IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 24-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.10168 of 2009 Tamil Nadu Commerce Institute Association rep. by its President, No.16/20A Nandhi Kovil Street, Tiruchirapalli 620 002. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Chairman, Board of Examinations, Office of the D.T.E., Guindy, Chennai-600 025. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the action of the respondent in insisting upon purchase of two computers for according recognition/approval to Typewriting Institutes teaching Typewriting is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.229, dated 21.3.1995, and consequently, direct the respondents to strictly implement G.O.Ms.No.229, dated 21.3.1995, in matter of according recognition to Typewriting Institute teaching Typewriting. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridass For Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. With the consent of the parities concerned the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the action of the respondents in insisting upon the purchase of two computers for according recognition/approval to Typewriting Institutes is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, and consequently to direct the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, in granting recognition to Typewriting Institutes, teaching typewriting courses. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Commerce Institute Association, which is a registered Association, with Registration No.212/2007 (42/73). It has been stated that there are nearly 2700 Typewriting Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu, imparting technical education in the field of Typewriting, Shorthand, Accountancy, etc., They are the members of the petitioner Association. 5. The present writ petition has been filed against the action of the respondents insisting that every Typewriting Institute should purchase two computers, as a pre-condition for the grant of recognition. It has been stated that no such condition has been prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, for the granting of recognition to the Typewriting Institutes. 6. It has been further stated that the respondents have framed Rules for granting recognition to the Typewriting Institutes. Typewriting Institutes are expected to comply with the requirements prescribed in the Rules before the Government grants the formal recognition. The rules for recognition of such Institutes have been codified by the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995. 7. As per Rule-11 of the Recognition Rules, framed under the Government Order, dated 21.3.1995, the Institutes seeking recognition should have a minimum of Five English Typewriting machines, one Tamil Typewriting machine (if the concerned Institute is seeking recognition in Tamil Typewriting) and one Duplicator. They are the only requirements for getting recognition for conducting coaching in Typewriting and for sending the students for the Typewriting examinations, conducted by the second respondent. It has been further stated that the prospectus issued along with the application for approval/recognition prescribes the minimum requirements for getting the approval. However, the respondents, while issuing the approval https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ orders from the year, 2008, have been insisting that the Institutes should purchase two computers. It has also been stated that if the concerned Institutes fail to purchase the computers, the approval would not be granted. 8. It has been further stated that the policy decision of the respondents, in insisting upon the purchase of computers by the Institutes seeking recognition/approval for conducting Typewriting courses, is contrary to the existing Rules. It is arbitrary, as it has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules framed for the recognition/approval. The main object for establishing such Institutes is to impart sound technical education in Typewriting etc. Knowledge in operating computers is not required. The said contention of the petitioner is strengthened by the fact that the Government, while issuing G.O.Ms.No.422, Higher Education (B1) Department, dated 30.9.2008, for introducing Pre-junior Grade Typewriting examination for the students who have passed the 6th standard examinations, had clearly stated that the knowledge of Typewriting, when it is imparted in the Elementary School level, will increase the efficiency of the students in their use of computers at the High school level. While so, the policy decision taken to insist upon the purchase of two computers by the Typewriting Institutes would be without any legal or factual basis. 9. It has been further stated that for conducting the Office Automation Course, computers would become necessary, as the syllabus for the said course prescribes, training in computer operations. However, it would not be relevant for teaching Typewriting courses. Even the number of students enrolled for the Office Automation Course is decreasing. Many of the Typewriting Institutes cannot afford to spend Rs.50,000/- in purchasing two computers before seeking for recognition/approval. Therefore, the decision of the Government to insist upon the purchase of two computers by the Typewriting Institutes, for the grant of recognition/approval, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the allegations and averments made on behalf of the petitioner Association have been denied. It has been submitted that in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, it has been stated that the regulations given in the Annexure to the said Government Order has to be followed for the purpose of granting approval/recognition to the Typewriting Institutions. In the said Annexure it has been stated that the Typewriting Institutions should follow the revised conditions or additional conditions, if any, prescribed in the future. Further, in G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (B1) Department, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 20.2.2002, the Government had approved the introduction of a certificate course in Office Automation, from April/may 2002, on self-supporting basis. The draft rules and regulations and the syllabus for the said certificate course had been prepared by the Directorate of Technical Education. Based on the standing instructions, the Directorate of Technical Education had issued instructions to the newly established Typewriting Institutions that the grant of approval would be subject to the purchase of two computers by the Institutes for imparting training to the students. Since manual Typewriting is decreasing and the use of computers has been on the increase it has become essential to introduce learning of computer operations in the Typewriting Institutions. The purchase of the computers would be in addition to the other conditions already in existence. The stipulation of the said condition is only for imparting the much needed training to the students in computer operations. 