IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 17.04.2008 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Writ Appeals No.1449 of 2007 and 771 and 772 of 2007 1. The State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The Director, Teacher Education Research & Training, DPI compound, Chennai 6. Appellants 1 & 2 in / Respondents all the appeals. In all WPS 3. The Director, Government Examination, DPI compound Chennai 6. Appellants 3 in WA No.1449 of 2007/ 3rd Respondent in W.P.21578/04 3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District. Appellants 3 in / Respondents WA No.771 of 2007 in W.P.11770/00 3. The District Elementary Appellants 3 in / Respondents Educational Officer, WA No.772 of 2007/ in W.P.13217/00 Erode, Erode District v. N.Purushotham Respondent in WA / Writ Petitioner No.1449 of 2007 in W.P.21578/04 1.C.Salety Mary 2. The Manager, T.Ariyalur, St.Mary's Church, Beach Road, Cuddalore. Respondents in WA / Writ Petitioner No.771 of 2007 & 6th Respondent in W.P.11770/00 1. A.S. Kuppusamy 2. S.S.V.Higher Secondary School, represented by Secretary Respondents in WA / Writ Petitioner Kodumudi, Erode District. No.772 of 2007 & 5th Respondent in W.P.13217/00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Appeal No.1449 of 2007 is filed against the order dated 27.07.2006 made in writ petition No.21578 of 2004 This W.P. Filed under article 226 of the constitution of India praying for issue of “Writ of Certiorarified mandamus” calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.129337/C2//2004 dated 1.7.04 and quash the same and direct the respondents to evaluate the petitioner's Karnataka Teachers Training Certificate. W.P.No.11770/00 :1. This W.P.filed under article 226 of the constitution of India praying for issue of “Writ of Certiorarified mandamus” calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department, dated 17.9.1984 and quash the same in so far as imposition of 50% mark in plus 2 examination and direct the respondents to evaluate the certificates of the petitioner and direct approve the appointment of the petitioner consequently and confer all the consequential benefit and writ appeals Nos.771 and 772 of 2007 are filed against the order dated 20.02.2007 made in writ petitions Nos.11770 and 13217 of 2000 W.P.No.13217/00 2.This W.P.filed under article 226 of the constitution of India praying for issue of “Writ of Certiorarified mandamus” calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department, dated 17.9.1984 and the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Du.Mu.No.17002/C3/1999 dated 30.6.2000 and quash the same in so far as imposition of 50% mark in plus 2 examination and teachers training course and direct the respondents to evaluate the certificates of the petitioner and direct approve the appointment of the petitioner consequently and confer all the consequential benefits. For appellants : Mr.S.Rajasekaran, Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, in WA 771 & 772/07 Senior Counsel, for Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel – for R2 Mr.G.Jermiah – for R1 COMMON JUDGMENT K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. The Government, in these appeals, sought to assail the order of the learned single Judge, passed in writ petitions filed by the respondents herein, directing the Government to evaluate the Karnataka Teachers Training certificates possessed by the respective respondents herein and to regularise their service from the date of their respective appointments. 2. Though the prayers in the writ petitions are differently couched, the sum and substance of their grievance is that the appellant-Department is not evaluating the respective respondents' Karnataka Teachers Training Certificates in spite of the fact that they have been appointed by the Tamil Nadu Government on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ premise that they have not possessed necessary qualification fixed by the Government Orders of State of Tamilnadu. 3. The writ petitioners, who are the respondents herein, are holders of teachers training certificates from the Karnataka State and they have been appointed in Tamil Nadu. In order to regularise their services in the respective schools, the certificates so obtained from the Karnataka State have to be evaluated by the Government. In respect of these respondents/writ petitioners, as the Government found that they are not possessing the requisite qualification of 45% or marks in aggregate in higher secondary examination, the certificates obtained from the Karnataka State were not evaluated. That is put in issue in writ petition No.21578 of 2004, which is the subject matter of writ appeal No.1449 of 2007. By filing that writ petition, the writ petitioner sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Director, Government Examination, DPI compound, Chennai dated 01.07.2004, whereby the application for evaluation of Karnataka Teachers Training Certificate possessed by the respondent/writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has not secured the aggregate of 45% of marks in plus two. The prayer in the writ petitions which are subject matter in writ appeals No.771 and 772 of 2007 is to quash the G.O. Ms. No.1236 Education Department dated 17.09.1984 wherein the following qualifications have been fixed : i. Teachers training certificate holders of Karnataka State should have passed their SSLC in Tamil Medium with Tamil as I language or should have taken Tamil as I language in SSLC if they have studied in English medium. ii. They should have obtained 50% of marks in aggregate in their SSLC as in the case of Teachers Training certificate holders of Tamilnadu. iii. They should have obtained 5% of marks in each subject in their Teachers Certificate as in the case of Teacher Training Certificate holders of Tamilnadu. iv. If they studied in other than Tamil Medium in their SSLC as well as Teacher Training certificate and satisfy the conditions 2 and 3 their certificates may be evaluated with a condition that they are eligible for appointment as Secondary Grade teachers in Tamil Nadu only in schools where medium of instructions is other than Tamil. 