Mrs. A. Kadeesa vs The Government of Tamil Nadu, The Director, Board of Teacher Education Research and Training and The District Institute of Education Training

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in G.O. Ms. No. 290, School Education (U-1) Department, dated 4.8.1998, on the file of 1st Respondent and quash the fixation of maximum age limit in paragraph 5 therein, for Backward Community to apply for the Secondary Grade Training Course in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, and thus render justice.

Petitioner, after her Higher Secondary Education got admitted to the Annai Fathima Teacher Training Institute for Women, Dharapuram, in the year 1992. That Institute was not recognised by the Government.

As per the decision of this Court in P.M. Joseph v. Estate of Tamil Nadu 1993 Writ L.R. 604, the Division Bench has declared that students who have undergone the Course and who have written the Examination will be entitled only to have the results published, and they will not be entitled for issuance of Marksheet or Diploma. By virtue of the said decision, number of students were seriously affected. The said decision was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court also. Taking into consideration the plight of those students, the Government thought of providing 30% reservation to the various Teacher Training Institutes on certain conditions. One such condition was that the candidate should not have completed 30 years of age if he is a member of Backward Class, and 35 years of age if he is a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

Petitioner, who was a student of a derecognised Institute sought admission in third Respondent-Institute. She was denied admission. She challenges that the clause regarding fixation of age is arbitrary and there is no rationale behind the same. According to her, it does not serve the purpose, namely, to/give some relief to the candidates who were victims of various Institutes and, therefore, without considering her age, admission should have been given to her.

At the time when the Writ Petition came up for admission, I heard learned Government Advocate also.

Only point urged by learned Counsel for Petitioner was that the fixation of age is arbitrary, when the purpose was to give some relief to candidates who had undergone the Course in unrecognised or derecognised institutes.

I do not think that the submission of learned Counsel could be accepted.

The reservation of 30% is in the nature of concession. When a concession is given, naturally, the Petitioner will have to satisfy the requirements. Fixation of age for admission is also a relevant factor, taking into consideration the future employment opportunities. When the Government thought of giving concession to candidates, it is also competent to fix the age. This Court has already held in other cases that this is a matter of policy of the Government, and the Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For employment in various Schools, age is a relevant consideration. If that is a relevant consideration, then, naturally, the Government is also competent to fix the age for candidates who seek admission. The purpose is that successful candidates must be eligible to get employment in various Schools. The argument that the fixation of age has no nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved, is not correct. Consequently I hold that the Writ Petition is without any merits, and it is dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M. Ps. are also dismissed.