Judgment COMMON ORDER In W.P.No.14840 of 2008, the petitioner institution, viz., Annai Sathya Men Teacher Training Institute, has prayed for a writ of Mandamus against the second respondent, the Director of Government Examinations, Chennai-6 to issue hall tickets to 50 students who are stated to have undergone their D.T.Ed. for the academic year 2007-08 to sit in the examinations (Theory and practical) conducted from 26. 2008. By an interim order dated 26. 2008, this Court permitted them to sit in the examinations held on 26. 2008, directing that the results shall not be declared until further orders and making it clear that the order is subject to the result in the writ petition and shall not confer any additional right on the petitioner institution or its students. 2. The petitioner institution is stated to have been granted recognition by the Regional Director of the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) viz., the 4th respondent for the academic year 2005-06 subject to the condition that the institution should ensure that the Principal and five faculty members are duly approved by the Director of Teacher Education Research & Training (DTERT), Chennai viz., the first respondent, before commencement of the course and report the same to the Southern Regional Committee. It is stated that after obtaining recognition from the 4th respondent, the petitioner submitted a list of teaching and non-teaching staff including the Principal for approval from the third respondent who is stated to have forwarded the same to the second respondent for approval. 2(a). The case of the petitioner is that as per the NCTE Regulations, 2002, Appendix V, the qualification required for Principal is M.A. M.Ed.(Education) with 55% marks preferably with specialization in elementary education and five years teaching experience in elementary teaching education and for lecturers, the qualification is M.Ed./M.A.(Edn.) with 55% and in the Master Degree, they should obtain 55% marks in relevant school subjects or B.Ed. preferably with specilisation in elementary education and five years teaching experience in recognized elementary schools. It is stated that relaxation of 5% may be given from 55% to 50% at the Master degree level for SC/ST category. 2(b). The petitioner is stated to have sent the proposal of teachers list on 111. 2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has found that all teaching staff were found qualified as per NCTE Regulations, 2002. 2(b). The petitioner is stated to have sent the proposal of teachers list on 111. 2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has found that all teaching staff were found qualified as per NCTE Regulations, 2002. However, the second respondent rejected the proposal on 30.11.2006, by finding certain deficiencies in respect of three teachers. In respect of Mrs.Baktha Gowri, English Lecturer, it is stated that S.C. community certificate has not been produced, with regard to Mr.R.Raghavan, Maths Lecturer, it is stated that elementary education certificates are not countersigned by the competent authority and in respect of Mr.T.Nedumaran, Science Lecturer it is stated that elementary education certificates are not countersigned by the competent authority. It is stated that the said mistakes/defects were rectified and the same were sent to the second respondent on 12. 2006 and in spite of the same, the second respondent has not passed orders. 2(c). In the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.49645 of 2006, the challenge was against the Government Order in G.O.Ms.(2D) No.59 (U1) School Education Department, dated 111. 2006. While upholding the said G.O. for the academic year 2006-07, this Court directed the second respondent to grant approval to the teachers and students immediately but since the second respondent has not passed any orders, contempt application was filed in Cont.P.No.606 of 2007 and there was an interim direction passed by this Court on 7. 2007 directing the second respondent to include the petitioner institution in the list of approved institutions for counselling to be conducted for the academic year 2007-08. 2(d). Pending the contempt petition, the second respondent once again rejected the proposal for staff on three grounds; viz., (i) in respect of Maths Lecturer Mr.P.Elango, though eligible as per qualification, as the photograph affixed was a different one and the said photograph belonged to one Mr.K.S.Elangovan; (ii) in respect of Tamil Lecturer Mr.Thirugnanasambandam, his experience certificate has not been countersigned by the District Educational Officer and he was working as a teacher in a Middle School under the same management; and (iii) in respect of English Lecturer Tmt.Baktha Gowri, her certificate was not countersigned by the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer and she had only four years of experience. It was against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31281 of 2007 which is pending. 2(e). It was against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31281 of 2007 which is pending. 2(e). In the Sub Application filed by the petitioner in Sub Appln.No.1/07 in the Contempt Petition No.606 of 2007, this Court passed orders dated 17. 2007 directing the first respondent to include the petitioner institution in the list of approved institutions for the academic year 2007-08. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the delay in granting approval of staff was purely on the part of the first respondent and in the meantime, the students have completed their second year course in D.T.Ed. and are ready to take up their examinations from 26. 2008 and at the request of the second respondent, the examination fees were also paid. Therefore, it is also stated that 50 students who have completed their first year course in the academic year 2007-08 and who have been permitted to sit in examinations, as stated above, by the interim orders of this Court subject to the condition that they should undergo more than 220 days of study. In these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed for the prayer as stated above. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in the above said case it is stated that though deficiencies were found in respect of three teachers in the proposal of the petitioner dated 111. 2006, yet a fresh proposal was not submitted before the cut-off date viz., 20.11.2006 as stipulated in G.O.Ms.(2D).No.59 (U1) School Education Department, dated 111. 