4. The position that was prevailing of appointment of teachers in the Tamilnadu Private schools has to be stated in retrospection for better understanding of the case. The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 came into force on 01.12.1974. The Act was enacted for the purpose of regulation of recognised private school in Tamil Nadu. Prior to that enactment, the affairs of the educational institution in Tamilnadu were controlled by the Government of Tamilnadu in accordance with what was called Educational Rules made from time to time. The Educational Rules prescribed qualifications for different kinds of teachers. After the 1973 Act came into force, the appointment of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ teachers and their qualifications were mainly covered by the provisions of section 19 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 19 of the Act enables the Government to make the rules regulating the number, qualifications and conditions of service (including promotion, pay, allowances leave, pension, provident fund, insurance, age of retirement and disciplinary matter, etc.,) of the teachers and other persons employed in private schools. The Rules were amended from time to time. Rule 15 of the Rules deals with qualifications and conditions of service of teachers and other persons. By the amendment made in 1975, Rule 15(6) provided that teachers and other persons employed in a private schools shall possess the qualification specified in Annexure V. As far as Secondary grade teachers are concerned (1) SSLC (2) TSLC of secondary grade or its equivalent, was the specified qualification. Provided teachers who have passed the Nursery Montessori and Kindergarten school leaving certificate examination of Secondary Grade shall be employed to handle standards 1 to II only. 5. In view of section 19 read with Rule 15 and Annexure V, the qualification for being appointed as a secondary grade teacher was that he should possess a secondary grade school leaving certificate and, in addition he must also possess a training school leaving certificate for secondary grade or its equivalent. 6. So far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the training school leaving certificate was given after undergoing a course of two years at the Teachers Training Institute, whether run by State Government or by private recognised institute. The Training School Leaving Certificate is now known as Diploma in Teachers Education. 7. Prior to coming into force of the 1973 Act, the teachers who had obtained a certificate from Karnataka Secondary School were given appointment in schools in Tamilnadu and for all intents and purposes, the Karnataka certificate was equated with the Training School Leaving Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu. This state of affairs continued till 05.08.1981. Till that date, teachers who were appointed at private schools had to get certificates approved by the Director of School Education. These certificates were approved almost as a matter of course, because they were treated as equivalent to Training School Leaving Certificate of Secondary Grade, thereby satisfying the requirements of section 19 and Rule 15. The approval is called evaluation. 8. On 05.08.1981 the Government, in the Education Department, issued an order G.O. Ms. No.1667. The order referred to communication from the Director of School Education dated 27.03.1981 in which the Director indicated that the Karnataka certificate is not equivalent to the certificate issued by the State of Tamilnadu. The Director, therefore, sought for orders of the Government for issuance of suitable instructions "to stop the appointment of teachers trained in Karnataka State in schools situated in Tamil Nadu until the number of unemployed Secondary Grade teachers trained in Tamil Nadu is wiped out". The Director https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also requested the Government to permit him to stop the evaluation of Karnataka State certificates with immediate effect. By the said G.O., the Government accepted the suggestions of the Director of School Education, Madras and permitted him to defer the evaluation of the Teachers Training Certificate of Karnataka State with immediate effect with the further direction permitting the Director of School Education to issue necessary instructions to defer appointment of Karnataka State teachers certificates holders as secondary grade teachers in middle or higher secondary school till the candidates possessing secondary grade or senior basic grade training certificate issued by the Director of Government Examination, Madras are appointed. Consequent upon this G.O., teachers who had obtained Karnataka State Certificates and also being given appointment in private school found that their certificates were not being evaluated, filed large number of petitions in the High Court for mandamus requiring the authorities to approve with evaluation their appointments as secondary grade teachers from the date of appointment. The said G.O. came to be assailed by the persons who were already in employment and the persons whose certificates have already been evaluated as aforesaid and who were already in employment, but their certificates were yet to be evaluated as aforesaid. 