AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—The Petitioner has sought for a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned guidelines issued by the first respondent, dated 10.10.2008, regarding the Eligibility Certificate, in respect of Additional Degree obtained without undergoing three year degree course in the main subject and also relating to rounding of marks for admission to B.Ed Degree Course. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential proceedings, dated 23.12.2008 of the University, by which, the admission of the petitioner to B.Ed degree course has been cancelled.
Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:
The petitioner studied Bachelor Degree in Sociology between 1992-1995, in an Fathima College, Madurai, an autonomous college affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University. She enrolled herself as a student in B.A(English) in the second respondent University and was granted two year exemption vide proceedings, dated 14.02.2008. By virtue of the same, she got a degree in B.A(English), after clearing all the papers (18 papers), prescribed for three year course in B.A in one year. Thereafter, she was working as Teacher in Kinder Garden School for 11 years. As the petitioner wanted to pursue higher studies, she applied for B.Ed degree course in English in N.P.R. College of Education, Dindigul, the third respondent herein. She was also granted admission. While she was preparing for final examination, the first respondent sent a communication dated 23.12.2008, stating that the admission of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that she had attained an additional degree which is not acceptable as per the guidelines. As the petitioner was not served with any notice or cancellation order, she is constrained to file the present Writ Petition, for the relief stated supra.
The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, Chennai, the first respondent herein, in his counter affidavit has submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Act No. (33) of 2008, for establishment and incorporation of Teachers Education University, in the State of Tamil Nadu for promoting excellence in teachers'' education. The Act came into force from 01.07.2008, by a Gazette Notification issued in G.O.Ms. No. 256, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 25.06.2008. The first respondent has further submitted that as per the details furnished in the application form, seeking for eligibility from the University, the qualifications of the petitioner are as follows:
i. B.A. Socilogy - 3 year duration
ii. B.A. English Literature - one year duration.
The first respondent has further submitted that admission to B.Ed Degree Course is made strictly on the basis of guidelines prescribed by the Government of Tamilnadu in G.O.Ms.(1D) No. 74, Higher Education, G1 Department, dated 10.05.2008. These guidelines have been communicated by the Principal/Secretary, Single Window System for B.Ed Admission, Lady Willingdon Institute of Advanced Studies in Education(Autonomous), Chennai-5 to all the Principals of Government, Government Aided and Self-Financing, Colleges(vide Na.Ka. No. 0484/D/08, dated 15.05.2008)
It is further submitted that as per the guidelines prescribed in G.O, a candidate intending to join B.Ed Degree course, ought to have undergone 10 year schooling, two year Higher Secondary course and three academic year degree course(10+2+3) pattern and the candidates admitted to B.Ed degree course are required to apply for Eligibility Certificate.
The respondent has further submitted that the following subjects are being offered under B.Ed course in Government/Government Aided/Self-Financing, Colleges of Education.
------------------------------------------------- 09 Home Science ------------------------------------------------- 01 Tamil ------------------------------------------------- 02 English ------------------------------------------------- 03 Mathematics ------------------------------------------------- 04(a) Physical Science(Physics) ------------------------------------------------- 04(b) Physical Science(Chemistry) ------------------------------------------------- 05(a) Biological Science (Botany) ------------------------------------------------- 05(b) Biological Science(Zoology) ------------------------------------------------- 06 History ------------------------------------------------- 07 Geography ------------------------------------------------- 08 Computer Science ------------------------------------------------- 10 Economics ------------------------------------------------- 11 Commerce -------------------------------------------------
The first respondent has further submitted that as per the details furnished in the application form, certain Eligibility and Educational Qualification of the petitioner are as follows:
(i) B.A. (Sociology), three year duration.
(ii) B.A. English, one year duration.
It is also the contention of the respondent that the petitioner being basically not eligible to pursue B.Ed Degree Course, with qualification obtained in B.A Degree in Socilogy of three academic year duration has chosen a short-cut method of qualifying herself for one year degree course with English as the main subject. Such degree awarded by the University with one year duration would not serve the purpose for admission to higher degree course. One year degree course would only serve the purpose as an add-on-degree course and nothing more.
The first respondent has further submitted that the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, had sent a letter to the Principals of all Colleges affiliated to the University on 28.08.2008, wherein, it was specifically instructed that the candidates joining B.Ed/M.Ed course should not be admitted without Eligibility Certificate. When the qualification prescribed by the Government for B.Ed Degree course is that, the candidates should have completed UG degree in 10+2+3 stream, the third respondent ought not to have admitted the petitioner, without the Eligibility Certificate from the competent authority.
