Judgment : Prayer in W.P.No. 10419 of 2005 is to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6664/C1/2004 dated 15.9.2005 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and consequently directing the respondents to approve the petitioners admission and to allow the petitioner to appear for the examinations to be conducted on 23.11.2005 and further examinations. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions as stated in the affidavit in support of W.P.No.10419 of 2005 are as follows. • (a) Petitioner was born on 20.8.1987 and was admitted in the first standard 20 days before completion of five years of age. Petitioner studied in the 6th standard in Natarajan Damayanthi Higher Secondary School, Nagapattinam and at that time she was found under aged by 20 days to appear for the examinations. The Headmaster of the school sent a representation to the District Elementary Officer, Nagapatti-nam, to grant exemption for the shortage of 20 days in age along with five other students citing G.O.Ms.No. 385 dated 24.5.1988, which provided grant of exemption up to 30 days after July 31st of July for admission into the first standard in elementary education. The representation of the Headmaster of the School was forwarded to the Director of School Education, who in turn in his proceedings dated 30.5.1988 directed the District Educational Officer, Nagapattinam, to grant exemption pursuant to which the District Educational Officer, Nagapattinam by order dated 3.7.1997 exempted the shortage of 20 days in age of the petitioner enabling her to appear for the 6th standard examinations. • (b) Petitioner having obtained the order of exemption, was permitted to appear for the SSLC examinations in April 2002, the results of which were published on 30.5.2002 and she appeared for the Higher Secondary examinations in March 2004, for which results were published on 12.5.2005. • (c) After completing Higher Secondary examinations, petitioner joined in the Teacher Training Course in the second respondent Institute and she was admitted in the management quota along with 17 other candidates. The list of 18 candidates was sent to the first respondent by the second respondent for necessary approval. The first respondent, by the impugned proceeding dated 15.9.2005, approved the admission of only 14 candidates and disapproved the admission of four candidates including that of the petitioner. The list of 18 candidates was sent to the first respondent by the second respondent for necessary approval. The first respondent, by the impugned proceeding dated 15.9.2005, approved the admission of only 14 candidates and disapproved the admission of four candidates including that of the petitioner. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner is under aged. • (d) On 23.9.2005, the second respondent submitted representation for ratification of admission of the petitioner and three other candidates, specifically stating that the petitioner obtained age relaxation from the competent authority while she was undergoing school education and therefore she was permitted to write SSLC public examinations and also Higher Secondary examinations. The petitioner having passed the Higher Secondary Examinations is entitled to get admission into the Teacher Training Course (two year) and no order having been passed by the first respondent for subsequent ratification sought for by the second respondent, petitioner has filed W.P. No.10419 of 2005. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 21.11.2005 and when the first year examinations were conducted by the Department, petitioner was not permitted to write examinations and therefore the petitioner field WPMP No.11134 of 2005 and prayed for an interim direction to the respondents to allow her to appear for the examinations to be started 23.11.2005 onwards by issuing hall tickets, pending writ petition. This Court by order dated 21.11.2005 granted permission to the petitioner to appear for the examinations held from 23.11.2005 onwards with a condition that the direction shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents and the petitioner shall not claim publication of results in the event of petitioner fails in the writ petition. Pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared for the examinations and the results were withheld. 4. W.P.No.7237 of 2006 has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish the results of the petitioner for the first year Diploma in Teacher Education course held for the academic year 2005-2006 and the said writ petition was also posted along with this writ petition. 5. The respondents, even though were served, no counter affidavit was filed. However, the learned counsel for the respondents argued the matter on instructions and both the writ petitions were taken up for final disposal with the consent of both side counsels. 6. 5. The respondents, even though were served, no counter affidavit was filed. However, the learned counsel for the respondents argued the matter on instructions and both the writ petitions were taken up for final disposal with the consent of both side counsels. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was already granted exemption for her shortage in age of 20 days while she was undergoing School Education, pursuant to which she was admitted into 6th standard; permitted to appear for 10 the standard Public examinations; and also 12th standard public examinations. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the first respondent is not justified in not approving the admission of the petitioner for DTE course in the second respondent Teacher Training Institute. The learned counsel also pointed out the notification issued by the first respondent which prescribed the eligibility conditions that the candidates should have passed the Plus Two examinations (including first improvement marks) with 45% (540/1200). Insofar as SC and ST candidates are concerned it is sufficient if the candidates get pass mark in Plus Two. Further the candidates must have studied in the language Tamil/Telugu/Malayalam/Urdhu as his/her medium of instruction as first or second language and for admission into Anglo Indian Schools, the candidates should have undergone English medium course and for those who wish to study in Tamil medium, should have studied Tamil as a subject in Plus Two level. With regard to the age, the candidates must not have completed 30 years of age and insofar as SC, ST and physically handicapped candidates are concerned maximum age of 35 is prescribed. For Orphans, deserted women and widows, the maximum age of 40 is permitted. No relaxation of upper age will be granted. The learned counsel further argued that the NCTE regulations prescribed the eligibility for admission to DTE course and in Appendix-5 of NCTE Regulations, 2002, no minimum or maximum, age is prescribed. Hence the learned counsel submitted that the first respondent is not justified in rejecting the approval of admission of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is under aged. 7. The learned counsel further argued that the NCTE regulations prescribed the eligibility for admission to DTE course and in Appendix-5 of NCTE Regulations, 2002, no minimum or maximum, age is prescribed. Hence the learned counsel submitted that the first respondent is not justified in rejecting the approval of admission of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is under aged. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that even though the notification issued by the first respondent nowhere prescribed the minimum age, the first respondent is approving the admissions of candidates, who have completed 18 years of age and there is no illegality in the order and therefore the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader. 9. The point in issue is whether the petitioners admission in the second respondent Teacher Training Institute for DTE course 2005-2006 is to be approved or not. 10. The only objection stated in the impugned order dated 15.9.2005 is that the petitioner is under aged by 20 days. A perusal of the notification issued by the first respondent reveals that the following are the eligibilities prescribed for admission into the DTE course. • (1) Pass in Plus Two examinations (including first improvement marks) with 45% (540/1200). Insofar as SC and ST candidates are concerned, it is sufficient if the candidates get pass mark in Plus Two. • (2) The candidates must have studied in the languages Tamil/Telugu/Malayalam/Urdhu as his/her medium of instruction as first or second language. For admission into Anglo Indian Schools, the candidates should have undergone English medium course and for those who wish to study in Tamil medium, should have studied Tamil as a subject in Plus Two level. • (3) Age qualification: The candidates must not have completed 30 years of age and insofar as SC, ST and physically handicapped candidates are concerned, maximum age of 35 is prescribed. For Orphans and deserted women and widows, the maximum age of 40 is permitted. No relaxation of upper age will be granted. The above eligibility conditions nowhere prescribed minimum age for admission into the DTE curse. For Orphans and deserted women and widows, the maximum age of 40 is permitted. No relaxation of upper age will be granted. The above eligibility conditions nowhere prescribed minimum age for admission into the DTE curse. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner; norms for admission have been prescribed by the NCTE Regulations, 2002 which was framed under NCTE Act, 1993 and Appendix5 prescribes the norms and standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme (DTE). Clause 3 of the regulation prescribed eligibility, which reads as follows, “3. Eligibility: (a) Candidates with at least 45% marks in the senior secondary examination (+2), or its equivalent, are eligible for admission. (b) Admission: should be made either on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination or in the entrance examination conducted by the State Government, as per the policy of the State Government. (c) There shall be reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC, Handicapped, Women, etc. As per the rules of the concerned State Government.” In the said regulation also NCTE has not prescribed any age qualification, either minimum or maximum for admission into the course, and only minimum mark is prescribed. 11. Thus, it is clear that neither the second respondent nor the NCTE has prescribed the minimum age for admission into the DTE course and the first respondent fixed only the upper age limit of 30 for general candidates. In the absence of any minimum age prescribed either by the NCTE or by the first respondent, the first respondent is not justified in not approving the admission of the petitioner into DTE course by the second respondent for the year 2005-2006. 12. In view of the above finding, both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. The impugned order dated 15.9.2005 disapproving the admission of the petitioner into the DTE course is set aside. The first respondent is directed to approve the admissions of the petitioner for the said course in 2005-2006 (2 year course) and the petitioner shall be permitted to appear for the second year examinations for theory and practical along with the other candidates and the results shall be published in the normal course. The first year results which were withheld pursuant to the interim orders of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.11134 of 2005 dated 21.11.2005 shall be published within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The first year results which were withheld pursuant to the interim orders of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.11134 of 2005 dated 21.11.2005 shall be published within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.