2006 and therefore, approval for the year 2006-07 could not be granted and the students admitted by the management without staff approval cannot have any right. It is also stated that the validity of the above G.O.Ms.(2D).No.59 (U1) School Education Department, dated 111. 2006 was upheld in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.49645 of 2006 and therefore, the first respondent by the letter dated 27. 2007 informed the petitioner that approval cannot be granted for the academic year 2006-07 on three grounds as stated above, viz., the deficiencies in respect of Mr.Elangovan, Mr.Thirugnanasambandam and Tmt.Baktha Gowri. 2006 was upheld in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.49645 of 2006 and therefore, the first respondent by the letter dated 27. 2007 informed the petitioner that approval cannot be granted for the academic year 2006-07 on three grounds as stated above, viz., the deficiencies in respect of Mr.Elangovan, Mr.Thirugnanasambandam and Tmt.Baktha Gowri. While it is admitted that in the Sub Appln.No.176 of 2007 in Cont.Petition No.606 of 2007 in W.P.No.49645 of 2006, this Court granted an interim direction to include the name of the petitioner institution in the approved list of institutions for counselling, it is stated that the same is subject to further orders. 3(a). It is stated that as against the said interim orders dated 7. 2007, appeal was filed and all the matters were clubbed together by a common order dated 1. 2008 and the Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal holding that the students who have already written the examinations under the cover of the interim orders and that the results would depend upon the outcome of the writ petition in W.P.No.31281 of 2007 and the Division Bench closed the contempt petition and therefore, the direction dated 7. 2007 has virtually become infructuous. It is stated that the petitioner institution on 25. 2008 applied to the first respondent for the grant of affiliation and staff approval from 2005 onwards in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94 School Education Department, dated 5. 2008 by remitting the necessary fees, but the same could not be considered for the academic year 2008-09 due to the reason that the affiliation fee of Rs.25,000/- has not been remitted. 4. In W.P.No.14786 of 2008, the petitioner institution, G.K.Teacher Training Institute, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District has prayed for direction against the first respondent, the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training to approve 50 students of first year D.T.Ed. course for the year 2007-08 batch to enable the students to continue the course in the institution, contending that the petitioner institution was recognized by the NCTE through its Southern Regional Committee on 212. 2006 for conducting diploma in teacher education with annual intake of 50 students. The petitioner submitted a list of faculty members of one Principal and five lecturers to the second respondent on 212. 2006 for conducting diploma in teacher education with annual intake of 50 students. The petitioner submitted a list of faculty members of one Principal and five lecturers to the second respondent on 212. 2006 who forwarded the same to the first respondent but the proposal was not considered by the first respondent before the cut-off date for the year 2006-07 which was fixed as 3. 2007. The petitioner filed W.P.No.6554 of 2007 and this Court by order dated 22. 2007 directed to process the application for approval of the list of faculty members. When the said order was forwarded to the third respondent on 3. 2007, the third respondent by a memo dated 13. 2007 returned the entire staff proposal by giving some reasons and according to the petitioner, no deficiency was found out by the third respondent and therefore, on the next date, viz., 13. 2007, the entire staff proposal was represented by the petitioner to the third respondent for which the third respondent gave acknowledgment. Since it was not considered, contempt petition was filed in Cont.P.No.1726/07 in which notice was issued. 4(a). During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, an order of rejection dated 211. 2007 was served stating that the returned staff proposal dated 3. 2007 was not represented by the petitioner and therefore, it was not considered, ignoring the fact that the returned staff proposal was represented on 13. 2007 and acknowledged by the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.3744 of 2008 challenging the rejection order dated 211. 2007. Pending the said writ petition, examinations schedule for the first year D.T.Ed. of 2006-07 batch was announced. In a batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench by order dated 12. 2008 permitted the students of the petitioner institution to appear for examinations for the academic year 2006-07 started from 12. 2008. Pursuant to that, the students of the first year of the year 2006-07 batch were permitted to write examinations and ultimately, all the writ petitions were disposed of by the first Bench of this Court on 4. 2008 with direction especially to the first respondent to consider both the staff lists viz., the original staff list submitted and the list resubmitted later treating them as one and the same filed within the cut-off date. 4(b). After that, the first respondent, again by communication dated 5. 2008 with direction especially to the first respondent to consider both the staff lists viz., the original staff list submitted and the list resubmitted later treating them as one and the same filed within the cut-off date. 4(b). After that, the first respondent, again by communication dated 5. 2008 addressed to the third respondent with a copy marked to the petitioner, informed that the staff proposal has to be once again submitted with full particulars on or before 5. 2008 through the third respondent and thereafter on 5. 2008, a communication was issued directing the petitioner to submit staff proposal once again, in spite of the fact that the entire issue was resolved by the Division Bench directing the authorities to consider both the proposals dated 212. 2006 and 13. 2007. Pursuant to that, the petitioner submitted the staff proposal once again on 5. 2008 which was forwarded by the third respondent for necessary approval, however, the first respondent has not passed any orders. In the meantime, the third respondent announced the examinations schedule for 2007-08 for the first year for D.T.Ed. students according to which the examinations would commence from 26. 