The first respondent has further submitted that when the Principal/Secretary, Single Window System for B.Ed Admission, Lady Willingdon Institute of Advanced Studies in Education(Autonomous),Chennai-600 005, has communicated to all the Principals of Government, Government Aided and Self-Financing Colleges vide proceedings, dated 15.05.2008, the said guidelines ought to have been followed by the third respondent college irrespective of the enactment of Act No. 33 of 2008, the establishment and incorporation of Teachers Education University. It is further submitted that the candidates admitted in the respective colleges are required to apply for Eligibility Certificate through the college in which they are admitted. The first respondent has further submitted that the University has 564 colleges and each college has a sanctioned strength of 100 students. The last date for admission was 30.09.2008. The colleges concerned have to submit the filled in applications, in respect of the candidates, who were admitted to the colleges before on 31.10.2008. The University after scrutinising the application found that the petitioner was not eligible and accordingly an intimation, dated 23.12.2008 was sent to the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is not eligible, she cannot seek remedy on the ground of misplaced sympathy. For the foregoing reasons, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Assailing the impugned orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that cancellation of the admission is illegal, for the reason that the first respondent ought to have considered that the petitioner has passed one year B.A English Course and cleared all the papers prescribed for three years course in one year, which is permissible under the directions of Madurai Kamaraj University.
He further submitted that the petitioner is admitted to B.Ed Degree, as per the regulations, dated 26.09.2008, whereas, the guidelines issued by the first respondent came into force only on 10.10.2008. By giving retrospective effect, her admission cannot be found fault with. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the guidelines, dated 10.10.2008 was neither communicated to her nor a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner, and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that once the third respondent has admitted the petitioner and allowed her to continue the course, the respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to cancel admission
Per contra, reiterating the averments made in the affidavit Mrs. R. Anitha, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that admission to B.Ed Degree can be made only as per the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms (1D) No. 74, Higher Education, G1 Department, dated 10.05.2008 and these guidelines have been communicated to the Principals/Secretary, Single Window System for B.Ed Admission, Lady willingdon Institute of Advanced Studies in Education(Autonomous) to all the Principals of Government, Government Aided and Self-Financing Colleges well in advance i.e., on 15.05.2008 itself. She further submitted that Act No. (33) of 2008 came into force on 01.07.2008 and therefore, the prescription of qualification for admission to B.Ed Degree Course in the above said institution as provided in the guidelines and statute have to be strictly followed by them.
Pointing out that the petitioner was admitted to the third respondent college, only on 26.09.2008, she has submitted that any mistake committed by the third respondent in not following the Act and guidelines by the competent authority and it cannot be approved as it would amount to perpetuating illegality. Candidates who passed UG Degree Examination in 10+2+3 stream alone are eligible to pursue B.Ed degree course. The qualification obtained by the petitioner from Madurai Kamaraj University, which according to her, is only an add-on-degree course which is not equivalent to the degree obtained in 10+2+3 pattern, and therefore, the very admission granted to the petitioner without Eligibility Certificate is liable to be cancelled. Therefore, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of cancellation.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Perusal of the impugned letter, dated 10.10.2008 makes it clear that the additional degree obtained without undergoing three year duration in the main subject, shall not be considered as equivalent and candidates should not be admitted during the academic year without Eligibility Certificate. It is well-settled that the prescription of eligibility such as age, educational qualification for admission to any diploma or degree or programme is purely the prerogative of the University, which recognises the degree or diploma etc., Likewise, recognising any decree or diploma etc., offered by other Universities as equivalent to the course or programme or diploma, conducted by the University or its affiliated colleges is purely the decision of the academic council or the competent authority of the Universit. The first respondent University is a unique University established by the Government, for Teacher Education in the State of Tamil Nadu and there are 564 colleges, affiliated to the University. Such being the case, the first respondent is empowered to fix their own norms for treating a qualification as equivalent to the one offered by them. It is needless to say that some Universities have introduced hybrid courses which are not recognised by other Universities. In the case on hand, add-on-degree in B.A. English from Madurai Kamaraj University with one year duration is not accepted and it is not equivalent to three year degree course, i.e., 10+2+3 pattern of study, for the purpose of admission to B.Ed Degree course in the colleges affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, Chennai. Courts have consistently held that opinion of experts in the matter of admission and prescription of qualifications, cannot be interferred with.
In view of the above, the admission of the petitioner to the third respondent college without the prescribed qualifications, is illegal and cannot be permitted to continue, as it amount perpetuating an illegality. Therefore, the admission of the petitioner to the third respondent college, cannot be approved and I do not find that there is any manifest illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in this Writ petition warranting interference by this Court.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.