Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute Vs Union Territory of Pondicherry

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

P. Jyothimani, J.@mdashIn all these writ petitions, the issue involved relate to the admission and the consequential permission to be given to the

students of the petitioners/institutions to complete their D.T.Ed. course by directing the Director of School Education, Puducherry to approve the

admission of various students.

2.1. While W.P. No. 14813 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner/ institution, namely Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry

challenging the government order in G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 which stipulates the domicile requirement

in admission of students in respect of the professional educational institutions by way of a regulation called the Pondicherry Private Professional

Educational Institutions (Domicile Requirement in Admission of Students) Regulation, 2006, the said institution has filed W.P. No. 11698 of 2009

seeking for a direction against the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry to permit the students of the said petitioner/institution to complete

their D.T.Ed. course and to get their Diploma certificates.

2.2. It is stated that the said Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry has commenced D.T.Ed. course from the academic year 2004-

2005 on the basis of a No Objection Certificate issued by the Government of Puducherry in the order dated 30.1.2004 for an intake of 100 seats

as per the norms of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). It is stated that the NCTE has also granted recognition on 28.10.2004

for an intake of 100 students. The petitioner/institution is unaided self-financing institution and even though it is entitled to fill up all the 100 seats by

itself, it has originally surrendered 20% of the seats to Government of Puducherry and thereafter offered 50% of the seats for students sponsored

by the Government of Puducherry in the year 2006 to be filled up through CENTAC. As per G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I),

dated 25.5.2006 in respect of 50% of the seats to be filled up through CENTAC, the same has been directed to be filled from the candidates

domiciled in the Union Territory of Puducherry.

2.3. It is stated that in the year 2006 many of such seats to be filled up from CENTAC were unfilled for want of candidates domiciled in

Puducherry. It is stated that the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry in the order dated 29.1.2007 has permitted the private managements

of unaided Teacher Training Institutes to fill up the above said lapsed seats as per the domicile rule prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief

Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006. It is stated that since students domiciled in Puducherry were not available, the petitioner/ institution

and others to avoid the seats to go waste, were forced to admit students from outside Puducherry and it is the case of the petitioner that the said

admissions were subsequently approved by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry.

2.4. Even in the year 2007 when the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has called for applications for admission to D.T.Ed. course in

respect of the 50 seats, there was no adequate response and in that year the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has sponsored only 36

students for admission. Since 14 seats to be filled through CENTAC remained unfilled, the petitioner sought permission by representations dated

10.9.2007 and 12.10.2007 to fill up the lapsed seats. The Government has issued a further notification for admission in respect of seats to be filled

through CENTAC category and there was no response.

2.5. It was in those circumstances the petitioner/institution has advertised in the leading newspapers for admission in respect of the said lapsed

seats. Since no candidate domiciled in Puducherry has come forward, the petitioner/institution has admitted 14 students from Tamil Nadu and

thereafter forwarded the list of students admitted in the lapsed category on 28.11.2007, 29.11.2007, 11.12.2007 and 20.12.2007 for approval. It

is stated that the students admitted under CENTAC quota and management quota were approved by the Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry, except in respect of one student, G. Elayakanni by way of endorsement dated 20.12.2007 on the ground of ""belated admission"" and

she has also discontinued. However, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has not passed any orders in respect of approval of

admission of 14 students in the lapsed category under CENTAC who are stated to belong to OBC, MBC and SC category. In the meantime, the

students admitted in the year 2007 have completed minimum required 220 working days along with the mandatory 40 days teaching practice.

2.6. The Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has issued hall tickets on 14.6.2008 for first year examination scheduled from 26.6.2008.

Since the hall tickets for 14 students admitted in the lapsed category were not issued, the petitioner/institution made a representation. However, the

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has orally informed that the 14 students admitted in the lapsed category cannot take their first year

examination since their admission is not as per the domicile rule in G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I) , dated 25.5.2006.

2.7. The writ petitioner challenges the validity of the said G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 as without

jurisdiction; that the government order is not even followed in the Union Territory of Puducherry in respect of other institutions, especially relating

to medical colleges; and that it was not the wilful conduct of the petitioner in admitting those students and the admission was due to the reason that

in spite of the efforts taken by the Government of Puducherry also to find out the students of domicile character as per the G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief

Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 there were no students available and therefore their admission was made as a matter of necessity, and

seeks for a direction against the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry to permit the students of the petitioner/institution to complete their

D.T.Ed. course. The list of such students whose results are sought to be declared, as given in the type set of papers, are:

Sl. No. Name of the candidate Date of Joining

1 Annapackia Pushpa.A. 24.10.2007

2 Cilintha Julie Thaddeus.K 31.10.2007

3 Kalaimathi.S 26.10.2007

4 Karunakaran.R 12.11.2007

5 Mallika.G 02.11.2007

6 Manimegalai.M 15.11.2007

7 Manjula.M 30.10.2007

8 Neela.S 30.10.2007

9 Saritha.A 11.12.2007

10 Sathya.C 14.11.2007

11 Soruba Rani Sumathi.G 19.11.2007

12 Sumithra.P 14.11.2007

13 Tamilselvi.M 26.11.2007

14 Vijaya.V 26.11.2007

2.8. In the earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 14813 of 2008 referred to above, the writ petitioner/institution has challenged the said G.O.Ms. No.

64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 and also sought for a direction to approve the admission of the said 14 students admitted

under the lapsed category of CENTAC for D.T.Ed. course in 2007-2008, which is for the same relief.

3.1. W.P. No. 11699 of 2009 is filed by St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal for a direction against the Directorate of School

Education, Puducherry to permit the students admitted in the year 2007-2008 numbering 27, which is as follows as per the type set of papers,

stated to have been admitted in the said year under CENTAC category in the lapsed seats:

Sl. No. Name of the candidate

1 Arun Arockia Dass

2 Jayaraj

3 Kaliyamurthy

4 Alphonse

5 Karunakaran

6 Muthamiselvan

7 Parameswaran

8 Reagon Socreties

9 Saminathan

10 Sivasakthivel

11 Benitha

12 Ezhilarasi

13 Kalaiselvi

14 Kanimozhi

15 Krishnaveni

16 Kulandai Leema Ross

17 Mariyanesam

18 Maria Sagaya Rocelin

19 Manimegalai

20 Pavaimalar

21 Pourselvi

22 Rajeswari

23 Rubia

24 Sheela

25 Sivasangri

26 Usharani

27 Vinayagam

3.2. In this case also, the institution has commenced in the year 2004-2005. No Objection Certificate was issued by the Directorate of School

Education, Puducherry for an intake of 100 students. NCTE has granted recognition on 23.11.2004 for an intake of 100 students. It is stated that

for the academic year 2006-2007 even though the petitioner/ institution being self-financing unaided minority institution is entitled to fill up all the

100 seats, it has surrendered 50% of the seats to be sponsored by the Government of Puducherry through CENTAC. Again as per G.O.Ms. No.

64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006, the said 50% of the seats surrendered to CENTAC were directed to be filled up through

the candidates domiciled in the Union Territory of Puducherry.

