on equitable ground, the petitioner may be permitted to complete the course and write the examinations by
relaxing the qualification, if required.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels on either side.
The issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is eligible to be admitted in B.Ed degree course, who is an M.B.C
candidate.
The Regulation of the first respondent University issued with effect from the academic year 2009-2010, particularly Regulation (viii) reads as
follows:
(viii) Candidates with the following marks in the Bachelor''s Degree are eligible for admission to the course other than subjects like Economics,
Commerce, Home Science, Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Logic and Indian Culture for which PG qualification is
mandatory.
Community/Category Minimum Marks
OC 50%
BC 45%
MBC/DNC 43%
SC/ST 40%
Note:
(a) Marks obtained by the candidates in U.G. Degree course Part III Major and Allied including Practicals (other than Economics, Commerce,
Home Science, Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Logic and Indian Culture) alone shall be taken into account to arrive at the
percentage of marks mentioned above.
(b) Marks obtained by the candidates in PG degree (other than Economics Commerce, Home Science, Political Science, Sociology, Psychology,
Philosophy, Logic and Indian Culture) shall not be considered for admission.
(c) To arrive at above percentage of marks, the marks obtained by the candidates in Major and Allied subjects including practicals alone shall be
taken into account.
(d) Rounding off of marks to the next higher integer will not be permitted.
It is also stated in the Regulations that the basis of selection shall be in accordance with the Regulations of the University/Government of Tamil
Nadu Guidelines for admission to B.Ed. course in force from time to time. The Madras University and Tiruvalluvar University Regulations are also
on the same lines.
As per the communications issued by the Madras University dated 16.9.2008 and the stand of the Tiruvalluvar University, the marks secured by
the petitioner in Environmental Studies is not to be taken for computing the percentage of marks. If the said marks is not computed, admittedly
petitioner is having only 42.45% and the required marks for M.B.C. candidates being 43%, petitioner is not eligible to be admitted in the B.Ed
course. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has not satisfied the marks requirement as per the regulations of the first respondent University. The
power of the Government and University to fix minimum percentage of marks for admission is well settled as per the judgment of the Supreme
Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, and the Division Bench Judgment of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 2010 Himachal Pradesh 23 (Himachal Pradesh Institute of Management Studies v. State of Himachal
Pradesh). A candidate admitted in a University course shall satisfy the norms for admission or for appearing in the University examinations is also
settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (4) CTC 741 (Mahatma Gandhi University v. Gis Jose). Fraction of the mark
cannot be rounded of to achieve minimum eligibility is also decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2010 (1) CWC
708 (The Registrar Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University v. K.S. Sasi Kumar). Thus, the petitioner''s mark of 42.45% cannot be treated as
eligible minimum marks for admission to B.Ed degree course for M.B.C candidate for the academic year 2009-2010. It is a fact that the petitioner
is admitted and has undergone the course and the rejection of approval even though was issued on 18.11.2009, the said order is stayed by this
Court by order dated 5.1.2010.
In such circumstance, even though the petitioner''s admission is found to be improper, the first respondent may consider the claim of the
petitioner for admission by relaxing the regulation. The first respondent is vested with powers u/s 35(2) of the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education
University Act, 2008. It is upto the first respondent to consider the same and pass necessary orders. If the B.Ed examinations are to be held
shortly, the first respondent shall permit the petitioner to write the examinations and the valuation of answer sheets and declaration of results of the
petitioner will depend upon the decision to be taken by the first respondent on the basis of the orders to be passed on the request for relaxation of
minimum marks for admission to B.Ed course. Merely because the petitioner is given permission to write the examinations, the petitioner cannot
plead for equity before the first respondent. The above said observation is made bearing in mind the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court reported in 2003 (4) LW 635 (Minor S.V. Bratheep v. The State of Tamil Nadu) upholding the rights of the students admitted in B.E
degree course, though they were not having minimum marks prescribed by the State Government and the said position was allowed by the
Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, while declaring the law i.e.,
the power of the State Government to prescribe higher percentage of marks as eligibility than the marks fixed by the AICTE for excellence of
education. The first respondent shall bear in mind while considering the request of the petitioner seeking relaxation that the petitioner is the first
graduate in her family and such categories of students are now being encouraged by the State Government. Petitioner having not satisfied the
eligibility requirement for admission as per the University norms, this Court is unable to quash the order declining approval. However, it is open to
the petitioner to apply for relaxation of the said regulation and it is left to the first respondent to decide as to whether the petitioner can be granted
relaxation or not.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.