IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 15-06-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4439 of 2009 S.Pushpa .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Keelapalur, Ariyalur District. 3.Sri Saradha Teacher Training Institute for Women, Represented by its Principal, Sir Sarada Nagar, NH-45, Siruvachur, Perambalur District-621 113. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to approve the admission of the petitioner in the D.T.Ed. Course in the 3rd respondent institute for the academic year 2008-2009. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Suresh Government Advocate (R1) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had passed Higher Secondary Course during the month of September, 1995. Since she was possessing the required qualifications to undergo the Diploma in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Teacher Education Course, she was granted admission in the third respondent Institute, on 28.7.2008. After having joined the course she had completed one year in the said course during the academic year 2008-2009. However, the first respondent had not approved the admission of the petitioner in the Diploma in Teacher Education Course of the third respondent Institute, under the `Deserted women' category. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the petitioner had been married to one R.Rajendran, on 17.5.1998. However, he had deserted the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has been living separately from the year 1999. Further, the petitioner's husband had filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.193 of 2000, before the Principal Sub Court, Trichy. The said petition had been ordered, on 8.3.2001, granting the divorce, as prayed for by the petitioner therein. Since then the petitioner has been living separately without sufficient source of income. The guidelines, dated 31.5.2008, issued by the first respondent prescribes the age limit for admission of candidates under the `Deserted women' category as 40 years. Though the petitioner was aged 32 years at the time of her admission in the third respondent institute, the first respondent has not granted approval of her admission, till date. 4. At this stage of the hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also placed before this Court, an order, dated 21.11.2008, made in W.P.No.23349 of 2008, wherein, the respondents have been directed to treat the petitioner as a destitute and to accept the application for passing suitable orders, within a specified period. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the claims made by the petitioner would be considered by the said respondent and appropriate orders would be passed thereon, considering the petitioner's claim, under the `Deserted women' category, in view of the decision of this Court, dated 21.11.2008, made in W.P.No.23349 of 2008, within a specified period. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to consider the claims made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had prayed that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the granting of permission to the petitioner to write the first year examination of the Diploma in Teacher Education Course commencing from 22.6.2009, and that the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the same, within a specified period. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that on such representation being made, the same would be considered by the first respondent and appropriate orders would be passed thereon, expeditiously. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the examinations for the Diploma in Teacher Education Course said to be commencing from 22.6.2009, within a period of one week from today and on such representation being made, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Keelapalur, Ariyalur District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Principal, Sri Saradha Teacher Training Institute for Women, Sir Sarada Nagar, NH-45, Siruvachur, Perambalur District-621 113. +1cc to Mr.K.Selvaraj,Advocate Sr 23298 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 23228 CK(CO) km/17.6. Writ Petition No.4439 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/