3.3. In the year 2006, there were no students available to be sponsored through CENTAC in the said 50% of seats and as a last chance, to avoid

wastage of seats, students were admitted from other States and that was approved by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry. Again in

the year 2007-2008, for the 50 CENTAC seats advertisement was made and there was no sufficient response from the persons domiciled in

Puducherry and the representations were made seeking permission to admit students of the petitioner''s choice. Thereafter, the petitioner/ institution

has advertised about the vacancies in the newspapers for admitting students domiciled in Puducherry and there was no response and therefore, the

petitioner/institution was constrained to admit 48 students from Tamil Nadu who applied for admission. The list of 100 candidates admitted through

CENTAC and management quota was forwarded for approval. It is stated that number of these students belong to OBC, MBC and SC category

and are eligible for relaxation and that the students have completed the minimum 220 working days required for completing the first year course

and also underwent the mandatory 40 days teaching practice successfully in different recognized schools.

3.4. It is stated that when the time table was released by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry for the first year examinations scheduled

from 26.6.2008, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has refused permission to the 48 students admitted by the petitioner/institution

under CENTAC quota on the basis that their admission is against G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006. In this case

also G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 is challenged and the writ petition is filed a direction as stated above.

4.1. The said institution, namely St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal has also filed W.P. No. 10923 of 2009 challenging the order of the

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry dated 4.6.2008 directing that the admission of students in respect of the professional educational

institutions should be by way of the regulation called the Puducherry Professional Educational Institutions (Provision of Reservation, Admission of

Students and Fixation of fees) Regulations, 2008, which was passed on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated

25.5.2006 issued by the Government of Puducherry and for a consequential direction against the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry to

approve the admission of 100 students made for the year 2008-2009.

4.2. It is the case of the said petitioner/institution that the norms and standards for D.T.Ed. course have been fixed by the NCTE, wherein the

minimum qualifications were prescribed. It is stated that the appropriate governments have also been empowered to prescribe the standard and

accordingly, the fourth respondent in this writ petition, viz., the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai has

fixed qualifying marks for the students for admission as follows:

a) A candidate should have passed the Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent with 45% of marks in aggregate (not below 540 out of

1200)

b) The 45% of marks in the Higher Secondary examination will be inclusive of First Improvement only

c) For Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe applicants, a mere pass in the Higher Secondary examination is enough

4.3. It is stated that out of 100 students to be admitted per year, the management can fill up 50% of seats while the remaining 50% are to be filled

through CENTAC and the Government of Puducherry has not sponsored the required number of students for many years resulting in lapsed

category in which the private institutions after following the procedure have admitted students. It is stated that the Government of Puducherry could

not fill up the CENTAC quota seats for the academic year 2008-2009, the CENTAC system discontinued and the petitioner and other institutions

were permitted to fill up all seats and therefore, the petitioner has admitted students for D.T.Ed. course for the academic year 2008-2009. Since

there were no sufficient takers of seven seats, students belonging to SC and ST community, who scored marks above 40% and below 45% in the

qualifying examination were admitted based on the direction of the fourth respondent in this writ petition, namely the Director, Directorate of

Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai relating to admission in the State of Tamil Nadu.

4.4. It is stated that the petitioner/institution has forwarded the list of 50 students on 26.8.2008, another list of 35 students on 29.9.2008 and a

further list of 15 students on 30.9.2008 for approval of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry. It is stated that when one student, Ms.

Victoria discontinued, another student was admitted in her place and her name was sent on 30.9.2008. It is stated that the last list of students

dated 30.9.2008, numbering 15, was returned for want of particulars like sex, age, community, date of birth, etc. and after complying the same,

the list was once again sent on 25.10.2008 and 29.10.2008 and the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has not passed any orders in

spite of the reminders. It is stated that the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has granted approval of admission in respect of other

institutions like Loyola Institute of Teacher Training, etc.

4.5. It is further stated that when the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Puducherry has directed the petitioner to

forward the list once again, the particulars were furnished again and in spite of it no orders were passed by the Government. It is stated that the

petitioner/institution falls under the control of the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai and that the said

authority has published the time table scheduling the first year D.T.Ed. examination to commence from 22.6.2009. The petitioner/ institution has

sought for approval of admission of the said students from respondents 2 and 3 in the said writ petition, however the third respondent has

approved admission of candidates in S. Nos. 1 to 85, while rejecting admission of candidates at S. Nos. 50 to 53 in the Science stream and S.

Nos. 27 to 29 in Arts stream, stating that the said 7 candidates are ineligible for admission since they have secured less than 45% of marks in the

Higher Secondary examination, however it is stated that no order has been passed in that regard.

4.6. It is stated that for disapproval of the said seven candidates, the second respondent has relied on the earlier guidelines issued dated 4.6.2008

which is impugned in this writ petition, wherein it is stipulated that for admission to D.T.Ed. course the required educational qualification is a pass in

Higher Secondary examination or equivalent course with 60% of marks, with relaxation of 5% of marks in favour of SC/ST and OBC candidates.

The said guidelines issued by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry dated 4.6.2008 is assailed on the grounds that it is arbitrary and

illegal, that no written order has been passed, and that when the CENTAC system of admission has been given up, the qualifications prescribed by

the fourth respondent being the examining body for the D.T.Ed., namely a pass for SC/ST candidates should alone be taken into consideration and

not the impugned norms of the Government of Puducherry.

5.1. Likewise, the petitioner/institution in W.P. No. 10819 of 2009, viz., Senthil Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry has also challenged the said

guidelines of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry dated 4.6.2008 seeking for approval of admission of 15 students listed at S. Nos.

86 to 100 in the petitioner''s representation dated 30.9.2008 which has been listed in the annexure to the type set as follows:

Sl.No. Name of the candidate

1 S. Govindaraj

2 A.Arulmozhi

3 S. Soniya Gandhi

4 D. Dhanavel

5 K. Vijayakarpagam

6 S.Uma

7 N. Jothimeena

8 A. Jayapratha

9 S.Arun

10 K. Jawahar Prabhu

11 M.Mani

12 P. Bamasantha Regini

13 P.Somasundaram

14 E. Pragash

15 K. Suresh

5.2. In this case also like that of the petitioner in W.P. No. 10923 of 2009, the petitioner being an institution whose students are to write

examination conducted by the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai scheduled to commence on

22.6.2009, and the Government of Tamil Nadu having prescribed a mere pass for admission of candidates belonging to SC/ST community, it is

contended that respondents 2 and 3 cannot claim under the guidelines that the minimum qualification should be 60% of marks for admission with

5% relaxation for SC/ST candidates. In this case, all the 15 students who were rejected belong to SC/ST community and they secured above

40% and below 45% of marks in the qualification examination and the challenge to the guidelines is also similar as that of W.P. No. 10923 of

2009.

6.1. Similar is the case in respect of the petitioner/institution in W.P. No. 11140 of 2009, viz., Paaventhar Teacher Training Institute. This

petitioner/institution also challenges the guidelines dated 4.6.2008 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry and seeks approval

of admission of 10 candidates listed in S. Nos. 1 to 10 of the petitioner''s letter dated 20.8.2008, which is as follows, along with another list of 27

candidates as per the list dated 31.7.2008.

Sl. No. Name of the candidate

1 Tamizharasi.N

2 Sudha.B

3 Rajasekaran.P

4 Sobinichandra.M

5 Thirumalai.M

6 Sudha.N

7 Logapriya.S

8 Parimala.G

9 Manimekalai.G

10 Vithiya.G

6.2. In this writ petition also the petitioner/institution has based its claim on the point that when the examining body, viz., the Director, Directorate

of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai and the Government of Tamil Nadu have fixed mere pass in Higher Secondary Examination

for admission to D.T.Ed. course, the Government of Puducherry has fixed minimum mark of 60%, with 5% relaxation for SC/ST candidates for

the year 2008-2009 and therefore, the same is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is also stated that the above said candidates also belong to SC/ST

community.

