S. Bhuvaneswari vs The Director Teacher Education Research and Training and The Principal District Institute of Education and Training

D. Murugesan, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent made in ROC. No. 8/C/2001 dated 4.1.2001 and for a consequent direction to the Respondents to consider the application of the Petitioner for admission to Diploma in Teacher Training Course for the academic year 2000-2001 in the 2nd Respondent''s institute.

The Petitioner has completed Higher Secondary course during the year 1998 in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics group and secured 848/1200 marks. This 1st Respondent called for application for admission to diploma in Teacher Education course. The last date for submission of the application for the course commencing for the academic year 2000-2001 was 31.8.2000. As per the prospectus one seat was earmarked for the category of daughter/ son/grand daughter/grand son of "Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi." According to the prospectus, a person applying under the said category should enclose a heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned and a certificate from the Director of Tamil Development certifying the payment of pension to the father/grant father of the Petitioner as the case may be. The Petitioner produced the attested copy of all the necessary certificates to prove her claim. In fact, to prove that the Petitioner''s father is a pensioner as Tamil Thiagi, the Petitioner produced G.O.Ms. No. 59 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department dated 16.2.2000.

The Petitioner was surprised to see that the Petitioner was not selected even though the Petitioner has secured 848/1200 marks. On the other hand one M. Anitha who has secured 784/1200 marks was selected. Therefore, the Petitioner made a representation to the 2nd Respondent on 25.12.2000 to consider her for admission to the Course. However, by the impugned order dated 4.1.2000 the 2nd Respondent informed the Petitioner that since the Petitioner did not enclose the certificate obtained from the Director of Tamil Development certifying the payment of pension to the father of the Petitioner as "Tamil Thiagi", the Petitioner was not considered. It is against this order the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the certificate as required by the Respondents from the Director of Tamil Development is only on the basis of the Government Order entitling the Petitioner''s father for a pension on the basis the Petitioner''s father is a Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. In fact, the Petitioner has produced the very Government Order itself by which the Petitioner''s father was sanctioned the pension on the ground that the Petitioner''s father was Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. Therefore, merely because the certificate of the Director is not produced, the Petitioner''s application cannot be rejected.

Mr. R. Muthaian, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents would contend that the terms and conditions of prospectus are binding on the parties and as per the eligibility criteria prescribed under the prospectus, the Petitioner ought to have produced a certificate from the Director of Tamil Development evidencing the Petitioner as a daughter of Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. In the absence of the certificate the application shall be considered as incomplete and therefore the Petitioner is not eligible and the rejection of the application of the Petitioner is justifiable. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

