AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—While W.P. No. 11200 of 2009 is filed by the institute challenging the order of the first respondent dated 5.5.2009 by
which the first respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner/institute to approve the appointment of Mr. G. Anbazhagan as the Principal and
Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer for the academic year 2006-2007, W.P. No. 11670 of 2009 has been filed by 20 students of the said
Teacher Training Institute (petitioner in W.P. No. 11200 of 2009) for a direction against the respondents to permit them to complete their Diploma
in Teacher Education (D.T.Ed.) course by taking up their second year arrears examinations.
2.1. It is stated that the petitioner/institute in W.P. No. 11200 of 2009 was recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on
9.1.2007 to conduct Diploma in Teacher Education (D.T.Ed.) course with an annual intake of 50 students. It is stated that, after the recognition,
the said institute submitted a list of faculty members for approval to the first respondent/Director of Teacher Education Research and Training,
through the second respondent/Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Pulikarai on 21.2.2007.
2.2. It is the case of the petitioner/institute that since the second respondent has expressed some doubt about the qualification of the Mrs. G.
Ranganayagi proposed for the post of Principal and Mrs. P. Nirmala proposed for the post of Maths Lecturer, the proposal was replaced with a
new list with Mr. G. Anbazhagan as Principal and Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer on 9.3.2007, being the last day for submission of staff
proposal for the year 2006-2007. It is stated that the said list was verified and forwarded with recommendation of the second respondent on
9.3.2007 itself.
2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that as against the proceedings dated 26.4.2007 of the first respondent rejecting the proposal for appointment of
Mrs. G. Ranganayagi as Principal and Mrs. P. Nirmala as Maths Lecturer, the institute filed W.P. No. 25164 of 2007. The said writ petition came
to be disposed on 7.2.2008 by setting aside the said order dated 26.4.2007, directing the first respondent to consider the proposal of the
petitioner dated 9.3.2007 and pass appropriate orders regarding approval of teaching staff for the year 2006-2007 to enable the students admitted
in the year 2006-2007 to take up the examinations for the first year.
2.4. It is stated that thereafter the students stated to have been admitted in the petitioner/institute for the year 2006-2007, who are petitioners in
W.P. No. 11670 of 2009, were permitted to write their first year D.T.Ed. Examinations held on 18.2.2008. After permitting the students, it is
stated that the first respondent has filed Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2008 against the above order dated 7.2.2008, which was disposed of by the
Division Bench along with batch of cases on 1.4.2008, holding that unless and until staff list is approved, even if students write the examinations,
they are not entitled to have the results declared. It was based on the common judgment of the Division Bench, the first respondent has informed
that in respect of those students who have written first year examinations, the results will not be released.
2.5. The petitioner/institute has filed a SLP in SLP No. 14873 of 2008 before the Supreme Court against the judgment in W.A. No. 278 of 2008
and the Supreme Court has granted interim order on 16.6.2008 on the peculiar facts of the case permitting the students of the petitioner/ institute
for the session 2006-2007 to undergo practical training. It is stated that thereafter the first year students were permitted to undergo practical
training called ""Teaching Practice"" and practical examination called ""Commission Work"".
2.6. It is stated that, in the meantime, the petitioner/institute has admitted another batch of 50 students in the first year of D.T.Ed. Course for the
academic year 2007-2008 and the students thus admitted were not permitted by the first respondent to take up the examinations and the
petitioner/institute filed W.P. No. 14913 of 2008 to approve the said 50 students stated to have been admitted for the year 2007-2008. By order
dated 25.6.2008 passed in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in W.P. No. 14913 of 2008, the said 50 students were permitted to write their first year D.T.Ed.
Examination, which was scheduled to commence on 26.6.2008 and it is stated that those students of 2007-2008 have also taken their first year
D.T.Ed. Examinations.
2.7. In the meantime, the appeal filed against the judgment of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 14873 of 2008 came to
be disposed of on 22.9.2008, by which the matter was remanded to the High Court to hear afresh.
