1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/07/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.4355 of 2011 S.Lakshiyarasu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Joint Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3.The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Uthamapalayam, Theni District - 625 533. ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in O.Mu.No.002522/E2/2011, dated 09.03.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to redo the second year Diploma in Teacher Education Course in the academic year 2011-2012 under the third respondent. For petitioner .. Mr.Shaji Chellan For respondents 1 & 2 .. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Government Pleader ORDER Aggrieved by the order, dated 09.03.2011, passed by the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai, first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to redo the second year Diploma in Teacher Education Course for the academic year 2011-2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the consequential relief of a direction to the respondents to permit him to redo the second year Diploma in Teacher Education Course for the above said academic year in the third respondent/Institute. 2.The petitioner has joined two year Diploma Course in Teacher Education in the third respondent/Institute for the academic year 2008- 2009. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to an accident, he was immobilised during the period of second year course and therefore, he could not secure the required attendance in the second year to take up the examination, commenced on 02.06.2010 and ended on 09.06.2010. He was only permitted to write the arrears examination. Though the petitioner made an attempt to seek for condonation, the third respondent/Institute refused to furnish even the condonation application https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 form and further directed the petitioner to redo the second year course. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to send representation to the respondents 1 & 2 seeking permission to redo the course for the academic year 2011-2012 which commenced from June 2011. The request has been rejected on the ground that there is no rule. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3.On the above said pleadings and placing reliance on an order passed in W.P.(MD).No.7216 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010, Mr.Shaji Chellan prayed for similar order. He also submitted that the petitioner is the first person from his family who has joined in the college and that since he belongs to scheduled caste community, he may be shown some indulgence as done in the earlier writ petition. 4.Opposing the relief on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai, Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Southern Regional Committee - National Council for Teacher Education has fixed the strength of the Teacher Trainees in Teacher Training Institutes such as 50 or 100. If a Teacher Trainee is allowed to redo the 1st year or 2nd year course, it would exceed the total number of sanctioned strength fixed by the Southern Regional committee - National Council for Teacher Education and that it would affect the next batch of students coming to 2nd year Diploma in Teacher Education Course in the above said District Institute of Teacher Education Research and Training and therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to redo the 2nd year Diploma in Teacher Education Course in the academic year 2011-2012. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6.Though the learned State counsel has objected to the relief sought for on the ground that permitting the petitioner to redo the course in the second year would amount to exceeding the sanctioned strength fixed by the National Council for Teacher Education - Southern Regional Committee, this Court, on perusal of the order made in W.P.(MD) No.7216 of 2010, is convinced that in a similar claim, when the petitioner therein, who was unable to attend the second year Diploma in Teacher Education course on account of illness and thus could not take up the examination for lack of attendance, has sought for a mandamus to the respondents therein to permit the petitioner to write second year examination in Teacher Education. However, when the above matter came up for hearing, the petitioner had not pressed the relief prayed for, but sought for permission to complete the second year course by joining the Teacher Training Institute to secure the required attendance and accepting the said request, this Court, vide order dated 02.07.2010, has permitted the petitioner therein to join the second year course for the academic year 2010-2011 on payment of fees as prescribed by the Education Institution. Perusal of the order made in W.P.(MD)No.7216 of 2010 shows that the third respondent/institute therein was the District Institute of Education and Training, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, which is a Government Institution and that the same institution is the respondent in the present writ petition also. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.When the learned State counsel has confronted with the query as to whether an appeal has been preferred as against the order made in W.P. (MD)No.7216 of 2010, he has categorically admitted that no appeal has been preferred. When the third respondent in that writ petition is the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, the objection of the State counsel that permitting the petitioner to redo the second year course would amount to increase the sanctioned strength in the second year and that it would contrary to the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, cannot be accepted. There is similarity of facts and the order stated supra can be made applicable to the facts of this Court and the third respondent in both the writ petition is one and the same. 8.In such view of the matter, following the decision stated supra, the impugned order is set aside and consequently, a direction is issued to the third respondent to permit the petitioner to redo the second year Diploma course for the academic year 2011-2012 on payment of fees as prescribed. The third respondent/institution is also directed to receive course fees, if tendered by the writ petitioner and permit him to attend the classes forthwith. 9.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Joint Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3.The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Uthamapalayam, Theni District - 625 533. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.23345 +1CC TO MR.L.SHAJI CHELLAN, ADVOCATE SR.23222 Gcg SR : 18.07.2011 : 3p/6c W.P.(MD) No.4355 of 2011 15.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/