IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 29.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.3380 OF 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 P. Subburaj .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary/Director Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training. Chennai 600 006 2.The Principal, 112, Good Shepheard Teacher Training Institute, Nagarcoil Post, Kanyakumari (Dist)629 004. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st Respondent in their proceedings No.006262/E2/2009 dated 21.1.2010 and quash the said order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 21.1.2010 and further direct the 2nd Respondent herein to declare the results of the practical examinations written by the petitioner and issue all the mark sheets to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr. T. Velumani For Respondent-1: Mrs. Dhakshayini Reddi (Govt. Advocate)Eduation For Respondent-2: Mr.B. Rabu Manohar ORDER The Petitioner passed Plus two examination and scored 841 marks out of 1200. He applied for Diploma in Teacher Education Course during the year 2006-2007. The educational qualification is a pass in Higher secondary Examination with 45% of marks. He got selected through the Single Window System and was given admission in the 2nd respondent institution by the 1st respondent vide order dated 10.10.2006. In the order dated 10.10.2006, the 1st respondent stated that the fee for the 1st year course was Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,500/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already remitted at the time of counseling, could be adjusted and it is sufficient if the petitioner remits the balance amount of Rs.1,500/- as special fees. 2. Based on the same, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent. But the second respondent insisted the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,500/- for admission in the first year. The petitioner brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent about the order of the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to remit only Rs.1,500/- as special fees. However, the 2nd respondent insisted the petitioner, to pay a sum of Rs.26,500/- for the 1st year course. 3. In the said circumstances, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.26,500/- to the 2nd Respondent at the time of admission, for which the 2nd respondent gave a receipt for Rs.1500/- only. The petitioner states that he applied for bank loan for his education. However, he was not able to get the bank loan. 4. Under such circumstances, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to return the excess fee of Rs.25,000/- paid by him. But the 2nd respondent refused to accede his request. In the meanwhile, the petitioner completed the 1st year course and also appeared for the examinations, both Theory and Practical. He passed both the Theory and Practical Examinations. 5. For the 2nd Year course, the 2nd respondent refused to receive Rs.1,500/- towards Special Fee and on the other hand, they insisted the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,500/- for admission in the 2nd year course. The petitioner states that already he was under financial crisis and also, he was not able to get bank loan for his education. In such circumstances, the dispute arose between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner as to the payment of fees. On one hand, the 1st respondent stated that fee was only Rs.1,500/-, but on the other hand, the 2nd respondent insisted the petitioner to pay Rs.26,500/-. 6. The 2nd Respondent refused to permit the petitioner to attend classes. Hence the petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11908 of 2008 praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent not to insist for payment of any amount other than Rs.1,500/- towards Special Fee for the 2nd Academic year for Diploma in Teacher Education course and for a consequential direction to return the excess fee of Rs.25,000/- collected for 1st year course. 7. When the above Writ Petition was heard on 14.5.2008, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent gave an undertaking on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent would not prevent the petitioner from attending the 2nd year classes. The said undertaking was recorded by this Court on 14.5.2008 and the Writ Petition was directed to be posted along with other Batch of Writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petitions of similar nature. 8. However, the agony of the petitioner continued in spite of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, since the 2nd respondent did not permit him to attend 2nd year classes. Therefore the petitioner was forced to file a Contempt Petition in Cont.Petition No.524 of 2008 before this court. He also filed a Sub Application No.168 of 2008 along with contempt petition. An order was passed by this court in Sub Application on 26.6.2008 directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to attend the 2nd year classes. Only thereafter, he was permitted to attend classes. Thereafter, he was also permitted to write the second year Theory and Practical examinations. The petitioner was successful in Theory examinations. But he failed in Practical Examinations. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent took vengeance and failed in the practical examinations. 9. I am not going into the said matter as the same is not relevant to this case. 10. Thereafter the petitioner applied to appear for the supplementary examinations for practical . The 2nd respondent refused permission for the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examinations. Hence he approached the 1st respondent by making a representation dated 18.12.2009. The Principal, D.I.E.T., Theroor, vide its order dated 12.05.2009, permitted the petitioner to write the supplementary examinations. The said order was also communicated to the second respondent and accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the same. However, the result of the practical examinations of the petitioner was withheld. 11. Hence the petitioner made a representation dated 15.05.2009 to the 1st respondent to publish result and for issuance of mark sheet. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 stating that his attendance is only 48.6% and that therefore, his request for publication of result and issuance of mark sheet, is not going to be acceded to. 12. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has came up with the present writ petition seeking for quashing the aforesaid order dated 21.1.2010 of the 1st respondent and for a consequential direction to declare the result of the practical examination and to issue mark sheet to him. 13. Notice of motion was ordered on 22.02.2010. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit. 14. Heard Mr.T.Velumani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.Dhakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate for the 1st Respondent and Mr.B.Rabu Manohar learned counsel for 2nd respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. The aforesaid facts, more particularly the fact relating to filing of W.P.No.11908 of 2008 and Contempt Petition No.524 of 2008, are not in dispute. There was some confusion due to the order dated 10.10.2006 issued by the 1st Respondent that only Rs.1,500/- was the fee payable to Diploma in Teacher Education Course. The prescription of fee of Rs.5,000/- to Diploma in Teacher Education Course was made by the 1st respondent and Rs.3,500/- paid by the candidates at the time of counseling was adjusted towards the aforesaid sum of Rs.5,000/- and the institution was asked to collect only Rs.1500/-, per student, per year. This was challenged by the Teacher Training institutions. An interim order was passed by this court permitting the institutions with permanent structures, to collect a sum of Rs.24,000/- as fee per year and for the institutions with non permanent structure, a sum of Rs.23,000/- was fixed as fee per year. The same is still pending and the Teacher Training Institutions are permitted to collect the aforesaid fees as determined by this court. The aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent is not disputed. In the said Scenario, the petitioner suffered a lot and he came to this Court twice. Hence the first Respondent could not say that there was lack of attendance in his case. Moreover, the petitioner was permitted to undergo Theory and Practical examinations on completion of 2nd year course and the Principal, D.I.E.T., Theroor permitted the petitioner to undergo supplementary practical examinations. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent is not justified in stating that there was lack of attendance to appear for examination. In fact lack of attendance for the petitioner had to be considered by the 1st respondent before permitting the petitioner to appear for examinations, but after permitting the petitioner to appear for examination, it does not lie in the mouth of the 2nd respondent to state that there is a lack of attendance. In the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner could not be blamed and the root cause is only the 1st respondent as stated above. Moreover, the issue is still pending relating to fixation of fees for Teacher Training Institution. 16. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent is not correct in passing the impugned order withholding the result of practical examination and refusing to issue mark sheet to the petitioner. 17. At this juncture the learned Government Advocate submits that she got instructions that the petitioner has passed the practical examinations. 18. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to issue mark sheets and certificates to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19. In the above terms, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar msr / r n s To The Secretary/Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai 600 006. 2 cc To Mr.T. Velumani, Advocate, SR.35296/10 1 cc To Mr.B. Rabu Manohar, Advocate, SR.55352/10 W.P.No.3380 of 2010 rsn(co) pmk.30.7.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/