2.8. Since the students admitted for the year 2006-2007 have by that time completed their two years course, the petitioner/institute filed W.P. No.
20781 of 2008 for a direction to approve students list for the academic year 2006-2007 to enable them to complete their course. In the said writ
petition, the petitioner has filed an interim application for a direction to the respondents to permit 48 students of 2006-2007 batch to write their
second year examination which was scheduled to commence on 25.8.2008. In the order dated 24.8.2008 passed in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in W.P.
No. 20781 of 2008, this Court has issued the said direction in respect of the students of 2006-2007 batch, however directing that the results
should be withheld. Thus, the students of 2006-2007 batch have completed their two years examinations. However, in respect of the students
admitted in 2007-2008, who have written their first year examinations as stated above, the respondents refused to conduct practical examination
and ultimately, in M.P. No. 3 of 2008 in W.P. No. 14913 of 2008 filed by the petitioner/institute, this Court, by order dated 8.12.2008, has
directed the respondents to permit the 50 students of 2007-2008 batch to take part in the practical training (Teaching Practice) and practical
examination (Commission Work), subject to further orders. Pursuant to the said order, the said 50 students of 2007-2008 batch have completed
their practical training and practical examination.
2.9. In the meantime, W.A. No. 278 of 2008, which was remanded by the Supreme Court as stated above, was taken up for final hearing and
judgment was passed on 24.4.2009, by which the Division Bench has modified the earlier order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No.
25164 of 2007 remanding the matter to the first respondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner dated 9.3.2007 and pass appropriate orders
regarding staff list for the academic year 2006-2007, instead of the earlier direction given by this Court, wherein the first respondent was directed
to consider the proposal of the petitioner dated 9.3.2007 and pass orders approving the teacher list for the academic year 2006-2007. Therefore,
to that extent the order stood modified.
2.10. It was after the said Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 278 of 2008, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 5.5.2009
rejecting the proposal dated 9.3.2007. It is as against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed on various grounds, including that the
rejection is technical; that the revised list dated 9.3.2007 has not been considered in proper manner in spite of the fact that the second respondent
has acknowledged the proposal dated 9.3.2007 after verifying records; that the order is by improper application of mind; and that the first
respondent has not taken into consideration the inspection report submitted by the second respondent dated 16.7.2008.
The 20 students, who have filed W.P. No. 11670 of 2009, were admitted in the year 2006-2007 in the above said institute and permitted by
this Court to write first and second year examinations and as per the direction of the Supreme Court they were permitted to undergo practical
training and practical examination and even though they have completed the course, due to the non approval of the teaching staff in respect of the
institute by the first respondent, their results are not published and therefore, the said writ petition in W.P. No. 11670 of 2009 has been filed for
direction as stated above.
4.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee,
while granting recognition has imposed a specific condition that the institute must obtain approval from the first respondent before commencement
of the course. It is stated that the petitioner has sent proposal for approval of staff list on 9.3.2007 for the academic year 2006-2007, which
happens to be the last date, containing the names of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi as Principal and Mrs. P. Nirmala as Maths Lecturer. The deficiencies
were pointed out in respect of their qualifications and therefore, the proposal was rejected by the first respondent on 26.4.2007.
4.2. It is stated that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the second respondent, who is alleged to have demanded bribe from the
petitioner/institute for forwarding the proposal and a criminal case is also pending against him.
4.3. The first respondent has also referred about the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20781 of 2008 and W.A. No. 278 of 2008 filed
against the said order wherein the Division Bench by judgment dated 24.4.2009 has modified the order in the writ petition by directing the first
respondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner/institute dated 9.3.2007 and pass appropriate orders.
4.4. It is stated that on perusal of the proposal dated 9.3.2007 it was noticed that appointment of Mr. G. Anbazhagan as Principal appointee and
Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer appointee were made after 9.3.2007, which is beyond the cut off date for the academic year 2006-2007.