7. Therefore, on a broad perusal of the entire records it is evident that W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140 of 2009 filed by Senthil Teacher

Training Institute, Puducherry, St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal and Paaventhar Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry respectively

are relating to admissions in the year 2008-2009 during which time the admissions by CENTAC is stated to have been given up and in these three

cases the petitioners have challenged the impugned guidelines of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry dated 4.6.2008, by which the

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has prescribed the minimum educational qualification for admission to D.T.Ed. course as a pass in

Higher Secondary Examination or equivalent with at least 60% of marks, however with a relaxation of 5% of marks in case of SC/ST and OBC

candidates, thereby stipulating that in respect of the said candidates if they get 55% marks alone they will be eligible for admission and as stated

above, in the said writ petitions various students belong to SC and ST community were admitted who secured 40% to 45% marks in the qualifying

examination and therefore, they are not eligible by the impugned guidelines issued by the Government of Puducherry and that is challenged on the

ground that inasmuch as the examining body is the fourth respondent, namely the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and

Training, Chennai and in the State of Tamil Nadu the admitted qualification for SC/ST candidates is a minimum pass in Higher Secondary

examination, the stipulation by the Government of Puducherry of more marks is illegal.

8. On the other hand, in W.P. Nos. 14813 of 2008 and 11698 of 2009 filed by the same institute, viz., Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute,

Puducherry relate to admission of 14 students in the said institute in the year 2007-2008 under CENTAC category, whose names were not

approved as they are not domiciled in Puducherry and for a consequential direction to approve the admission of the said candidates and to permit

them to complete the course.

9. Likewise, in W.P. No. 11699 of 2009, which relates to St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal, G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat

(Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 is assailed for the reasons stated in the said writ petition, but without challenging the Government order, the writ

petition is filed for a direction to approve the admission of 27 candidates admitted in the year 2007-2008 under the CENTAC category, who are

not domiciled in Puducherry.

10.1. At this point of time it is relevant to point out that in respect of the students admitted in Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry

for the year 2007-2008, this Court has passed an order on 25.6.2008 in M.P. No. 2 of 2008 in W.P. No. 14813 of 2008 directing the

respondents to permit the students of the petitioner/institution to write their first year examinations, with a further direction not to release the results

until further orders stating that it is subject to the result of the writ petition without conferring any right either on the students or on the institution.

10.2. Thereafter, in the order dated 26.6.2009 passed in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in W.P. No. 11698 of 2009 relating to the same institution, a

direction was issued in respect of the said 14 students to write their second year examination to commence from 30.6.2009, directing that the

results shall not be published until further orders and that the same is subject to the result of the writ petition without conferring any right on the

students or the institution and it is not in dispute that based on the said two interim orders, the said 14 students have taken up their first and second

year examinations of the two years D.T.Ed. course.

10.3. It is also seen that in respect of the students of St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute of the year 2007-2008, the subject matter of W.P. No.

11699 of 2009, this Court by order dated 26.6.2009 in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 has permitted the students to write their second year examination

scheduled to commence on 30.6.2009 with the same directions, namely not to publish their results and that the same is subject to the result of the

writ petition, stating that no right shall be deemed to have been conferred on the students or the institution.

10.4. In W.P. No. 10819 of 2009 in respect of Senthil Teacher Training Institute, Puducherry, for the year 2008-2009, it is seen that by an order

dated 18.6.2009 passed in M.P. No. 2 of 2009, this Court has permitted the students to take up their first year examination commencing from

22.6.2009 with the same conditions.

10.5. Similar relief was granted by order dated 19.6.2009 in M.P. No. 2 of 2009 in W.P. No. 10923 of 2009, in respect of students of St.

Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal of the year 2008-2009.

10.6. That was also the order dated 22.6.2009 passed in M.P. No. 2 of 2009 in W.P. No. 11140 of 2009 in respect of the students of

Paaventhar Teacher Training Institute of the year 2008-2009 permitting the students to take up their first year examination.

10.7. Thus, the students of the said three institutions have taken up their first year examination in D.T.Ed. course and are continuing their second

year course for which the examination is due in June, 2010.

11.1. In the counter affidavits filed by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry in W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140 of 2009, it is the

case of the second respondent/Directorate of School Education, Puducherry that the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms

and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 which was issued by notification dated 27.11.2007, while fixing the eligibility criteria for admission to D.T.Ed.

course, prescribed that the candidate should have minimum 50% of marks in the Senior Secondary Examination (+2) or its equivalent and there

shall be relaxation of 5% of marks in favour of SC/ST and OBC and other categories of candidates and the same is in consonance with the said

directions of the NCTE which has prescribed the minimum required marks for general candidates as 50% in the qualifying examination and 45% of

marks in respect of SC/ST, OBC and other candidates.

11.2. It is further stated that the petitioners/institutions are aware of the norms fixed by the Government of Puducherry and also the National

Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 notified on 27.11.2007 and they have willfully violated the

norms for the year 2008-2009.

11.3. It is stated that the lists of students submitted by the petitioners/institutions were kept pending since they have admitted students who are not

domiciled in Puducherry against the seats reserved for Puducherry domiciled candidates. It is stated that the rejection of approval of candidates

numbering 15 in respect of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 10819 of 2009 was already communicated on 30.4.2009 and that was not challenged

and therefore, the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Likewise, the petitioner/institution in W.P. No. 11140 of 2009 was also

communicated the order dated 2.1.2009 regarding the approval and that has not been challenged.

11.4. In respect of the contention raised by the petitioners/ institutions that the examining body, viz., the Director, Directorate of Teacher

Education, Research and Training, Chennai has prescribed different qualification for admission and that has to be followed by the second

respondent/Directorate of School Education, Puducherry also, it is stated that the Government of Puducherry is not having its own Board

conducting various qualifying examinations like SSLC, Matriculation, HSC, D.T.Ed., etc. It is stated that Puducherry is a conglomeration of four

regions, viz., Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam. While Puducherry and Karaikal are situated near Tamil Nadu, Mahe is situated near

Kerala and Yanam is situated near Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the said neighbouring States are requested to conduct various qualifying

examinations and the Directorate of Government Examination of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala were the examination conducting bodies

whose role is only to conduct examinations, declare results and award certificates. It is stated that the examinations are conducted within the

territory of Puducherry through its own machinery and answer papers are sent to examining board for valuation. It is stated that the petitioners/

institutions are all approved by the Government of Puducherry, including the approval of the faculty and admission of students and therefore, it

cannot be said that merely because the adjacent State board, viz., Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai is

conducting examination on behalf of the Government of Puducherry, the norms followed by the said Government in that State should be followed

for admission process.

11.5. It is further stated that the admission of students in the petitioners/institutions is against the norms prescribed by the Directorate of School

Education, Puducherry which are in consonance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures)

Regulations. It is stated that the role of the examining body in conducting examination is very limited while the Government of Puducherry is the

Government which has got the right of admission and right of approval of candidates which includes fixing qualification for admission and the

petitioners/institutions cannot be heard to say that the norms fixed by the adjacent States have to be followed merely because the examination is

conducted by the Board of adjacent States for and on behalf of the Government of Puducherry as its agent.

