T. Raja vs The Director, Teacher Education Research and Training Department, The Joint Director (Education) and The Principal, The District Education and Training Institute

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner, after passing the Higher Secondary Examination, applied for admission in Teacher Training Course in third Respondent-Institute, under special quota of seats allotted for son or daughter of a teacher of a recognised School who died while in service.

Petitioner's father was in service as Headmaster in Adi Dravidar Welfare Elementary School at Turaiyur Taluk. While he was in service, he died on 20.4.1978. He was Headmaster in the above School, and the Certificate issued by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Trichy was also produced along with the application for admission. According to Petitioner, his father was in service in a Government School and not even in a recognised School when he died all of a sudden. At the time of his death, Petitioner was only 1-1/2 years old.

As per the Prospectus issued by third Respondent, two seats have been allotted to children of teachers of recognised Schools who died while in service, to undergo Teacher Training Course. It is said that 3rd Respondent-Institute is meant for Scheduled Caste candidates both for Trichy and Dindigul District, and that is why Petitioner applied for admission in that Institute, and he was also provisionally selected. On the basis of such selection, he paid fees, but it was refused by stating that he was wrongly selected under the special quota. He was told that the quota is intended only for recognised Schools coming under the Education Department, and Adi Dravidar Welfare Department does not come under the Education Department. Subsequently, Petitioner's admission itself was cancelled. According to Petitioner, the impugned order cancelling the admission is improper and against the Principles of Natural Justice. That apart, in the application form that has to be filled up, the only qualification prescribed was that the candidate must be a son or daughter of a teacher of a recognised School who died while in service. Merely because the Petitioner's father happened to be the Headmaster of any Adi Dravidar Welfare Elementary School, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is disqualified from getting admission.

Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by third Respondent. The main contention that is taken is that two seats are reserved only for children of deceased Teaching and Non-teaching Staff of the Education Department who died in harness. Petitioner is not entitled to get admission since his father was in service as Headmaster in Government Adi Dravida Welfare School. Petitioner's selection was only provisional and, therefore, it could be cancelled at any time without any notice. It is also said that even the application form was defective, and the same was liable to be rejected even without considering any other matter. The third Respondent, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Reply affidavit has been filed by Petitioner, stating that the second Respondent himself has given a letter stating that all the Schools functioning under the control of the Department of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department have got the recognition from the Government, and only after that, Petitioner's name was recommended. The other ground referred in the counter, namely, that the application itself was defective, is denied.

I heard learned Counsel for the parties in detail.

In the Instructions issued by the District Education and Training Institute, Ottanchathiram, which forms part of the typed set of papers, it is stated thus:

Regarding the documents that are to be filed along with the application in respect of this quota, it is said thus:

It is not disputed by Respondents that the Instructions issued, applies to the third Respondent-Institute also. In the application form for getting admission under the special category, relevant column reads thus:

In accordance with the above clause found in the application form and also the Instructions issued by the third Respondent-Institute (extracted supra), Petitioner has submitted his application.

In the impugned order, the reason stated for cancelling the admission is, that the Petitioner's father was a teacher of an Adi Dravida Welfare School which did not come under the Education Department, and, therefore, Petitioner was not entitled for admission under the special quota.

Relevant portion of the order reads thus:

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the second Respondent has already written letters to authorities concerned stating that the Adi Dravida Welfare Schools are also recognised by the Government and, therefore, candidates are eligible to be admitted under this quota. The said letter reads thus:

Taking into consideration these facts, I do not think that the Respondents are right in cancelling the admission given to the Petitioner. In fact, on going by the application and the Instructions, the only conclusion that could be arrived at is, that there is no distinction between teachers employed in Institutions coming under the Education Department and teachers employed in Adi Dravida Welfare Schools. It also does not make any distinction between Government Schools and Recognised Schools.

It is at this juncture, learned Government Advocate submitted that in the notice issued in various newspapers, further details are given about the eligibility for admission. It is said that the Petitioner was also aware of the said Notification and that he himself has produced the same as part of the typed set of papers. In the notice published in newspapers inviting applications for Teacher Training Course, admission to Special Quota reads thus:

On the basis of this publication, it is said that the intention was clear, namely, that the admission is only for those candidates who satisfy the requirement in the notice. It is also submitted that the said publication was made on the basis of Government Order G.O. Ms. No. 229 dated

6.8.1998. It is further said that in the Government Order, admission under special quota is only for those candidates whose parents were employed at teachers in Schools coming under Education Department.

Whatever may be the Government Order and the publication, admission is made on the basis of the application, filed before the authorities. In that Application Form, there is no indication about G.O. Ms. No. 229 or about the paper publication. The authorities were also aware of it, and that is why admission was given to the Petitioner.

The contention that a mistake was committed cannot be accepted, if the Petitioner had satisfied the legal requirements, as prescribed in the Application Form. The mistake, even if any, is only a unilateral mistake, which will not give a right to the Government to cancel the admission already made.

In the result, the impugned order is quashed, and the Writ Petition is allowed. Third Respondent is directed to admit the Petitioner to the Teacher Training Course on the basis of the provisional admission already made. No costs. W.M. Ps. are closed.