@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.S. Subramani, J.@mdashPetitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing third Respondent to admit and permit Petitioner to undergo the required training at the Government Teachers Training Institute, Therur, Nagercoil with immediate effect and pass such further orders.
2. Petitioner moved an application seeking admission to Teacher Training Course before the second Respondent Institute. By proceedings dated 2.9.1998, second Respondent intimated Petitioner that she has been selected on compassionate grounds and Petitioner was directed to join the course on or before 10.9.1998. It was further intimated that if she fails to join college by 10.9.1998, the seat will be allotted to some other deserving candidate.
3. It is the case of Petitioner that her mother A. Lakshmi worked as Tamil Pandit at Tilak Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Kallidaikurichi, Tirunelveli from 1979 to 1984 and while in service, she died as Cancer patient. Since her mother died while in service, she is eligible to be selected and admitted to the course on compassionate ground.
4. In the proceedings dated 2.9.1998, of the second Respondent, Petitioner was directed to produce a certificate from the Tilak Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School evidencing the fact that her mother worked in that school and she died in harness. Petitioner produced a certificate signed by the Secretary of the School and endorsed by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. Along with the same, she also produced Legal heirship certificate, Service certificate of her mother, Mark Statement and Transfer Certificate. Even though Petitioner filed the said documents, third Respondent refused to accept Petitioner as student for the reasons that Petitioner did not produce a certificate from the Tilak Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School specifically stating that Petitioner is the daughter of deceased mother who died in harness. Though Petitioner explained that such a certificate could not be issued by the school, third Respondent was adamant unless Petitioner produce that certificate, she will not be admitted. When Petitioner approached Tilak Vidyalaya, she was informed that Secretary of School has gone on long leave and nothing could be done in that matter. Petitioner again reported the matter before 10.9.1998 and Respondent directed Petitioner to submit all the records and again meet him on 14.9.1998. When Petitioner approached on 14.9.1998, she could not meet third Respondent and therefore Petitioner send a telegram to third Respondent and asking for further time. According to Petitioner, her mother died when she was eight years old and school authorities cannot give any certificate stating whether or not Petitioner is the daughter of mother who died on 22.2.1984. It is further said that Teacher Training Institutes admissions are being sold for high premium and the reason for denying admission is only, she apprehends, other candidate could be admitted in her place. It is under these circumstances, Petitioner has come to this Court for the relief stated above.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third Respondent. The only reason stated in the counter for denying admission for Petitioner is that she has not furnished Certificate in Form E. Petitioner herself was seeking time to produce the same. Since Petitioner has not produced the certificate in the required format, though reasonable time was given, they cannot wait for long time. It is further said that the original application of Petitioner itself was defective. It prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Petitioner also filed a reply affidavit.
7. At the time of argument, Government Pleader also brought to my notice the Xerox copy of the application submitted by Petitioner along with G.O. Ms. No. 229 School Education Department (VI), dated 6.8.1998.
8. On going by the counter affidavit, it could be seen that the only reason for denying admission for Petitioner is that to get admission under compassionate ground, Petitioner will have to file a certificate in Form E. The same has not been appended to the application and the application itself was defective. Even though it should have been rejected at the earliest, taking into consideration the plight of the students, a reasonable time was granted to produce the certificate in the format. Petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity but she failed to do so. Therefore, she is not entitled to admission.
9. How far the said contention of the Respondent is to be accepted is the only question to be considered. Even though Petitioner sought for admission under special category and produced various certificates, since the application is not accompanied by the Certificate in Form E. She was denied admission. I do not think that such an argument could be taken now since Respondents themselves have not rejected the application but Petitioner was given a reasonable time to produce the same. It therefore follows from the conduct of the Respondents themselves that the certificates in the format need not be produced along with application as condition precedent for considering the application.
10. According to the Petitioner, in the application form that was given to her, there was no such format in form E, and this fact was informed to the Respondents. After hearing the counsel and also perusing the documents produced before Court I feel that the said contention of Petitioner is only to be accepted.
11. It is admitted by both sides that after application was perused by Respondents by letter dated 2.9.1998, second Respondent informed Petitioner to get herself admitted on or before 10.9.1998. She was asked to produce certain certificates. It has also been stated that she has been admitted under the special category of, Respondents had also directed Petitioner to produce following documents to substantiate her case that she is the daughter of the deceased teacher, who died in harness. The relevant portion read thus,
A reading of this Clause contemplate more than one certificate i.e., Heirship certificate, death certificate and a certificate to show that employee died while in service. It has no reference to Form No. E. If it is the case of Form No. E, that would have simply been referred to Form No. E alone and not to these certificates. Form No. E. certificate which is also appended to the typed set of papers is a comprehensive Certificate. On perusing that application that has been given to Petitioner I also do not find that Form No. E is part of that application. Along with the application I find only Form Nos. A and B and thereafter a declaration by the candidate. Going by the circumstances of the case I find that Form No. E is not part of the application given to Petitioner and while asking her to produce documents, authorities also did not want Certificate in Form No. E to be produced. There is no mention of Form No. E in the proceedings dated 2.9.1998.
12. Along with the same, conduct of Respondents is also relevant. If Form No. E is part of the application, they would have rejected the application then and there. Having not rejected the application and asking Petitioner to produce various other certificates also shows that the present contention is only an after-thought.
13. G.O. Ms. No. 229 on which reliance is placed also do not mention about Form No. E. It is not disputed by Respondents that apart from Form No. E, Petitioner complied with all other conditions.
14. It is true when Petitioner was asked to produce a certificate in Form No. E, she sought time. But that cannot be a ground for Respondents to contend that it is Petitioner''s failure to produce document to justify then action. Merely because Petitioner also agreed to produce documents cannot be taken as a ground to deny her admission, if she has complied with other conditions of admission.
15. In the counter affidavit it is not denied that Petitioner is not daughter of Lakshmi, who died in harness. There is no other contention taken, which disentitles Petitioner to seek admission.
16. In the result, the writ petition is only to be allowed. There will be a direction directing third Respondent to admit Petitioner in the Government Teachers'' Training Institute, Therur, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District with immediate effect and permit her to complete the Course.
17. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Consequently W.M.P. No. 22862 of 1998 is closed.