12.1. In W.P. Nos. 11698 and 11699 of 2009 which relate to the admission of students for the year 2007-2008, the counter affidavits filed by the

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry would state that the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures)

Regulations, 2006 notified on 30.11.2006 is applicable based on which the eligibility criteria for admission is that the candidate should have

obtained minimum 50% of marks in the Senior Secondary Examination (+2) or its equivalent examination and there shall be relaxation of

marks/reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC and other categories as per the Rules of the Central Government/State Government/Union Territory

administration concerned.

12.2. While stating that the Government of Puducherry is a conglomeration of various regions as stated above in the other writ petitions and that

the examining bodies are Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, it is emphasized that admissions are done by the Government

of Puducherry as per the norms prescribed and students are sent for examinations to be conducted by the examining bodies only by the

Government of Puducherry and the Government of Puducherry by following National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and

Procedures) Regulations, 2006 has issued order on 16.5.2007 by which the admissions of the Puducherry Professional Educational Institutions

(Provision of Reservation, Admission of Students and Fixation of fees) Regulations, 2006 was framed by the Government of Puducherry by

following G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 prescribing that 50% of sanctioned intake in a private Teacher

Training Institute shall be filled on the basis of merit from the candidates belonging to the Union Territory of Puducherry subject to the domicile

condition prescribed in the said government order and the reservation norms have also been fixed. The Government of Puducherry has not given

any relaxation of marks as per the said order dated 16.5.2007 and therefore, the qualification for all candidates for admission to D.T.Ed. course is

minimum 50% of marks in the qualifying examination, apart from the domicile condition to be followed in respect of 50% of the vacancies and any

admission in violation of the said conditions is not valid and the Government of Puducherry is well within its power not to approve such admissions.

12.3. While dealing with the validity of the domicile condition imposed by G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006

which is also questioned in some of the writ petitions, it is the case of the Government of Puducherry that the petitioners/institutions have come into

existence pursuant to the No Objection Certificate issued by the Government of Puducherry and that the approval was also granted by the

Government of Puducherry, apart from approval of faculty and admission of students and therefore, the norms fixed by the Government in the said

government order cannot be said to be invalid.

12.4. It is also stated that in similar cases, viz., W.P. No. 37081 of 2007, etc. wherein there was a challenge regarding the admission guidelines

issued for the academic year 2008-2009, it was held that the Government of Puducherry has acted well within its powers and as per the NCTE

guidelines and that as in other States, the Government of Puducherry has got its own right to frame guidelines.

12.5. It is stated that the petitioners are aware of the Regulations of the year 2006 and in spite of it they have violated the same. It is also stated

that the Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute, the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 11698 of 2009 for the academic year 2007-2008 admitted 100

students, out of which 50 were admitted under management quota and 36 were admitted in CENTAC seats and after approval of those students

the petitioner/institute has admitted 14 non resident candidates in the vacant resident seats, which were not initially approved and subsequently, out

of the 14 candidates, 9 candidates who have scored 50% and more marks in the qualifying examination were approved by the Government of

Puducherry and in respect of the remaining 5 candidates who scored marks below 50% in the qualifying examination, they were not accorded

approval, which is as per the order of the Government of Puducherry dated 16.5.2007 stated above.

12.6. Likewise, in respect of St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute, the petitioner in W.P. No. 11699 of 2009, out of 100 students admitted for the

year 2007-2008, 50 students were admitted under management quota and 2 students were admitted in CENTAC seats and the same was

approved and the petitioner/institution has admitted 48 non resident candidates in the vacant resident seats, which was not initially approved and

subsequently, out of the said 48 candidates, the admission of 21 candidates who scored 50% and above marks was approved and other 27

candidates who have scored below 50% marks were not granted approval and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner/institution.

13.1. Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated

1.4.2008 made in W.A. Nos. 137 of 2008, etc. batch [The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department and Anr. v.

Kumaran Ashram Medical Trust Teacher Training Institute], apart from the decision in Self Self Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes

Association Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, to contend that in the absence of definition of the word ''affiliation'', the term ''examining body'' u/s 2(d)

of the NCTE Act has reference to the State Government as well as the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training and therefore, there

is no distinction between the examining body and the affiliating body and in such circumstances, different standard for admission cannot be made

by the said bodies.

13.2. It is also his submission that the Administrator of Union Territory is not a competent authority under the University Grants Commission Act

and the Regulations made there under and therefore, the government order which is impugned cannot be sustained in law. In this regard he would

rely upon the order dated 4.12.2001 passed W.P. No. 11051 of 2001, etc. batch cases [Sree Narayana Educational Guidance Society,

Thalassery v. Government of Pondicherry, rep. by Secretary to Government, Education Department].

13.3. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and

Others, to substantiate his contention that it is the duty of the Government to take steps for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes and other backward communities and that the students belonging to such categories are to be considered with utmost priority. It is his

contention that when the NCTE Regulations which relate to 2006-2007 make it mandatory for the Government to make relaxation in respect of

SC/ST and OBC candidates, the conduct of the Government of Puducherry in not making any such relaxation in respect of the above said

candidates for the year 2006-2007 is opposed to the constitutional mandate. In this regard he would also rely upon the decisions of the Supreme

Court in Ram Bhagat Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others,

.

13.4. To substantiate his contention that there could be no discrimination on the basis of birth marks, he would rely upon the decision in Mervyn

Coutindo and Others Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Others, and Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of India (UOI), .

13.5. It is his further contention that inasmuch as in all these cases the students of these institutions were permitted to undergo the course and write

their examinations by orders of the Court, in all fairness a direction should be given to release the results.

14.1. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. T. Murugesan, learned Senior Counsel and Government Pleader (Puducherry) that the

Government of Puducherry being a Constitutional entity is entitled to prescribe eligibility criteria for admission of the students to D.T.Ed. course in

the colleges situated within its territory.

14.2. It is also his submission that in the year 2006-2007 when admissions were made and guidelines were issued by the Government in the order

dated 16.5.2007, the Government of Puducherry has not granted any relaxation in respect of SC/ST and OBC candidates, thereby making it clear

that all candidates belonging to all communities seeking admission to D.T.Ed. course should have minimum 50% of marks in the qualifying

examination and the candidates are also aware of that.

14.3. It is his submission that for the year 2007-2008 the Government of Puducherry has not given any relaxation of marks to the candidates

belonging to SC/ST and OBC categories and such relaxation was given in the year 2008-2009, which according to the learned Senior counsel is

perfectly within the powers of the Government of Puducherry.

14.4. It is his submission that the examining body, viz., Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training of Tamil Nadu, Andhra

Pradesh and Kerala are only the agents acting on behalf of the affiliating body, viz., the Government of Puducherry and it cannot be said that the

Government of Puducherry, which is the affiliating body, has to follow the norms framed by the different State Governments simply because they

are the examining bodies. He would rely upon the decision in Self Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association Vs. The State of Tamil

Nadu, .

14.5. He would also refer to various Constitutional provisions to show that the Government of Puducherry has got independent status under the

Constitution and would submit that the legislative competency of the Government of Puducherry has been upheld. In this regard he would rely upon

the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahe Beach Trading Co. and Others Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others, .