9. In respect of the case of the persons whose certificates have already been evaluated, this court took the view that on the date of G.O. 05.08.1981 there was a valid evaluation made by the Director of School Education under Rule 14 of the Educational Rules of the Certificates issued by the Karnataka Board as equivalent to the similar certificates issued by the State of Tamilnadu and so long as the evaluation continued to subsist, the petitioners were entitled to be considered for appointment in the State of Tamil Nadu and their applications could not be rejected merely on the ground that they were holders of Karnataka Teachers Training Certificates. It was further found that the G.O. Ms. No.1667 did not specifically say that the evaluations already made would stand rejected. 10. The above said development made the Director of School Education to seek for some modification to the G.O. Ms. No.1667. In view of the orders passed by this Court, the Government issued G.O. Ms.No.1236 dated 17.09.1984 and permitted the Director of School Education to evaluate the Karnataka State Teachers Training Certificates by prescribing certain qualifications. 11. As already stated, that Government Order was challenged on various grounds before this Court in a batch of writ petitions. Ultimately, this Court in the case of Anthony Savarimuthu v. The Director of School Education, 1985 WLR 175 upheld the validity of the same and that has become final. Technically speaking the prayer sought for in the writ petitions which are subject matter of writ appeals Nos.771 and 772 of 2007, praying to quash the G.O. Ms. No.1236 dated 17.09.1984 cannot be granted as the judgment cited supra has become final. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Muthukumarasamy contended that though the G.O. Ms. No.1236 has already been upheld, but there are certain subsequent developments which this Court has to take into consideration while considering the case of the respondents. He argued that the G.O. 1236 came to be passed when the qualification for admission to teachers training course was SSLC and TSLC. The writ petitioners have passed higher secondary course, which is a higher education than SSLC. Hence, the fixing of the qualification as 50% marks in aggregate in SSLC is not applicable to the writ petitioners which is only applicable to those persons who enter the teachers training course after completion of their SSLC examination. He further contended that having regard to the said position and innumerable representations given by the persons concerned, the Government issued a Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.1196 Education (U1) Department dated 03.12.1992 modifying the conditions prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.1236 to the effect that Karnataka Teachers Training Certificates obtained after 17.09.1984 by candidates who had undergone the training course upto the end of the academic year 1984-85 including the candidates sitting in the second year in the academic year 1984-85, be evaluated as equivalent to the certificates issued in Tamilnadu in relaxation of the norms prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.1236, Education dated 17.09.1984 as a special case, after due verification. Such evaluation shall be done irrespective of the fact whether the candidate is temporarily employed or unemployed. The Teacher Training Certificates including the I year/II year certificates issued by the Karnataka Board prior to 17.09.1984 showing the subjects in which they had failed should be duly submitted to the authority concerned for evaluation. The Government has also examined the question of relaxing the age rules in respect of the candidates whose certificates are ordered to be evaluated as above and who might have become overage for purposes of employment and have decided to grant relaxation of rules relating to age. 13. He contended that such concession can be given to the respondents also as such a relief has been granted by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 19.10.2005 made in W.A. Nos.930, 109, 1010 and 1011 of 1998. 14. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submitted that the position has not stopped with the issuance of the Government Order referred to by Mr.Muthukumarasamy. Subsequently, the Government by G.O. Ms. No.588 Education Department dated 21.05.1991, after referring to the G.O., with which reliance has been placed by the respondents, has prescribed the qualification. As per the G.O., for admission of students to the diploma in Teacher Training Institute in the said G.O., the minimum educational qualification shall be a pass in higher secondary (plus two) examination with a minimum 50% of marks in aggregate. The said G.O., specifically amended the guidelines for admission given in G.O. Ms. No.906 dated 16.06.1987. The writ petitioners/respondents did not possess the requisite qualification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. In reply to the same, Mr.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel contended that after coming into force of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2002, as per Regulation 11, a person who is holding Teacher Training certificate with a mere pass in class X could be given an appointment within the State in which he obtained the certificates and fixing a higher qualification is against the resolution. Of-course, the Regulation came into force in 2002. Hence suitable direction can be given to the case of the writ petitioners. 16. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 17. It is an admitted fact that a Division Bench of this Court in its elaborate consideration with reference to the Constitutional provisions and the statutory provision and the rule making power has upheld the validity of G.O. Ms. No.1236 issued by the Government in the case of Anthony Savarimuthu, cited supra. Hence, there cannot be any dispute about the power of the Government in prescribing the qualification, of-course prior to the coming into force of the Regulation 2002. 