IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 01..04..2008 C O R A M The Honourable Mr. A.P. Shah, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan Writ Appeal Nos.137, 220, 278 and 361 of 2008 W.A. NO.137 OF 2008 : 1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND TRAINING, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-6. .. APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS VERSUS KUMARAN ASHRAM MEDICAL TRUST TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, RUN BY KUMARAN ASHRAM MEDICAL TRUST, KUMARAN NAGAR, THAMARANKOTTAI, PATTUKOTTAI-614 615, TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT R. VEERAPPAN. .. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER W.A.220 of 2008 1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI. 9. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND TRAINING, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-6. ... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 Vs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 VIGNESH TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, RUN BY VIGNESH EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.28, KALENDRA VILLAGE (JOLARPET) VANIYAMBADI T.K. VELLORE DIST, 635 751 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY J.USHA JAYAPATHI. ... RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER 2 THE MEMBER SECRETARY NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, HANS BHAVAN, WING II, 1, BAHADURSHA ZAFAR MARG, (NEAR ITO ) NEW DELHI-2. 3 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, CST BUILDING I FLOOR, HMT POST, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-31. ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 W.A.278 OF 2008 1. THE DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION, RESEARCH & TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, DPI CAMPUS, CHENNAI-6. 2 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION & TRAINING, KRISHNAGIRI DIST. ... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS vs 1 CHRISTINA TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, MR.M.KUMAR RAJA, COLLECTOR BUNGALOW BACK SIDE, VATRILAIKARAN PALLAM, A. JATTIHALLI (POST) DHARMAPURI DISTRICT-636 708. ... RESPONDENT / PETITIONER https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 MR.K.BALAN FORMERLY PRINCIPAL INCHARGE, DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION & TRAINING, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT W.A.361 OF 2008 SELF FINANCING PRIVATE TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTES ASSOCIATION (REGD). REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR.TVK BABU, NEW NO.11, OLD NO.7, 3RD CROSS STREET, WEST CIT NAGAR, CHENNAI-35. ... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER VS 1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION, RESEARCH & TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, DPI CAMPUS, CHENNAI-6. 3 THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HANS BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 4 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, FIRST FLOOR, CSD COMPLEX, HMT TOWNSHIP, BANGALORE-31. ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS : Mr. N Kannadasan, Addl. Advocate General, For Appellant Assisted by Mr. G. Sankaran, in W.A.137/08 and Spl. Govt. Pleader (Education). W.A.220/08 and W.A.278 of 2008 For Respondent 1 and 2 in W.A.361/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For 2 and 3 in Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, W.A.220/08 for 3 & 4 in Senior Standing Counsel, W.A.361 of 2008 Assisted by Mr. P.R. Gopinath. For Appellant in W.A.361/08 :Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy SC for Mr.R. Suresh Kumar For Respondent in W.A.137/08 Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel for Mr. E. Vijay Anand For T.T.Is. : Mr. N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel for Mr. R. Suresh Kumar Mr. C. Selvaraju, Senior Counsel for Mr. N.M. Hidayathullah Khan Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr. V. Anantha Natarajan and for Mr. K.G. Senthil Kumar Mr. V. Sudhakar & Mr. V. Selvaraj Mr. N. Muralikumaran Mr. B. Rabu Manohar J U D G M E N T Prabha Sridevan, J. The State has filed W.A. Nos.137 and 220 of 2008 aggrieved by t order passed in W.P. No.20569 of 2007 etc. batch; the Director Teacher Education has filed W.A. No.278 of 2008 against the order pass in W.P. No.25164 of 2007; and the Self-Financing Private Teach Training Institutes Association has filed W.A. No.361 of 2008 again the order passed in W.P. No.25998 of 2007. A brief factual backgrou of the case is necessary. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. By G.O. 2(D) No.59, School Education Department dated 14.1.200 the Government directed the Director of Teacher Education, Research a Training, the second respondent herein, that 30.11.2006 shall be t last date for admission to the Diploma Course in Teacher Educati (D.T.E.) for the academic year 2006-2007 and that no private Teach Training Institutes shall admit students for the D.T.E. Course beyo 30.11.2006 for the said year and even if the seats are unfilled, th cannot be a ground for making any admissions and there will be admissions after the cut-off date even if the seats are unfilled. was made clear that any deviation in the said direction may result appropriate steps being taken against the erring institutes. It w also directing that 20.11.2006 shall be the last date for approval teaching faculty. 3. By G.O. 2(D) No.7 dated 9.2.2007, School Education Departmen the above Government Order was slightly modified, since the Associatio of Private Teacher Training Institutes ('TTIs' for short) h represented that the last date for approval of teaching faculty may extended because of shortage of required qualified staff and the seco respondent herein, had also stated that some TTIs had obtained orde from this Court for re-consideration of the proposals sent by the Therefore, the Government, by this Government Order, extended the la date for approval of the teaching faculty to 9.3.2007. A batch of wr petitions was filed in W.P. No.47503 of 2006 etc. (referred to as 't first batch of cases') challenging G.O. 2(D) No.59 referred to abov These writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 3.4.2007, where t learned single Judge (V. Ramasubramanian, J.) had taken note of t subsequent G.O. 2(D) No.7. 4. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that when t last date for approval of faculty members is extended to 9.3.2007, th the last date for admission of students should also be appropriate extended and there should be an interval of at least ten days betwe the last date for approval of faculty members and the last date f admission of students. The learned single Judge held that if there such extension, it would eventually destroy the concept of academic ye and when the NCTE Regulations provide that students of diploma shou undergo internship, then if the academic year of TTIs does not coinci or at least closely follow the academic year, then the prescription internship will turn out to be a farce. Therefore, the learned sing Judge upheld the prescription of 30.11.2006 as the last date f admission of students. The learned Judge, while disposing of the wr petitions, gave certain directions. They are as follows : (a) The impugned Government Order in G.O. 59 was upheld; (b) As regards G.O.7, it was held that this concession is only in respect of the current academic year 2006-2007, since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Amended Regulations, 2005 were notified on 13.1.2006 and the revised Appendix-2 Norms and Standards under Amended Regulations 2006 were notified only on 11.12.2006; (c) The Government was directed to issue a compendium of guidelines indicating, inter alia, the date of commencement of the course, the cut-off date for approval of staff members and the cut-off date for admission of students etc.; (d) The Government was further directed to make it clear as to the question of grant of affiliation or approval of admission of students and appointment of faculty members will be considered for every academic year and that the institutes which receive orders of recognition beyond the cut-off date would be entitled to have affiliation and approval of affiliation of students and appointment of staff members only for the following academic year; (e) Since the NCTE had now modified the format of the orders of recognition and the academic year is not mentioned in the orders of recognition, the institutes will have a right from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards to admit students only after the grant of approval of staff members and the grant of affiliation by the State Government, in view of Regulation No.7(11), 7(12) and 8 (10) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005. (f) The Government was also directed to publish the compendium of guidelines in the Government Gazette to avoid further complications. 5. In compliance of this order, the Government issued G.O. M No.108 on 17.5.2007 and the following directions were given : "1. Permission is accorded for filling up the seats under Government quota through counselling under Single Window System, at four places in Chennai. 2. The period from July to June should be treated as academic year of each year for the Diploma in Teacher Training. 3. The calendar of activities and the guidelines to be followed as indicated in the Annexure should be implemented from the academic year 2007-2008. Unless specific changes are required, these guidelines should continue to be followed in the coming academic year also. 4. It is further ordered that the admission of students to the Diploma in Physical Education for the academic year 2007-2008 may be adopted by following the calendar of activities followed for admission of candidates to the Diploma in Teacher Education Course and the expenditure for this may be met from the funds allotted for selection for DTE under Single Window System. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. This order should be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette extraordinary on 17.5.2007." The Annexure to the said G.O. deals with educational qualificatio subject-wise allotment, rule of reservation, special reservation, a limit, calendar of activities etc. This G.O. came to in for attack in batch of cases in W.P. Nos.20569 of 2007 etc. (referred to as 't second batch of cases'), which was disposed of by the learned sing Judge (P. Jyothimani, J.) on 11.1.2008 by the order which is impugn herein. The learned single Judge, by a detailed order, allowed in pa the writ petitions with the following directions : "(i) G.O.Ms.No.108 School Education (U1) Department dated 17.05.2007 in so far as it imposes reservation of admission based on subjectwise in relation to Non-minority Self Financing Private Teacher Training institutes imparting Diploma in Teacher Training is set aside; (ii) The portion of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.108 School Education (U1) Department dated 17.05.2007 relating to communal reservation in so far as it relates to Non-minority Self Financing Private Teacher Training institutes is set aside, however, with an observation that it is open to the Private Management to accept to follow the Government's reservation policy voluntarily, in which event, this portion of the judgement shall not stand in their way; (iii) The respondents being "examining body" under the NCTE Act are authorities entitled to approve the teachers list on the hormonius construction of Section 14(4), 14(6) and 16 of the NCTE Act, however, not imposing conditions more than the NCTE Act and Regulations made thereunder and can suo motu on sufficient reasons or on specific complaint verify the correctness of the particulars with specific reference to the qualifications of the teachers furnished by the Institutes while obtaining recognition from the NCTE. In cases of discrepancy regarding qualification, it is open to the 2nd respondent to inform the same to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in respect of the concerned teacher and shall grant approval regarding the other teachers, who confirm to the requirements of the NCTE; (iv) The calendar of activity found in the impugned Government Order, as modified by the Government in the terms stated above, shall be made applicable and shall be scrupulously followed by all parties concerned from the academic year 2008-2009; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) The State Government and