11. It has been further stated that the Typewriting Institutes while applying for recognition have given an undertaking that they will abide by the rules and regulations of the Board. Hence, imposing of the condition for the purchase of the computers is neither arbitrary and unreasonable, nor it is contrary to the rules and regulations applicable to the Typewriting Institutes, who are said to be the members of the petitioner Association. In fact, many Typewriting Institutes are satisfied and enthusiastic about the proposal to introduce the computer operations and they have not shown any dissent or resistance against the conditions imposed by the respondents. The Government has the power to introduce such conditions in the general interest and the welfare of the students and the community at large and therefore, it would not be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The second respondent had imposed the condition only on the newly started 123 Commercial Technical Institutes. Therefore, it would be open to the petitioner Association to contend that its members, said to be numbering about 2700, would be adversely affected by the imposition of the said condition. In fact, there are nearly 3900 Commercial Technical Institutes and 123 newly started Commercial Technical Institutes functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu, with the approval of the second respondent. The Certificate Course in computers on Office Automation, from the year, 2002, introduced by the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (B1) Department, dated 20.2.2002, on self-supporting basis, could be started in all the Commercial Technical Institutes and therefore, purchasing of computers by the said Institutes would only be useful to them in conducting the said course. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. It has been further stated that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.130, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 22.7.2008, states that the Certificate Course in computers on Office Automation would be useful to the candidates applying for the post of typists and steno typists in Government departments. Thus, it would be useful both for the Commercial, Technical Institutes, as well as to the students of such Institutes to learn a course in computers. 13. It has been further contended that the petitioner Association has no locus standi to file the present writ petition, since the additional condition prescribed would only be in respect of 123 newly established, Commercial Technical Institutes. The additional condition imposed by the second respondent would not be adversely affecting the other members of the petitioner Association. In fact most of the newly established Institutes welcomed the move to introduce a course in computers for the benefit of the students. Further, the petitioner Association has not submitted a list of its members, while filing the writ petition. 14. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the petitioner Association has the locus standi to file the writ petition, as it affects all its members. From the records it is clear that the petitioner Association has been consulted by the second respondent at every stage, on the earlier occasions. Since the members of the petitioner Association are aggrieved by the introduction of the new condition for the approval of the Institutes it is the duty of the petitioner Association to espouse the cause of its members by way of filing the present writ petition. When the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, specifies certain conditions, such conditions cannot be modified by way of executive directions issued by the second respondent. The claim made by the respondents that the power to issue such directions is based on the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.463, Education Department, dated 25.3.1988, cannot be justified. Further, the claim made by the respondents that it would be useful for the Institutes to purchase the computers for conducting the Office Automation course, is also erroneous, as no recognition is granted for the said course. It is not obligatory on the part of the Commercial Technical Institutes to conduct the said course. Therefore, it becomes optional for the Institutes to purchase computers, as it may be necessary for those Institutes which have decided to introduce the Office Automation course. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the action of the respondents in insisting that the Commercial Technical Institutes, who are members of the petitioner Association, should purchase two computers for being granted recognition/approval, is contrary to the rules relating to recognition and the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995. Further, computers would not be necessary for learning typewriting. The purchase of computers do not, in any way, help the Institutes in imparting Typewriting courses. 16. It has been admitted by the respondents that learning of Typewriting skills at the Pre-junior grade would help the students in improving their skills in operation of computers during their High School studies, as found from G.O.No.422, Higher Education (B1) Department, dated 30.9.2008. The insistence by the respondents that the Commercial Technical Institutes should purchase two computers, as a pre-condition for recognition/approval, does not serve the object sought to be achieved. 17. The conditions imposed by the respondents would be contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The introduction of additional conditions, contrary to the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, by way of the impugned proceedings, dated 8.10.2007, is arbitrary and illegal. The said condition is sought to be introduced behind the back of the Technical Commercial Institutes, which are members of the petitioner Association. No opportunity had been given to them to put forth their case. Since it is a policy decision of the respondents the petitioner Association has a right to challenge the same. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, which had been approved by an order of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.1537 of 1994, cannot be altered by way of a letter issued on behalf of the respondents. For the purpose of teaching the skills of Typewriting, the computers are not necessary. There is no nexus between the proposal to introduce the condition and the object sought to be achieved. Though the petitioner Association is not against computers, in general, it is against the introduction of the pre-condition imposed by the respondents to purchase two computers for granting of recognition/approval. Computers may be necessary only for the Certificate Course in Computer on Office Automation. However, computers would not be necessary for the conducting of the Typewriting courses. More than 65 thousand students are appearing for the examinations in Typewriting, every year. Whereas, only 500 candidates are learning the computer course. In fact, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued orders, in G.O.Ms.No.50 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Higher Education (B1) Department, dated 24.2.2004, prescribing the minimum education qualification for admission to the certificate course in computer on Office Automation. 