Therefore, the petitioner/institute was informed by the impugned order dated 5.5.2009 that the approval of the staff list cannot be granted.
4.5. In addition to that, from the proposal dated 9.3.2007 sent by the petitioner/institute in which the names of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi as Principal
appointee and Mrs. P. Nirmala as Maths Lecturer appointee were given, it was found that Mrs. G. Ranganayagi was not having five years teaching
experience, while Mrs. P. Nirmala did not possess M.Ed. Qualification and the experience certificate submitted by her for teaching elementary
education has not been properly countersigned by the District Elementary Officer as to its genuineness.
4.6. It was after the rejection order passed by the first respondent dated 26.4.2007, rejecting the names of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi and Mrs. P.
Nirmala, the petitioner/ institute has forwarded the new names of Mr. G. Anbazhagan and Mrs. J. Ceema Nair for Principal and Maths Lecturer
respectively and inasmuch as the proposal was beyond the cut off date, the same was rejected since it cannot be considered for the year 2006-
2007.
4.7. It is also stated that the Correspondent of the petitioner/institute by his letter dated 18.6.2007 has informed the first respondent, which was
forwarded by the second respondent, that they have appointed new Principal, Mr. G. Anbazhagan instead of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi and new
Maths Lecturer Mrs. J. Ceema Nair instead of Mrs. P. Nirmala. The said replacement was made much beyond 9.3.2007, namely the cut off date
as per G.O.Ms. No. 7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007 and therefore, the rejection order passed by first respondent is perfectly
valid.
4.8. It is also stated that it has been observed in the above said cases that results of the students can be declared only subject to the outcome of
the approval of the staff list and inasmuch as the staff list has not been approved, the students results cannot be published.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that in the year 2006-2007 many such institutions like that of the petitioner have made admission of students
illegally, without obtaining approval of the teaching staff from the first respondent, with the result enormous number of students who got admitted
innocently, without knowing about the non approval of the teaching staff, were actually put to great prejudice. Taking note of the fact that the
National Council for Teacher Education has granted approval for those institutions and the students who were innocent were not actually aware of
the real fact of non approval of the teaching staff, students were permitted by various interim orders to write their examinations. It appears that this
sort of illegal practice by these institutions in admitting students continued in the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and the students were permitted
to write examinations at various levels by orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court, as it is noted in this case. In few of the cases, when
ultimately it was found that the students admitted were within the sanctioned strength and have completed their various examinations due to the
orders of this Court, taking note of the peculiar situation which has happened in the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, final orders have been
passed by this Court directing the authorities concerned to publish the results of the students by imposing heavy penalty on the institutions, like
directions to those institutions to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- per student illegally admitted and such amounts were directed to be paid to various social
welfare organizations like Government run schools for the Deaf and Dumb, Juvenile Homes, etc. for the benefit of the disabled and downtrodden
with a view to teach a lesson to these institutions, who have not only done illegal acts unscrupulously admitting students, but also deceived the
innocent students and parents knowing fully well that they are not entitled to admit students before approval of the staff list.
6.1. As far as the present petitioner/institute is concerned, it is stated that the admissions were made in the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and
thereafter, no admissions have been made. But a clinching fact has come to limelight as far as the petitioner/institute is concerned. The second
respondent/Principal, District Institute of Education and Training holding the post earlier is stated to have been involved in illegal activities of
demanding bribe for the purpose of forwarding the proposal for approval of students as well as the teachers to the first respondent and in respect
of him, it appears that a criminal case is also pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri in C.C. No. 59 of
2008 in which it is stated that the charge has been filed on 28.7.2009.
6.2. On a direction from this Court to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri calling for the records relating to the said
prosecution, the criminal court has sent the original proposal sent by the petitioner/institute dated 9.3.2007 countersigned by the then second
respondent Mr. K. Balan, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, who is stated to be involved in the criminal case, and verified by
Dr. R. Natarajan, Senior Lecturer and Head of Department, District Institute of Education and Training, Krishnagiri dated 9.3.2007. The said
original, which has been received from the criminal court, shows that the proposal sent by the petitioner/institute has been verified and
countersigned by the second respondent on 9.3.2007 and that proposal relates to Mrs. G. Ranganayagi for the post of Principal of the
petitioner/institute.