14.6. It is also his submission that the NCTE Regulations prescribing qualification for the purpose of relaxation should be taken as a discretion

given to the Union Territory of Puducherry and it is for it to decide whether to relax or not. In this regard, he would rely upon the decision in

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .

14.7. It is his submission that the delegation of powers to the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training of neighbouring

States is only for want of infrastructure with the Government of Puducherry and that the admission procedure as contemplated under the NCTE

Regulations is being done only by the Union Territory of Puducherry administration.

14.8. It is his further submission that when the students are lacking qualification as prescribed by the Government of Puducherry for admission to

D.T.Ed. course, simply because they were permitted to write examination, such defects cannot be condoned. It is his submission that any student

who got less than 50% of marks cannot get relaxation and that the students who got less than 45% marks can never think of being eligible for

admission. It is also his submission that in these cases rejection orders passed by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry against the

petitioners/ institutions have not been challenged and the Government of Puducherry has its own admission policies which cannot be questioned.

15. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Government of Puducherry and given my

anxious thoughts to the issue involved in all these writ petitions.

16.1. In respect of W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140 of 2009 which relate to the admissions made in the year 2008-2009, admittedly, the

National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 issued by notification dated 27.11.2007 is

applicable. As per the said Regulations wherein norms and standards for elementary teacher education programme leading to Diploma in

Education (D.Ed.) have been prescribed in Appendix-2, the intake, eligibility and admission procedure is as under:

3.0. Intake, Eligibility and Admission Procedure.

3.1. Intake

There shall be a basic unit of 50 students, for each year. However, the District Institute of Education & Technology (DIETs)/District Resource

Centres (DRCs) sanctioned under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme on Teaching Education could be sanctioned a maximum intake of 200 subject

to fulfillment of other requirements.

3.2. Eligibility

3.2.1. Candidates with at least 50% marks in the senior secondary examination (+2) or its equivalent are eligible for admission.

3.2.2. The reservation for SC/ST/OBC and other categories shall be as per the rules of the Central Government/State Government, whichever is

applicable. There shall be relaxation of 5% marks in favour of SC/ST/OBC and other categories of candidates.

3.3. Admission Procedure

Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other

selection process as per the policy of the State Government/UT Administration.

16.2. Therefore, the eligibility for admission to D.T.Ed. course for a candidate as per the said Regulations of 2007 is minimum 50% marks in the

senior secondary examination (+2) or equivalent. The clause also makes it mandatory that in respect of the candidates belonging to SC/ST/ OBC

and other categories 5% marks shall be relaxed, which means that in respect of those candidates if they have 45% marks in the qualifying

examination that is sufficient to enable their admission to be accepted in accordance with law. That is also admitted in the counter affidavit filed by

the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry in W.P. No. 10819 of 2009.

16.3. As far as the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 10819 of 2009 is concerned, by responding to the letter of the petitioner/institution dated

30.9.2008 sending the names of 100 students stated to have been admitted for the first year in 2008-2009, it is stated that the admission of

students in S. Nos. 1 to 85 was approved, while 15 students in S. Nos. 86 to 100 who belong to the scheduled caste community have obtained

less than 45% of marks but more than 40% marks in the qualifying examination. The names of those candidates is as extracted in paragraph 5.1.

and the marks they have obtained in the qualifying examination are 44.25%, 44.16%, 44.08%, 43.83%, 43.75%, 43.66%, 43.58%, 43.41%,

43.25%, 42.5%, 41.91%, 41.75%, 41.58%, 41.41% and 41.75%.

16.4. Admittedly, they are all students not domiciled in Puducherry. Therefore, the case of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry is that

since these 15 students who belong to scheduled caste community have obtained less than 45% of marks which is minimum required mark for

scheduled caste community candidate, as per the Regulations they are not eligible to be admitted and their admission is against the guidelines issued

by the Government of Puducherry on 4.6.2008 which is in respect of educational qualifications, age, etc. and the National Council for Teacher

Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007. The educational qualification prescribed as per the said circular of the

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry is as follows:

(a) Educational Qualification:

(i) A pass in the Higher Secondary Course or equivalent with atleast 50% of marks.

(ii) There shall be a relaxation of 5% marks in favour of SC/ST and OBC candidates.

The above said guidelines further prescribe a condition that 50% of the sanctioned intake in a private teacher training institution shall be filled up on

the basis of merit from the candidates belonging to the Union Territory of Puducherry by satisfying the domicile condition as per G.O.Ms. No. 64,

Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006.

16.5. However, it is the contention of the petitioner/institution that in spite of the efforts taken by them to admit students in the said 50% category

from the candidates domiciled in Puducherry, sufficient candidates were not available and in fact that is also not in dispute and therefore, the

petitioner/institution has made advertisement in the dailies and in spite of it there were no students available and therefore, they had to ultimately

admit students from neighbouring States of Tamil Nadu and other States in order to avoid lapsing of seats and therefore, it was a matter of

necessity.

16.6. As far as the petitioner/institution in W.P. No. 10819 of 2009 is concerned, on fact it is clear that those 15 students who were admitted

under the scheduled caste categories have got marks below 45% in the qualifying examination and therefore, there admission is against the

National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 as well as the guidelines of the Government of

Puducherry and therefore, it is not necessary to go into the aspect of domicile nature in that cases. On the square reasoning of want of qualifying

marks, the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

16.7. It is further relevant to point out that in fact the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has rejected the approval in respect of 15

students by the order dated 30.4.2009 and the petitioner/institution without challenging the said rejection order has filed this writ petition

challenging the guidelines dated 4.6.2008, in which, as stated above, the Government of Puducherry has fixed the educational qualifications in

consonance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 and therefore, there is no

necessity insofar as the said writ petition is concerned to go into the validity or otherwise of the said guidelines dated 4.6.2008, since the

educational qualification of the 15 students whose admission was not approved is less than the minimum marks prescribed by the National Council

for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007.

16.8. Even though it is true that the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry as an independent constitutional entity is competent to have its

own guidelines in line with the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, it cannot be said that the students were not aware

of the said stipulations regarding the eligibility criteria for admission. It is also relevant to point out that in none of these cases the students have

approached the court.

16.9. In such circumstances, when the said 15 students were admitted without having the required educational qualification, their admission cannot

be said to be valid in law. This is not a case where students are admitted beyond the strength however with qualification so that a leniency can be

shown taking note of the fact that by orders of the Court the students have taken up the examination, but it is a case where the students have no

qualification for admission at all and the admission is in total breach of admission rules and even though by orders of the Court they were permitted

to write examinations and complete the course, the original admission should be treated as only illegal. I am therefore of the firm opinion that W.P.

No. 10819 of 2009 is liable to be dismissed.

17.1. Similarly, the case of St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal, the petitioner in W.P. No. 10923 of 2009, also relates to the

admissions made during the year 2008-2009. As it is seen in the affidavit of the petitioner/institution itself, out of 100 students list sent for approval,

the names of 7 students have not been approved on the basis that they secured less than 45% marks in the Senior Secondary Examination (+2)

qualifying examination. The names of the said seven candidates and the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination are as under:

S.No. Name % of Marks

1 Sakthivel.M 43.08

2 Ramesh.M 40.75

3 Kavitha.B 38.58

4 Deviprakasam.M 37.33

5 Thirunavukkarasu.K 41.00

6 Manikandan.M 39.92

7 Thirugnanam 37.17

17.2. Out of the above said seven candidates, the first four candidates, viz., S. Nos. 1 to 4 belong to Science stream and the next three

candidates, viz., S. Nos. 5 to 7 belong to Arts stream. Admittedly, all of them have obtained marks less than the marks prescribed by the National

Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 and for the reasons stated above in respect of W.P. No.