the authorities empowered by the State are empowered to approve the list of teachers, conduct examinations and prescribe syllabus for the students of Diploma in Teacher Education, in consonance with Sections 14(4) and 14(6) of the NCTE Act; (vi) Based on the NCTE Regulations, for the academic year 2006-2007, the list of teachers sent by the private institutes shall be considered and approved by the second respondent, viz., Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (vii) The second respondent, viz., Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai shall fix the date for First Year D.T.Ed., examination for the students admitted in the year 2006-2007 in January, 2008, after calculating the number of working days by taking into consideration the last date of admission of students for academic year 2006-2007 as per the Government Order; (viii) For the academic year 2007-2008, the admission process including the approval of teachers shall be completed within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that Institutes which have not forwarded the list of new teachers approved by the NCTE etc. shall submit the list forthwith to the second respondent and the second respondent shall approve the list based on the NCTE regulations within the time stipulated above; (ix) The second respondent shall fix the date of Examination for First Year D.T.Ed. Course, 2007-2008 batch by calculating number of working days from first week of January'2008 and fix the date of examination in July or August,2008; and (x) The Government as well as Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training shall issue fresh calendar of activities for the academic year 2008-2009 in consultation with the Institutes, the calendar of activities shall be published and intimated to all Institutes by April, 2008 and the same shall be scrupulously followed by all concerned from the academic year 2008-2009 onwards." 6. Heard Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate Gener appearing for the State Government, Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy appeari for the N.C.T.E. and Mr. N.R. Chandran, Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Mr. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Selvaraju and Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel and the learn counsel for the TTIs. 7. The learned Judge in the second batch of cases had framed t following points for consideration since the impugned Government Ord was challenged by the State on three grounds : (i) Subjectwise allotment of seats in respect of Unaided institutes by directing 50% of the seats to be allotted to the science students; 25% to be allotted to Arts students and the remaining 25% to be allotted to the vocational stream students is ultra vires; (ii) The communal reservation by directing Self Financing Non-minority Teacher Educational institutes to follow the policy of reservation in the following manner, viz., (a)Scheduled castes : 18% (b)Scheduled Tribes : 2% (c)Most Backward Class : 20% (d)Backward Class : 30% and (e)Open category : 31%, is illegal; (iii) The calendar of activity by fixing dates for admission etc., to be followed from 2007-2008, is not practicable, and therefore, illegal. The institutes, on the other hand, attack the Government Order on t ground that the calendar of activities is unworkable, that the learn single Judge was not correct in accepting that the State had the pow to approve or reject the staff list, and that the Government Order w State's transgression into N.C.T.E.'s jurisdiction. 8. Communal Reservation : The learned Additional Advocate Gener made his submissions to sustain the communal reservation. However, will not interfere with the impugned order which left it open to t institutes to follow the principle of reservation in view of t judgment in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 53 That portion of the order reads as follows: "Out of the three grounds raised by the petitioners, in respect of the challenge on the basis of communal reservation, in a batch of writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.37233 of 2006 etc., batch, wherein G.O.Ms.(1D)No.226 School Education (U1) Department dated 28.08.2006, in which the policy of reservation of the State Government was directed to be followed in respect of admission of students in Teacher Training Institutions, was challenged and based on the judgement of the Apex Court, especially in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra (2005 (6) SCC 537), this Court has held https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that such reservation is not permissible in respect of admission of students in the private Self Financing Non- minority Institutions. In that case, it was held that in the event of the respective Institutions intending to follow the rule of reservation, there is no bar. In this case also as fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, it is left open to the petitioner Institutions to follow the said principle of reservation. In view of the same, no separate order is necessary as far as this issue is concerned and the order passed in the above batch of cases shall be binding. We will not interfere with this. 9. The State has otherwise focussed its attack only on that part Clause (iii) of the directions extracted above which provides f piecemeal approval of the staff list and Clause (iv) which makes mandatory for all the parties to follow the calendar of activities on from the academic year 2008-2009 and also Clauses (vi) and (vii). 