6.3. As it is seen in the typed set of papers filed by the first respondent, that on the same day, viz., on 9.3.2007, in addition to the name of Mrs. G.
Ranganayagi for the post of Principal, the petitioner/institute has sent the names of Mrs. S. Pramila for the post of Tamil Lecturer, Mrs. Jayarani
George for the post of English Lecturer, Mrs. P. Nirmala for the post of Maths Lecturer, Mr. R. Murugan for the post of Science Lecturer and
Mrs. V. Flora Jennmika for the post of Social Science Lecturer and those papers were also verified with originals by the then second respondent,
Mr. K. Balan, containing signatures of the respective candidates and in the last page, the same has been stated as verified by Dr. R. Natarajan,
Senior Lecturer and Head of Department on 9.3.2007.
6.4. The procedure appears to be that when the institute sends proposal for approval of teachers, the same is at the first instance presented to the
second respondent who is in the District, who, on verifying the originals from the petitioner/ institute, makes endorsement and forwards the same to
the first respondent for appropriate orders of approval. In the present case, it is the case of the petitioner that they have presented the proposal on
21.2.2007 seeking approval of the names of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi and Mrs. P. Nirmala. The second respondent has raised a doubt about the
qualification of those two candidates and therefore, the said proposal was replaced by the petitioner/institute on 9.3.2007, which happens to be the
last date for presenting the proposal for the academic year 2006-2007, by including new persons, namely Mr. G. Anbazhagan as Principal and
Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer and that was received by the second respondent on 9.3.2007 and verified and countersigned by him.
6.5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/institute produces a copy of that proposal verified and countersigned by the second respondent on
9.3.2007 which contains the names of Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer. Therefore, there are records to show that on the same day, namely
on 9.3.2007, the second respondent received the two proposals from the petitioner, one for Mrs. G. Ranganayagi as Principal and Mrs. P.
Nirmala as Maths Lecturer in addition to other four teaching staff as it is seen in the record of the first respondent and on verification from the
criminal court records stated above, and another for Mr. G. Anbazhagan as Principal and Mrs. J. Ceema Nair for Maths Lecturer as produced by
the petitioner in the typed set of papers and he has chosen to countersign on the same day.
6.6. Of course, it is the complaint of the petitioner that the said second respondent, Mr. K. Balan has demanded bribe for the purpose of sending
the proposal and a criminal case, as stated above, is pending. It is the case of the petitioner/institute, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner/institute, that the proposal in respect of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi and Mrs. P. Nirmala was presented by the petitioner/institute not on
9.3.2007, but on 21.2.2007 and the second respondent has illegally endorsed and countersigned on 9.3.2007 since the demanded bribe was not
paid. On the other hand, it is admitted that on the same day, viz., on 9.3.2007 the same second respondent, Mr. K. Balan has endorsed the
proposal for appointment of Mr. G. Anbazhagan as Principal and Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer and that is admitted to have been signed
by the second respondent in the presence of the petitioner, after verifying the originals.
6.7. Even though these are the matters which are ultimately to be decided by the criminal court wherein a charge has been leveled against the Mr.
K. Balan, the entire episode shows the clumsy character and attitude of the petitioner/institute in going to the extent of changing names of teachers
in the list for the purpose of getting approval somehow or other, of course taking advantage of some of the officials of doubtful reputation who
have occupied the post as Principals of District Institute of Education and Training.