18. G.O. Ms. No.588 has prescribed qualification after taking note of the earlier G.O. For the sake of clarity the said G.O. is reproduced : GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU ABSTRACT Education – Teacher Education – Teacher training Institutes – Admission of students from 91-92 – Stipulating of Minimum marks qualification for admission orders issued. ---------------------------------------------------------- Education Department G.O. Ms. No.588 dated 21.05.1991 Read : 1. G.O. Ms. No.906, Education dated 16.06.1987. 2. From the Director of Government Examinations Lr.No.132950/D1/89 dated 27.09.1989 3.From the Director of School Education, R.C. No.203784/M4/89 dated 26.02.1980. ----- ORDER : According to the guidelines for admission of students to the Teacher Training Institute issued in the G.O. read above the minimum educational qualification required for admission to the diploma in Teacher Education course is as follows : "A pass in Higher Secondary (Plus Two) examination both under General and Vocational streams other than Secondary Grade Teachers Training under Vocational Course". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The question of prescribing minimum marks qualification for admission to the diploma in Teacher Education has been under consideration of the Government for sometime now. The Director of School Education, The Director of teacher Education, Research and Training and the Director of Government Examinations, have suggested that minimum of 50% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination may be prescribed as the requisite qualification for admission in Teacher Training Course so that there will be qualitative improvement in Teacher Education. They have also suggested that for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates a pass in Higher Secondary Examinations existing hither to may continue to be the qualification for admission. 3. The Government, after careful Examination have decided to accept the proposal in the interest of improvement of quality of Teacher Education. The Government accordingly directs that for admission of students to the diploma in Teacher Education course in the Teacher Training Institutes in the State, the qualification shall be a pass in Higher secondary (Plus Two) Examination with a minimum of 50% of marks in the aggregate. The qualification for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidate shall however continue to be a pass in Higher Secondary (Plus Two) Examination. These orders shall take effect from the year 1991-92. 4. The guidelines for admission given in the G.O. Ms. No.906 Education dated 16.06.1987 as amended in Government letter No.65874/M1/89-2 Education, dated 21.07.1989 shall stand modified to the extent mentioned in paragraph 3 above in so far as it related to the qualification for admission. 5. The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training is requested to bring these orders to the notice of all recognised Teacher Training Institute. /By order of the Governor/ V.Sankarasubbaiyan, Secretary to Government Hence, any contention against prescribing qualification in the above said G.O., cannot be accepted in the light of the decision in the case of Anthony Savarimuthu cited supra. 19. Admittedly in all these cases, the respondents are not having basic qualification. This aspect of the G.O. 588 has not been taken into consideration by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision relied on by the respondent dated 19.10.2005 made in W.A. No.930 of 1998 etc., and appears to be a concessional one. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Another Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 07.08.2006 made in W.A. No.1596 of 2005, in a similar set of facts held as follows : " The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant. She has approached this Court, seeking for a direction to the respondents to evaluate the Teacher's Training Certificate as equal to the certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. 2. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not possess even the minimum qualification for admission to the said course and therefore the training certificate cannot be evaluated. Questioning the same, the present appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The learned Judge has rejected the request of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was found ineligible to be admitted to the Teachers' Training Course. Once the appellant is found ineligible, the admission itself cannot be ratified and consequently, the Certificate cannot be evaluated. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed." 20. In view of the G.O.Ms. No.588 dated 21.05.1991 and in the light of the judgment dated 07.08.2006 made in writ petition No.1596 of 2005 and the decision in the case of Anthony Savarimuthu, cited supra, the writ appeals are allowed and the orders made by the learned single Judge are set aside. This order would not preclude the respondents to approach the appropriate authority in the appropriate State to have the benefit conferred on them, if any under the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2002. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar mf To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Director, Teacher Education Research & Training, DPI compound, Chennai 6. 3. The Director, Government Examination, DPI compound Chennai 6. 4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 5. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Erode, Erode District. + 1 CC to Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate, S.R.No.22055 + 1 CC to Government Pleader, S.R.No.22013, 22014 + 1 CC to Mr.G.Jeremiah, Advocate, S.R.No.22351 + 1 CC to Ms.T.Ramadevi, Advocate, S.R.No.22169 Writ Appeals No.1449 of 2007 and 771 and 772 of 2007 CK (CO) SRA (24/04/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/