10. State's power to approve the Staff List and lay down t Calendar of Activities : The role of the affiliating body for decidi as to which is the viable academic year was the subject matter of decision of a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No.2804 of 2007 [Rukma College of Education vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others] dated 6.10.20 and it was categorically held therein that only the affiliating bo like the University has to specify the academic year which is viabl Section 16 of the NCTE Act provides that the University or affiliati authority will affiliate an institute for the academic year which viable. It is not in dispute that the State is the examining body a it is the State which issues the diplomas. The learned single Judge h followed the above Full Bench decision and accepted the Sta Government's role as the examining body, and that even in the absence guidelines, the State Government has to grant affiliation as per Secti 14(6) of the N.C.T.E. Act, and that it cannot be said that "the Sta Government or respondents 1 and 2 have nothing to act at all" and th the State or the D.T.E.R.T. is having not only a statutory right, but duty to verify the correctness of the particulars furnished by the TTI The learned single Judge had rightly held that the TTIs cannot say th the State has no right to withhold approval; and that it is difficult sustain the TTI's contention that even if the teacher's qualification not in accordance with the norms, the State should grant approval. are in entire agreement with the learned single Judge and we decline interfere in favour of the TTIs. It is vain to contend that the Sta will not stand in the same position as a University, which is affiliating body. It appears that the Full Bench decision has be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appealed against before the Supreme Court and directions for accepti the application forms from the students have been given pending noti to the respondents. This is not enough for us to hold that the Supre Court had stayed the Full Bench decision. 11. Before P. Jyothimani, J. in the present batch, it was contend that while the University has its own guidelines for granti affiliation, the State Government has not framed any rules or scheme a therefore, the State has no parameters to decide the issue of approval 12. The norms laid down under the NCTE Regulations lay down t qualifications of a Principal and Lecturers and therefore, the Stat which is the affiliating body and which admittedly has not formed scheme or rules to guide the question of affiliation, shall follow t NCTE norms while approving the staff list. In fact, the learned sing Judge in these cases has also held that the powers of the Sta Govenrment to verify the particulars furnished by the institutes to t NCTE as to their correctness cannot be said to be a transgression in the powers of the Central authorities, especially by virtue of Sectio 14(4) and 14(6) of the NCTE Act. The learned single Judge also hel "On a reading of the provisions of the NCTE Act, it is evident that t State Government is empowered to approve the list of teachers and bei the examining body, it is entitled to prescribe the calendar for eve academic year in respect of the number of term days of the student conducting of examinations, etc. and such directives are only regulato in nature, in fact for better implementation of the basic poli enunciated by the NCTE through the Government of India under Entry 66 List I of the Constitution of India." The impugned Government Order h been issued only to implement the order passed in the first batch cases. That order has not been assailed and has become final. In fac we see that the impugned order has upheld the right of superintenden of respondents 1 and 2 over the TTIs in order to ensure that the NC Regulations are followed and the learned Judge also accepts that t calendar of activities is not in contradiction with the NCTE Regulatio and is "in fact, intended for a better implementation of the scheme f maintaining excellencey in the teacher education in a co-ordinat manner". When this is so, there is no justification in interfering wi the calendar of activities which has been prescribed pursuant to t order passed in the first batch of writ petitions. So, we confirm t finding regarding the State's power. 13. Piece-meal approval of Staff List : The NCTE Act provides f the norms and standards for elementary teacher education, leading diploma in teacher education. It provides for the staff strength, a for a basic unit of 50 students or less with a combined strength of 1 or less for the two year course, there shall be one Principal and fi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Lecturers. It is not in dispute that the 2002 Regulations have be modified, but however, it is also not in dispute that the NCTE lays do the staff strength. Therefore, when the institutes apply for sta approval, the State Government not only has to take into account wheth each teacher whose name is found the list satisfies the qualificati prescribed by the NCTE, but also whether the number of teachers propos in the staff list satisfies the staff strength prescribed by the NC and therefore, both these parameters have to be satisfied, viz. sta strength and NCTE qualification. If so, the NCTE cannot approve a li where out of the total number of lecturers required, only thr lecturers satisfy the qualification and the others do not. This wou be approval of a staff list which is truncated. Therefore, t appellants cannot approve of the staff list piece-meal. The staff li is either approved wholly or it is rejected notwithstanding the fa that some of the names merit acceptance, for the school cannot commen the course without the requisite number of teachers. Therefore, t last sentence in clause (iii) in paragraph 78 of the impugned ord which directs the second respondent to grant approval regarding t other teachers is set aside. 14. Whether the Calendar of Activities shall be deferred to 200 2009 ? Now we will come to the question regarding the calendar activities and its applicability to the academic year 2007-2008. T impugned order has postponed it by one year and made it applicable on from the academic year 2008-2009 onwards. It was contended on behalf the TTIs that the academic year pattern was not scrupulously follow after 2004-2005. In paragraph 68 of the impugned order, there is chart giving the particulars of the academic year, the number of TT and the date on which the examination was held and we find that fr 1999-2000, till the academic year 2003-2004, the number of TTIs stood 83 and the examinations were held in time. But in 2004-2005, there an increase in the number of TTIs from 83 to 305. In 2005-2006, t number is 398 and in 2006-2007, it has become 611, and for these thr years, the examinations were held belatedly and it was not possible maintain the academic year concept. 15. It was vehemently urged on behalf of the TTIs that when t last date for admission is extended upto