6.8. Further, as it is seen in the records produced by the respondents, the said Mrs. G. Ranganayagi, who was stated to have been named in the
proposal dated 21.2.2007, was appointed by the petitioner/institute only on 9.3.2007 and such appointment order has been forwarded to the
respondents, which is available in the typed set of papers filed on the side of the respondents and more curious thing is that Mrs. G. Ranganayagi
has signed in the appointment letter on 9.3.2007 having accepted the same. While so, it is not known as to how the petitioner/institute has
presented the proposal on 21.2.2007 with the name of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi as Principal, who came to be appointed only on 9.3.2007, as it is
seen in the appointment order issued by the petitioner/institute itself.
6.9. In the consolidated particulars given along with the particulars for the year 2006-2007 singed by the second respondent on 9.3.2007, the
names of five lecturers were given as Mrs. S. Pramila, Mrs. Jayarani George, Mrs. J. Ceema Nair, Mr. R. Murugan and Mrs. V. Flora Jennika
along with their educational qualifications and other particulars relating to them.
6.10. One other astonishing factor, as revealed from the documents filed by the respondents, is that the same petitioner, who is owning another
institution in the name of Jesus Christ Teacher Training Institute for Women has issued a service certificate to Mr. G. Anbazhagan dated 5.3.2007
stating that he was working in the said institute from 1.6.2005 to 3.3.2007 and he is sought to be appointed to the petitioner institute on 7.3.2007.
6.11. As per the records of the first respondent there is no proposal available stated to have been sent by the petitioner on 21.2.2007 and the only
proposal is dated 9.3.2007 containing the names of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi and Mrs. P. Nirmala, as stated above. When there are records to show
that Mrs. G. Ranganayagi was appointed in the petitioner/ institute as a Principal on 9.3.2007, the petitioner/ institute has chosen to state in the
proposal as if the said Mrs. G. Ranganayagi was appointed as Principal on 27.11.2006.
6.12. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the name of Mrs. J. Ceema Nair was subsequently inserted illegally by the
petitioner/institute. There is certainly force in the contention of the learned Government Advocate in this regard. In the order of the first respondent
dated 26.4.2007, which was of course subsequently set aside by this Court with a direction to the first respondent to consider the proposal dated
9.3.2007 as modified in the writ appeal judgment as stated above, the first respondent by considering the application of the petitioner dated
9.3.2007 has only referred to the names of Mrs. G. Ranganayagi as Principal and Mrs. P. Nirmala as Maths Lecturer. In W.P. No. 25164 of
2007, by which the petitioner has challenged the said order of rejection dated 26.4.2007, the petitioner has stated that the list sent by the petitioner
on 21.2.2007 with Mrs. G. Ranganayagi and Mrs. P. Nirmala was returned by the second respondent on 9.3.2007 by raising some doubts and
thereafter, on the same day, the revised list was given. If really the second respondent has returned the list, it is not known as to how the second
respondent has verified the particulars about Mrs. G. Ranganayagi and Mrs. P. Nirmala on 9.3.2007 with the originals and made endorsement on
the same date.
6.13. Moreover, the original records which have been seized in the criminal case, as stated above, show that the proposal countersigned by the
second respondent dated 9.3.2007 contained only the names of Mrs. Ranganayagi and Mrs. P. Nirmala, as stated above. In the absence of such
proposal on 9.3.2007 in respect of Mr. G. Anbazhagan and Mrs. J. Ceema Nair, which is not possible due to the above said factual assertions
which I have made on perusal of records filed by the respondents in the typed set of papers, there is nothing to infer that the petitioner has sent
proposal on 9.3.2007 for appointment of Mr. G. Anbazhagan as Principal and Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer. In fact, in the letter of the
Correspondent of the petitioner/ institute dated 18.6.2007, the petitioner has referred about the appointment of Mrs. J. Ceema Nair on 5.3.2007
and Mr. G. Anbazhagan on 7.3.2007, but the proposal was sent for the first time on 18.6.2007 in respect of those two new candidates. Even if
the appointment of the said candidates was made before 9.3.2007, the same is not significant since it is the date of proposal which is relevant for
enabling the first respondent to consider for approval. Inasmuch as, on record, there is nothing to show that the proposal in respect of Mr. G.