The Petitioner is eligible to apply for admission to Diploma in Teacher Education Course, as per the notification calling for the applications and therefore the Petitioner submitted her application. As per the guidelines the Petitioner in order to claim admission as against the seat reserved for son/daughter/grand son/grand daughter of the Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi should enclose a certificate from the Director of Tamil Development evidencing that the father of the Petitioner is getting the pension for Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. Even according to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has not enclosed such a certificate from the Director of Tamil Development. However, the Petitioner has enclosed the order of the Government made in G.O.Ms. No. 59 Tamil Development/Culture & Religious Endowment Department dated 16.2.2000. In the said Government Order the father of the Petitioner has been declared eligible to avail pension on the ground of Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. By the said order it is evident that the father of the Petitioner is a Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi and the Petitioner is entitled to apply for admission as against one seat reserved for son/daughter/grand son/ grand daughter of Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. The said Government Order has not been taken into consideration by the 2nd Respondent while the application of the Petitioner was considered as against the one seat earmarked for the son/daughter/grand son/grand daughter of Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. When a representation was also made by the Petitioner brining to the notice of the 2nd Respondent the said Government Order, the 2nd Respondent has not considered the same and by the impugned order rejected the request on the ground that the Petitioner has not enclosed the certificate from the Director of Tamil Development. In my considered view the rejection of the application of the Petitioner for admission to the first year Diploma in Teacher Education Course by the 2nd Respondent on the ground that the Petitioner has not furnished the certificate from the Director of Tamil Development is not justified. The intention of the Government in reserving one seat is by way of concession to son/daughter/grand son/ grand daughters to Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. The certificate as required by the 2nd Respondent from the Director of Tamil Development is only to ascertain as to the eligibility of the candidates to apply for admission as against the seat reserved under the category. The Director of Tamil Development issues such a certificate only on the basis of the Government Order declaring a person eligible for pension on the ground of Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. This is evident from such a certificate produced by the Petitioner herself issued by the Director of Tamil Development dated 12.9.2000. In fact, the said certificate has been enclosed by the Petitioner at page 33 of the typed set of papers wherein the Director of Tamil Development has certified the Petitioner''s father Thiru S. Sundaramoorthi is a Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi and is getting pension for the same. When the very Government Order which is sought to be taken into consideration by the Director for the purpose of issuing such a certificate as required by the 2nd Respondent itself is produced by the Petitioner along with the application, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the Petitioner is not eligible to be considered merely because, the Petitioner has not produced the certificate from the Director of Tamil Development. The certificate from the Director of Tamil Development is only a piece of document to prove the entitlement of the Petitioner to apply as against the seat reserved for the son/ daughter/grand son/grand daughter of Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi. Non inclusion of the dead certificate cannot take away the substantive right of the Petitioner to seek for admission if the Petitioner is able to show her eligibility to apply under the category. Admittedly, in this case the Petitioner has enclosed the very Government Order issued by the Government dated 16.2.2000 declaring the Petitioner''s father as Tamil Mozhi Poratta Thiagi and also eligible to receive the pension. When that being so, the substantive right given to the Petitioner to apply for admission cannot be taken away by mere technicalities more particularly the very Government Order was available with the 2nd Respondent at the time of scrutiny of the application.

Even on facts it should be noticed that on the basis of the advertisement the Petitioner applied for admission on 28.8.2000 even before the last date for submitting the application viz., 31.8.2000. Along with the application the Petitioner has enclosed the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 59 dated 16.2.2000. The scrutiny of the application was made only on 1.5.2000. On the date of scrutiny of application the Government Order was very much available before the 2nd Respondent. However, the 2nd Respondent did not consider the said Government Order. The Petitioner also produced the certificate as required by the Respondents from the Director of Tamil Development on 12.9.2000 even before the selection list was published on 22.10.2000. Therefore, it cannot be contended that before the selection list was published, the Petitioner did not furnish the documents as required by the Respondents. When the documents required by the Respondents is available even before the selection list was published, the rejection of the application on the ground that the certificate as required by the Respondents from the Director of Tamil Development was not made available along with the application cannot be sustained. Admittedly, as against the one seat available a candidate by name M. Anitha who has secured 784/1200 marks has been selected. However, the Petitioner who has secured 846/1200 marks was not selected.

In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1995 (2) MLJ 325 (V. Premanand v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and Ors. Madras), while dealing with the production of the certificates before the selection committee has held as long as the application was filed in times and the applicant was able to satisfy the requirement of production of certificate from the appropriate authority before his application was considered for selection, as it was not all open to the selection Committee to refuse to consider the application only on the ground that such a certificate had not been produced along with the application. The Division Bench has further held that as long as it is not in dispute that the Petitioner belongs to the category of children born of inter caste marriage between S.C./S.T. and forward community and in addition to this, he was able to produce the certificate before the application was scrutinised for admission, rejection of such application amounted to giving greater value to the procedure than to the substantive right. The Division Bench has further held that the procedure is intended to facilitate enforcement of substantive right and not to defeat the substantive right. Procedure is handmaid to justice and not to defeat justice.

In that view of the matter, the non consideration of the application of the Petitioner for admission to the first year Diploma in Teacher Education Course by the 2nd Respondent cannot be sustained and therefore the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 4.1.2001 made in ROC. No. 8/C/2001 is quashed and the 2nd Respondent is directed to admit the Petitioner in the first year Diploma in Teacher Education Course for the academic year 2000-2001 in the 2nd Respondent institute within a period of 15 days from today. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 1295 of 2001 is closed.