10819 of 2009, this petitioner/institution is also not entitled to any relief claimed on the basis of challenge of the guideline issued by the Directorate

of School Education, Puducherry dated 4.6.2008. Hence, W.P. No. 10923 of 2009 is also liable to be dismissed.

18.1. Likewise, in respect of W.P. No. 11140 of 2009 which relates to Paaventhar Teacher Training Institute, as it is stated in the affidavit filed by

the petitioner, the names of 10 students admitted have been rejected on the ground that they have obtained less than 45% marks in the Senior

Secondary Examination (+2) qualifying examination. The said ten students belong to either scheduled caste or most backward class community, of

course not domiciled in Puducherry.

18.2. For the above said reason that there is no conflict between the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and

Procedures) Regulations, 2007 and the guidelines issued by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry dated 4.6.2008 in respect of fixing

of educational qualification for admission to D.T.Ed. course, on that ground alone I am not able to accept the case of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the petitioner/institution is not entitled to the relief claimed and this W.P. No. 11140 of 2009 is also liable to be dismissed.

19.1. In these writ petitions, viz., W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140 of 2009, one more point which has been raised by the petitioners is that

the fourth respondent, the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai is conducting examination and as far as the

admission of students for D.T.Ed. in Tamil Nadu, as per the guidelines prescribed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the qualifying mark is less than the

one prescribed by the Government of Puducherry, namely the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry and therefore, inasmuch as the

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry is not conducting examination, the marks prescribed for admission by the Director, Directorate of

Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai who is conducting examination should be taken into account for the purpose of eligibility

criteria.

19.2. The said contention has absolutely no legal basis to stand in the eye of law. Even as per the National Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007, as elicited above, the Union Territory of Puducherry is given a definite right to frame its

guidelines regarding the admission process. As it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry, it is

only for want of infrastructure facilities, at request the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai is conducting

examination on behalf of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry and the examinations are conducted within the Union Territory of

Puducherry.

19.3. Taking note of the peculiar situation of the Union Territory of Puducherry, wherein a part (Puducherry and Karaikal) is situated near to Tamil

Nadu, another part (Mahe) is situated near to Kerala and yet another part (Yanam) is situated near to Andhra Pradesh, by practice and at the

request of the Government of Puducherry, the said adjacent State Governments are conducting examinations on behalf of the Directorate of

School Education, Puducherry. The admission process is done by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry based on the guidelines framed

by the Government of Puducherry. As an entity recognized under the Constitution of India as Union Territory and based on its status, the

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has framed guidelines and those guidelines cannot be ignored and merely because a lesser

qualification is prescribed by the adjacent State which is acting as an examining body on behalf of the Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry, the guidelines framed by the said States cannot be made applicable to the candidates who applied pursuant to the notification issued

by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry, especially when it is admitted fact that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140

of 2009 are approved and recognized by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry. Holding otherwise would only amount to interfering

with the constitutional status of the Government of Puducherry which is not permissible in law.

19.4. That apart, the guidelines prescribed by the Government of Puducherry for the purpose of admission and conducting of examination,

especially relating to educational qualification required for admission to the first year of D.T.Ed. course are perfectly in consonance with the

National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 and therefore, the contention raised in that

regard cannot be sustained.

19.5. At this stage it will be relevant to point out that the legislative competency of the Union Territory of Puducherry has been upheld by the

Supreme Court in Mahe Beach Trading Co. and Others Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others, as follows:

19. By virtue of (The) Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, the Pondicherry Legislature was given the powers which any other State

Legislature had to enact laws with respect to the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List. Of course, Sub-section 2 of Section

18 provides that the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) shall not derogate from the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution to

make laws with respect to any matter for the Union Territory. But, there is no such law relating to the imposition of sales tax on diesel and petrol

which has been enacted by the Parliament, while the Validation Act has imposed such a tax. It is not in dispute, and now it is well settled, that the

State Legislature as well as the Parliament has the power to legislate with retrospective effect and also to pass a Validation Act. This being so, and

the powers of the legislature of Pondicherry being co-extensive with the powers of a State Assembly, by virtue of Section 18 of (The) Government

of Union Territories Act, 1963, there is no reason for this Court to hold that the Pondicherry Legislature could not enact a law with retrospective

effect. In other words, by virtue of Section 18 of (The) Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, the Parliament vested with the Pondicherry

Legislature the plenary powers to legislate with respect to the matters in List II and List III of the Seventh Schedule and the said power has been

validly exercise with the enactment of the Validation Act.

19.6. While dealing with minor ports under the Ports Act, 1908 in respect of jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Puducherry

Port and rejecting the contention that before awarding any contract to a private party the Government of Puducherry ought to have taken prior

approval of the Central Government by placing reliance on Section 5 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962, it was held by the Supreme

Court in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that the said contention was misconceived and the said

power is vested completely with Government of Puducherry and not with Central Government, as follows:

22. The contention that a conjoint reading of Article 239 and 239A of the Constitution and Sections 46, 50 of the Government of Union Territories

Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Pondicherry, 1963, would show that the Government of Pondicherry has to

take prior approval of the Central Government before awarding the contract to any private party and, therefore, the Letter of Intent issued in

favour of the respondent No. 11 should be regarded beyond jurisdiction of the Government of Pondicherry, is misplaced and has no substance.

19.7. Furthermore, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140 of 2009 who have obtained approval from the Government of

Puducherry and obtained NCTE approval cannot now go back to say that the guidelines framed by the Government of Puducherry for admission

are not applicable or that the Union Territory of Puducherry is not a competent authority.

19.8. The reliance placed on the judgment rendered by me in Self Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association Vs. The State of Tamil

Nadu, by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is again misconceived. While construing the term ""examining body"" in consonance with Section

12(b) of the NCTE Act, it was held that examining body is not only University but also any other agency or authority or institution affiliated for

conducting examination and therefore, the term ""examining body"" should be construed as State Government as well as the Director of Teacher

Education, Research and Training. On the facts of the present case, since admittedly the examination is conducted by the Director of Teacher

Education, Research and Training, Chennai at the request of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry as its agent and the examinations

having been conducted by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai on behalf of the Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry as well as the Government of Puducherry should be considered as examining body

while construing the provisions of the NCTE Act.

19.9. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Mahatma Gandhi University and Anr. v. Gis Jose and Ors. [2008] 8 MLJ 794 (SC) has held that when

students were admitted in breach of the admission rules and when the admission is totally illegal, any sympathy shown would amount to a

misplaced sympathy. While allowing the appeal filed by the University, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

9. The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened. Such a

course was disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. Vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others, . In paragraph 6 of the Judgment,

this Court observed as follows:

6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the

examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the

result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare

straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions....

10. In the present case, the college where the student was admitted, in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but

also to write the examination which was totally illegal.

19.10. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case in respect of the writ petitioners in W.P. Nos.

10819, 10923 and 11140 of 2009, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the results of the

candidates whose admissions were rejected should be directed to be published. In such view of the matter, W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140

of 2009 stand dismissed on the ground that the students admitted are having no required educational qualification as per the National Council for

Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 as well as the guidelines of the Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry.