18. It has been further stated that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on Clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.463, Education Department, dated 25.3.1988, granting certain powers to the Board of examinations to make new regulations is unsustainable, as it has been stated in Para-2 of the said Government Order that the said powers had been vested in the board only for a period of three years. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has not been in a position to show as to whether the powers have been extended for a further period. In the usual course, a committee of experts is constituted for making decisions to review the curriculum. However, in the present case no such committee had been constituted before introducing the new condition. The power to amend the existing rules laying down the condition can only be by way of a Government Order and it shall be based only on the existence of a real necessity to make such amendments. When the course content and the syllabi have not been challenged, there is no necessity for the introduction of the new condition. Further, the respondents cannot expect the Commercial Technical Institutes to spend a large sum of money on the purchase of computers, as it would be imposing a condition impossible of performance. 19. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. She had contended that the order issued by the second respondent, insisting on the purchase of two computers, would be only in respect of 123 newly established Typewriting Institutes and it would apply only for fresh Institutes for recognition or approval. Since the petitioner Association is not prejudiced, in any way, it cannot maintain the writ petition, especially, when individual orders have been issued to the Institutes concerned. The condition had been introduced only in the interest of the students and the Institutes concerned. In fact many of the Institutes have shown their enthusiasm for implementing the said condition, requiring them to purchase the computers. However, it would be open to the members of the petitioner Association to make their representations to the authorities concerned for exempting them from the condition for a specified period. Since the Technical Commercial Institutes are introducing the course in computer in Office Automation, it becomes necessary for the Institutes to purchase the computers. Further, there is a clear nexus between the proposal to introduce the condition and the object sought to be achieved. Many of the Government departments and other public sector companies are prescribing knowledge in computer applications as a pre-condition for recruiting candidates to join the service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. According to G.O.No.463, Education Department, dated 25.3.1988, the Government has delegated the power to the Director of Technical Education and the Chairman of the Board of Examinations, to exercise the powers, without reference to the Government, on the functions of the Board of examinations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have no powers to impose such conditions on the Commercial Technical Institutes. Further, it is a policy decision of the Government to introduce computer courses to impart the knowledge for the students of Commercial Technical Institutes, who are undergoing training in the Commercial Technical Institutes. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Association is devoid of merits. 21. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Association that the respondents do not possess the powers for introducing the condition on the Commercial Technical Institutes, for the purchase of two computers, for the grant of approval to such Institutes, cannot be countenanced. 22. From the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.229, Education, Science and Technology (T1) Department, dated 21.3.1995, it is clear that additional conditions could be prescribed by the authorities concerned for the grant of recognition/approval of Commercial Technical Institutes. Introduction of computers for training the students in computer applications and Office Automation courses cannot be said to be onerous in nature. Such a policy decision has been taken by the Government and the authorities concerned in the interest of the students, as it would help them in being recruited in Government service, as well as in public and private sector undertakings. As it has been stated by the respondents that individual communications have been sent to 123 Commercial Institutes, imposing the condition to purchase two computers for the granting of approval, it cannot be stated, as a general proposition, that a substantial number of members of the petitioner Association would be adversely affected. 23. Further, in view of the fact that the newly established Commercial Technical Institutes have not resisted the introduction of the condition, it would not be appropriate for the petitioner Association to take a stand contrary to the interests of such new Institutes. Even if the petitioner Association had not been consulted before the condition had been imposed, it would not give rise to a cause of action for the petitioner Association to agitate the matter. In view of the fact that most activities in the present day scenario https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are computer based and when heavy reliance is placed on computers, both in commercial and non-commercial activities, it would not be open to the petitioner Association to contend that knowledge in computer operations would not be useful to the students and the Commercial Technical Institutes, even though the core content of such Institutes would have a greater emphasis on imparting skills in Typewriting. In such view of the matter, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Association are not sustainable, as they are devoid of merits. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Chairman, Board of Examinations, Office of the D.T.E., Guindy, Chennai-600 025. 1 cc To Mr.Balan Haridoss, Advocate, SR.34364. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.34416. Writ Petition No.10168 of 2009 RSM(CO) RVL 07.08.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/