AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent.
It is submitted that the petitioner had passed Higher Secondary Course during the month of September, 1995. Since she was possessing the
required qualifications to undergo the Diploma in Teacher Education Course, she was granted admission in the third respondent Institute, on
28.7.2008. After having joined the course she had completed one year in the said course during the academic year 2008-2009. However, the first
respondent had not approved the admission of the petitioner in the Diploma in Teacher Education Course of the third respondent Institute, under
the `Deserted women'' category.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the petitioner had been married to one R.Rajendran, on 17.5.1998. However,
he had deserted the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has been living separately from the year 1999. Further, the petitioner''s husband had
filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P. No. 193 of 2000, before the Principal Sub Court, Trichy. The said petition had been ordered, on
8.3.2001, granting the divorce, as prayed for by the petitioner therein. Since then the petitioner has been living separately without sufficient source
of income. The guidelines, dated 31.5.2008, issued by the first respondent prescribes the age limit for admission of candidates under the `Deserted
women'' category as 40 years. Though the petitioner was aged 32 years at the time of her admission in the third respondent institute, the first
respondent has not granted approval of her admission, till date.
At this stage of the hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also placed before this Court, an order, dated
21.11.2008, made in W.P. No. 23349 of 2008, wherein, the respondents have been directed to treat the petitioner as a destitute and to accept
the application for passing suitable orders, within a specified period.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the claims made by the petitioner would be considered by
the said respondent and appropriate orders would be passed thereon, considering the petitioner''s claim, under the `Deserted women'' category, in
view of the decision of this Court, dated 21.11.2008, made in W.P. No. 23349 of 2008, within a specified period.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to consider the claims made
by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had prayed that the petitioner may be permitted
to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the granting of permission to the petitioner to write the first year examination of the
Diploma in Teacher Education Course commencing from 22.6.2009, and that the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the same, within a
specified period.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that on such representation being made, the same would be
considered by the first respondent and appropriate orders would be passed thereon, expeditiously.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioner is permitted to make a
representation to the first respondent, with regard to the examinations for the Diploma in Teacher Education Course said to be commencing from
22.6.2009, within a period of one week from today and on such representation being made, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate
orders thereon, expeditiously.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