20.1. As stated above, W.P. Nos. 14813 of 2008 and 11698 of 2009 are filed by the same institution, viz., Venkateswara Teacher Training

Institute, Puducherry. While in W.P. No. 14813 of 2008 the petitioner/ institution has challenged G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-

I), dated 25.5.2006 and sought for a direction to approve the admission of 14 candidates admitted in the lapsed CENTAC seats for the academic

year 2007-2008, W.P. No. 11698 of 2009 has been filed for the purpose of permitting the said 14 candidates who form part of W.P. No. 14813

of 2008 to complete their D.T.Ed. course and to permit the students to get their Diploma Certificates.

20.2. It is stated that in the year 2006 when the Government of Puducherry has passed the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat

(Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 to the effect that 50% of the sanctioned intake in private institutions must be filled up by CENTAC from among

the candidates domiciled in the Union Territory of Puducherry, for want of students domiciled in Puducherry when there were lapsed seats in the

said category, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has permitted by order dated 29.1.2007 the private managements of unaided

Teacher Training Institutes to fill up the lapsed seats themselves by adhering to the domicile rule. It is stated that in the said year 2006, in spite of

the efforts taken the candidates domiciled in Puducherry were not available and therefore, those lapsed seats were filled up from the students

outside Puducherry and those admissions were approved.

20.3. For the year 2007, when 50 seats were sought to be filled up by CENTAC by notification, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry

was able to forward only 36 seats for admission and the balance 14 seats remained unfilled and at the request of the petitioner/ institution the

Government of Puducherry again published notification calling for admission to D.T.Ed. course from persons domiciled in Puducherry and there

was no response and it is stated that the petitioner/ institution itself has again advertised in the leading newspapers and not even a single candidate

from Puducherry came forward to apply and therefore, the petitioner/institution was constrained to admit 14 qualified students from the State of

Tamil Nadu who applied for admission and after that the list was sent for approval to the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry. The

Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has approved the admission of students under CENTAC quota and management quota, but did not

pass any orders regarding the 14 students admitted under the lapsed category who belonged to OBC/MBC and SC categories. Since approval

has not been granted by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry on the basis that the admission has been done in violation of G.O.Ms.

No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 stipulating domicile condition for admission under CENTAC quota, the

petitioner/institution has challenged the said government order and also sought permission regarding the 14 students as stated above. The names of

the said 14 students have already been elicited above in paragraph 2.7.

20.4. As admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in W.P. No. 11698 of 2009, for the students of the year 2007-2008 the

National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2006 notified on 30.11.2006 is applicable. As per the

said Regulations, the eligibility criteria is as follows:

3.2. Eligibility

3.2.1. Candidates with at least 50% of marks in the senior secondary examination (+2) or its equivalent are eligible for admission.

3.2.2. There shall be relaxation of marks/ reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC and other categories as per the Rules of the Central

Government/State Government/UT Administration concerned.

20.6. The Government of Puducherry in the guidelines issued for the year 2006-2007 has fixed the eligibility criteria at 45% of marks in Higher

Secondary Course without granting any relaxation in respect of SC/ST and OBC categories. However in the guidelines framed for the year 2007-

2008 dated 16.5.2007, the educational qualification has been changed as a pass in Higher Secondary Course or equivalent with at least 50% of

marks. This cannot be said to be in consonance with the NCTE Regulations of the said year in the sense that the Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry has not given relaxation in respect of SC/ST and OBC and other categories. Therefore, even though relaxation has not been given for

SC/ST and OBC and other categories of candidates, for which no percentage has been fixed by the NCTE, the Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry itself has fixed 45% of marks for all candidates irrespective of the communal character.

20.7. It has been the consistent view of the Apex Court that the State Governments are empowered to relax the minimum qualification marks

required to ensure that the candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC categories secure admission to professional courses. In Rajesh Kumar Verma

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, , while dealing with the admission to MBBS and BDS Courses in respect of the reserved category of

students, after elaborately discussing three decisions of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and

Others, , Aarti Gupta and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and Ombir Singh v. State of U.P. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 64, it was held as

follows:

9. It will thus be seen from the discussion in the above said three decisions that this Court has consistently held that the State Government is

empowered to relax the minimum qualifying marks requirement to ensure that candidates belonging to the SC/ ST/OBC category secure admission

to professional courses. The same view was expressed by a Division Bench of the M.P. High Court comprising Faizan Uddin and Naolekar, JJ. in

Amrit Bajpai v. State of M.P. [M.P. No. 3164 of 1992 delivered on 15th December, 1992]. Despite that another Division Bench of the same

High Court comprising Gyani and Deo, JJ. while hearing a batch of petitions upturned by the judgment impugned in the present appeal on the plea

that this Court''s observations in the case of Peethambaram [1986] 4 SCC 348 departed from the earlier view. We think, with great respect, that

the distinction is sought to be drawn where none exists. That was a case where the relevant Rule did not employ the expression ''aggregate'' and an

effort was made to inject that concept in the said Rule through interpretation which would have led to absurd results. That decision had nothing to

do with the issue which was directly and substantially in issue before the Division Bench. None of the three decisions referred to earlier was cited

for the obvious reason that the point under consideration was wholly different and turned on the interpretation of the relevant rule. With respect we

think that the Division Bench of the High Court which rendered the impugned judgment laboured to find a distinction or reason to depart from a

consistent view where none existed.

20.8. That was also the view of the Apex Court in Ram Bhagat Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, while dealing with the

qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates in the service jurisprudence, by holding that equality of opportunity does not mean absolute equality and

that lower standard of eligibility must be prescribed for persons belonging to SC/ST or backward classes, apart from relaxation in age without

hampering the efficiency of administration. The operative portion of the said decision is as follows:

5. As mentioned hereinbefore, the contention of the petitioners is that 55% marks in aggregate in all papers including viva voce test constitute

rather a high standard for qualification and eligibility. They contend that for most of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe aspirants for the job it

is difficult to achieve that standard. It is said that in other parts of this vast land of ours the standard is not as high as that. Sri Venkatramani,

advocate for the petitioners, contended that in other States on an all-India basis such a high standard of marks is not envisaged. Sri Mahabir Singh,

learned advocate appearing for the State of Haryana and Sri C.M. Nayar, learned advocate for the Public Service Commission contend that it

must be presumed that the minimum percentage desirable for the purpose of efficiency has been prescribed. It was further submitted by Sri Nayar

that in respect of candidates other than scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, normally those obtaining far higher than 55% marks become eligible

for consideration. That may or may not be so but what is required is that we must ensure efficiency in administration. We must, therefore,

objectively, rationally and by a conscious process-conscious in the sense by application of mind to the relevant factors arrive at a percentage which

should be considered to be a minimum one in order to ensure the efficiency of the administration. We are conscious that high efficiency is required

because the recruitment is in the judicial branch, that is to say, for prospective judicial officers who will be in charge of administration of justice in

the country. But at the same time, if possible, in order to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, a percentage should be fixed which without, in

any way, compromising with the efficiency required for the job which will be attainable by backward communities, that is to say, scheduled castes

and scheduled tribes. Unless such a percentage is fixed on the aforesaid basis and a percentage is fixed for qualification which would normally be

unattainable by the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes determined on an objective basis, it would not be possible to ensure equality of

opportunity. Both Shri Mahabir Singh and Shri Nayar have urged that the minimum must be presumed to have been so fixed in the Haryana

Service. However, that fact is not apparent and there is nothing on record to indicate that this percentage was fixed deliberately on an analysis and

careful examination and determination on the lines and the principles indicated above.