Anbazhagan as Principal and Mrs. J. Ceema Nair as Maths Lecturer was sent before the cut off date, namely 9.3.2007, I do not see any infirmity
in the order of the first respondent.
Considering the grave and unhealthy conduct of the petitioner/institute, which of course appears to be in collusion with one of the officials of the
respondent, particularly, the then second respondent, I am of the considered view that any interference with the impugned order of the first
respondent would amount to giving premium to the illegal conduct of the petitioner/institute. The conduct of the petitioner/institute cannot be simply
stated to be deceptive, deceiving the innocent students, but it is much more than that and there is no question of interfering with the impugned order
of the first respondent. I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner/institute must be dealt with in an appropriate manner, of course after ascertaining
the actual conduct committed by the petitioner, on enquiry by an appropriate agency in the appropriate forum.
Now coming to the sorry state of affairs of the innocent students admitted by the petitioner/institute, it is a fact that by conducting such enquiry
against the petitioner/institute or by any probable prosecution in future or by directing the institute to pay an amount for charitable purpose by way
of penalty, it is not going to be of any use to the students who have undergone the course, taken up the examinations at various levels by orders of
this Court as well as the Apex Court as stated above. It is no doubt true that such permissions are given only as interim arrangements and subject
to the final decision, but the problem is that in the final decision if an order is passed against the institution which has illegally admitted students, one
must see the irreparable damage which is caused to these innocent youngsters who are at the verge of entering into the rigorousness of life after
completing the education and who cannot be compensated since the valuable time of two years cannot be given back to them by any such efforts
unless the principle of equity is exercised in their interest, which can certainly not be termed as bounty or grace. These are not cases where the
students were informed either by the first respondent or by the National Council for Teacher Education either in public media or otherwise that
they should not get themselves admitted before approval of teaching staff. These are by and large the internal affairs of the institutes existence of
which is presumed bonafide, which in this case proved to be otherwise due to lack of honesty. Ultimately, apart from loss of hard earned money
spent on these students by their parents, mental agony and financial crisis which may be caused to them would be more if these students are thrown
out on the ground that the petitioner/institute has committed a grave illegality. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the writ petition filed
by the students in W.P. No. 11670 of 2009 purely on equitable ground, of course subject to certain conditions.
In fine, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed:
(i) the impugned order of the first respondent dated 5.5.2009 does not require any interference, except insofar as it relates to the last paragraph
regarding the declaration of the results of the students. Hence, W.P. No. 11200 of 2009 is dismissed, except insofar as it relates to the last
paragraph of the impugned order dated 5.5.2009;
(ii) the State Government and the first respondent are directed to refer the matter to the CB-CID within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the said agency shall complete the enquiry expeditiously and submit a report to the State Government
and thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate action against the persons found responsible;
(iii) W.P. No. 11670 of 2009 stands allowed subject to the condition that the fourth respondent/institute in W.P. No. 11670 of 2009 (petitioner in
W.P. No. 11200 of 2009) shall pay an amount of Rs. 7500/- in respect of each of the 20 students amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) by way of demand draft to the State Commissioner for the Disabled, No. 15/1, Model School Road, Thousand
Lights, Chennai - 600 006 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on producing proof of such payment, respondents
1 to 3 are directed to permit the petitioners in W.P. No. 11670 of 2009 who have been admitted in 2006-2007 to complete their examinations,
including arrears or practical examination, if any, and issue necessary mark sheets and certificates. In default of payment as stated above, this writ
petition shall stand dismissed; and
(iv) on the petitioner/institute forwarding the amount stated in direction (iii) of order, the State Commissioner for the Disabled shall send the same
to the Government Higher Secondary School for the Blind, Karaiyan Chavadi, Poonamalle, Chennai - 600 056 to be used for the interest of the
beneficiaries of the said institute and report to the Registry of this Court within two weeks thereafter.
Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 in W.P. No. 11200 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in W.P. No. 11670 of 2009 are closed.