20.9. It is also relevant to point out the observation of the Full Bench of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari

Nivedita Jain and Others, , which was referred to in the judgment in Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of M.P., referred supra, which is as follows:

25. It cannot be disputed that the State must do everything possible for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other

backward communities and the State is entitled to make reservations for them in the matter of admission to medical and other technical institutions.

In the absence of any law to the contrary, it must also be open to the Government to impose such conditions as would make the reservation

effective and would benefit the candidates belonging to these categories for whose benefit and welfare the reservations have been made. In any

particular situation, taking into consideration the realities and circumstances prevailing in the State it will be open to the State to vary and modify the

conditions regarding selection for admission, if such modification or variation becomes necessary for achieving the purpose for which reservation

has been made and if there be no law to the contrary. Note 2 of Rule 20 of the Rules for admission framed by the State Government specifically

empower the Government to grant such relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks to the extent considered necessary. In the State of Kerala and

Another Vs. N.M. Thomas and Others, , this Court by a majority had held that relaxation of the Rules which required a lower division clerk to

pass a departmental test within a period of two years in the interest of the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was

not unconstitutional or illegal. The relaxation made by the State Government in the rule regarding selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes for admission into medical colleges cannot be said to be unreasonable and the said relaxation constitutes no violation

of Article 15(1) and (2) of the Constitution. The said relaxation also does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. It has to be noticed that there is

no relaxation of the condition regarding eligibility for admission into medical colleges. The relaxation is only in the rule regarding selection of

candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories who were otherwise qualified and eligible to seek admission into

medical colleges only in relation to seats reserved for them. The respondent Nivedita Jain and other deserving candidates may feel that because of

the reservations they are being deprived of the opportunity of getting their admission into medical colleges. It is. however, to be noted that the

validity of the reservations of seats for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories has not been challenged in the

writ petition and very properly as in view of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. In the case of Dr. Jagadish Saran and Others Vs. Union of India

(UOI), , relied on by Mr. Phadke, this Court has held that the Indian Constitution is wedded to equal protection and non-discrimination and

Articles 14, 15 and 16 are inviolable and Article 29(2) strikes a similar note though it does not refer to regional restrictions or reservations; Article

15 further saves State''s power to make special provisions for women and children or for advancement of socially and educationally backward

classes and reservations under Article 15(4) exist and are applied. This Court further held at p. 855 as under:

Coming to brass tacks, deviation from equal marks will meet with approval only if the essential conditions set out above are fulfilled. The class

which enjoys reservation must be educationally handicapped. The reservation must be geared to getting ever the handicap. The rationale of

reservation must be in the case of medical students, removal of regional or class inadequacy or like disadvantage.

20.10. Taking note of the consistent view of the Apex Court and the Constitutional mandate, for the year 2007-2008, the Directorate of School

Education, Puducherry ought to have granted relaxation for the students belonging to SC/ST and OBC and other categories.

20.11. However, pending the writ petition, in the counter affidavit it is categorically stated that out of the 14 seats which were not originally

approved, 9 candidates who secured 50% and above marks in the qualifying examination were approved by the Government of Puducherry, not

approving the admission of only 5 candidates who secured below 50%. The marks and communal status of the said 9 candidates are:

Sl. No. Name of the Communal % Marks

candidate status

1 Mallika.G SC 53.83

2 Manimegalai.M MBC 55.75

3 Manjula.M MBC 58.67

4 Neela.S SC 53.08

5 Saritha.A

6 Sathya.C SC 52.67

7 Soruba Rani Sumathi.G BC 61.08

8 Tamilselvi.M BC 76.17

9 Vijaya.V SC 64.08

Even though the particulars of one Saritha.A are not available in the type set of papers, all the said candidates who are admittedly not domiciled in

Puducherry have obtained marks which are more than the prescribed limit by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry in the guidelines as

stated above and are also in consonance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2006

as stated above.

20.12. It is also relevant to see that the admission of remaining five students among the said 14 students, namely Karunakaran.R, Annapackia

Pusha.A, Cilintha Julie Thaddeus.K, Kalaimathi.S, and Sumithra.P has been approved by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry in the

order dated 25.6.2008 as they have secured 45% and more marks, viz., 45%, 48.33%, 49.03%, 46.83% and 49.33% respectively.

20.13. Therefore, in effect, the admission of all the 14 students has been approved and consequently only thing to be done is that since they have

written the examination, there results should be declared and Diploma certificates should be issued in accordance with law.

20.14. In such view of the matter W.P. No. 11698 of 2009 is allowed. Since the said 14 students have appeared for examination as per the

directions of this Court and completed their course, the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry is directed to approve their admission and

release their results and issue Diploma certificates, if there are no other legal impediments. Such orders shall be passed by the Directorate of

School Education, Puducherry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. By virtue of the order passed in W.P.

No. 11698 of 2009, no order is necessary in W.P. No. 14813 of 2008 and the same is disposed accordingly.

21.1. In W.P. No. 11699 of 2009 wherein St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute is the petitioner, even though the same has been filed for a

direction against the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry to permit the students numbering 27 admitted for the year 2007-2008, whose

names have already been elicited above in paragraph 3.1., to complete their D.T.Ed. course, the writ petition incidentally challenges G.O.Ms. No.

64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006.

21.2. In this case also the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry has sent only two students for admission as against 50 CENTAC seats.

The remaining 48 seats were not filled up for want of students domiciled in Puducherry and the Government has also published notification and in

spite of it nobody was available and the petitioner/ institution after making necessary advertisement in the newspapers has admitted 48 students

who are not domiciled in Puducherry.

21.3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that out of 48 candidates who are admittedly not domiciled in Puduchery, the admission of 21 candidates

who have secured 50% and above marks in the qualifying examination was approved by the Government of Puducherry and the admission of

remaining 27 candidates was not approved for the only reason that they have secured below 50% of marks.

21.4. For the reasons stated in W.P. No. 11698 of 2009, the facts of which are also similar to this, when the Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry ignoring the contents of G.O.Ms. No. 64, Chief Secretariat (Education-I), dated 25.5.2006 has approved the admission of 21

students who were admittedly not domiciled in Puducherry, they should approve the admission of these 27 candidates also provided they belong to

SC/ST and OBC and other categories who are entitled for exemption.

21.5. In view of the consistent view taken by the Apex Court, if the said 27 candidates have secured marks between 45% to 50%, there

admissions should be approved by the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry and inasmuch as they have all taken up their examination as

per the directions of this Court, their results are directed to be published and certificates are to be issued within four weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. W.P. No. 11699 of 2009 is allowed, subject to the above condition.

In the result,

(i) W.P. Nos. 10819, 10923 and 11140 of 2009 are dismissed;

(ii) W.P. No. 11698 of 2009 is allowed and by virtue of the order passed in W.P. No. 11698 of 2009, no order is necessary in W.P. No. 14813

of 2008 and the same is disposed; and

(iii) W.P. No. 11699 of 2009 is allowed subject to conditions.

No costs.