2008 and the 50 students who underwent the course paid necessary fees and they were readmitted for the academic year 2007-08. Therefore, the present writ petition for direction as stated above in respect of 50 students to approve for the first year for the year 2007-08 has been filed. 5. By order dated 26. 2008, this Court directed the respondents to permit the students to sit in the examinations commencing from 26. 2008, with condition that the results should not be published until further orders of this Court. 6. Even though in this case, counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents, the counsel for the respondents has made submissions based on instructions. While admitting that NCTE granted recognition on 212. 2006 to the petitioner institution for conducting two year D.T.Ed. course with annual intake of 50 students, subject to the condition that the institution would ensure that the Principal and five faculty members are approved by the DTERT viz., the second respondent herein, it is stated that for the academic year 2006-07, the proposal sent by the petitioner was returned by the second respondent on 13. 2007 for rectification and subsequently, by order dated 211. 2007 for rectification and subsequently, by order dated 211. 2007, the first respondent rejected the proposal for 2006-07 since the cut-off date for the said year was over and directed to submit the list for the year 2007-08. It is stated that the institution has not obtained permission for 2007-08 also and the recognition granted by NCTE was only subject to the approval of the staff list by the first respondent and inasmuch as the staff list approval has not been obtained for the academic years 200607 and 2007-08, the institution is not entitled for the approval of students. It is also stated that pursuant to the directions issued on 30.6.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.20244 of 2008, inspection was conducted by the Deputy Director of Teacher Education on 17. 2009 and it was found that the attendance register for the staff appointed during 2006-07 and 2007-08 was not produced and the faculty members in respect of maths, science and social science were not present on the date of inspection. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently, the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.19170/E1/2007 dated 16. 2008 passed orders that in respect of 50 students of the petitioner institution who had written the examinations from 12. 2008 to 20.2.2008 for the year 2006-07, the results could not be released. 8. It is, challenging the said subsequent order of the first respondent dated 16. 2008, as stated above, the petitioner institution viz., G.K.Teacher Training Institute filed W.P.No.20244 of 2008 for a direction against the first respondent to approve the list of staff members dated 212. 2006 and resubmitted on 12/13. 2007. The reasons given in the said impugned order are that the certificate of the principal appointee, Mr.S.Rajasekaran, countersigned by the Chief Educational Officer was not genuine and that when the institution was inspected on 15. 2008, it was found that the teachers were not working and to that effect, a report was submitted. 8(a). According to the petitioner, the said reasons are motivated and the impugned order is in violation of the direction issued by the Hon ble First Bench of this Court dated 4. 2008 in W.P.No.3744 of 2008 and the said Mr.S.Rajasekaran had worked in the Government Higher Secondary School, Pudupalayam from 6. 8(a). According to the petitioner, the said reasons are motivated and the impugned order is in violation of the direction issued by the Hon ble First Bench of this Court dated 4. 2008 in W.P.No.3744 of 2008 and the said Mr.S.Rajasekaran had worked in the Government Higher Secondary School, Pudupalayam from 6. 1985 to 1990 and the countersignature cannot be stated to be not genuine and the experience of the said Rajasekaran is evident from the records and as per the order of Division Bench of this Court, the application resubmitted by the petitioner on 13. 2007 is in continuation of the original application made before the cut-off date and in the meantime, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Cheyyar, Anakavur and Vembakkam of Tiruvannamalai District, in the proceedings dated 3. 2008, permitted 50 students of the petitioner institution to participate in the teaching practice and observation classes for 10 and 30 days respectively during March, 2008 and therefore, 50 students of the year 2006-07 completed the training including teaching practice and observation and therefore, they are entitled for permission to write their second year D.T.Ed. examinations to be commenced from the end of August, 2008 and in respect of observation made in W.A.No.278 of 2008 dated 4. 2008, the matter was appealed to the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, by order dated 16. 2008, permitted the students of the said institution to undergo practical training and examinations. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in this case, it is stated that while the approval for conducting D.T.Ed. course for the academic year 2006-07 for 50 students was granted by the NCTE on 13. 2007, it was subject to the approval of faculty members by the first respondent and the proposal sent by the petitioner dated 212. 2006 was returned on the grounds that four copies of staff proposal with photographs were not submitted in the prescribed form and faculty members were not appointed for five subjects and service certificate pertaining to the Principal was not enclosed with the original certificates for verification and the certified copies were not attested and the grade certificates and mark sheets with percentage of marks secured were not enclosed for verification and the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.6554 of 2007 for direction to process the staff proposal and this Court by order dated 22. 2007 directed the first respondent to process the petitioner s application for approval of list of faculty members and it was based on the said direction, the above said return was made on 13. 2007 in respect of the petitioner’s proposal dated 112. 2006. 9(a). It was also pointed out that for the academic year 2006-07, as per the Government order, the cut-off date was 2. 2007 and the application was submitted belatedly and therefore, the petitioner was directed to apply for the academic year 2007-08. It is also stated that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.3744 of 2008, the Division Bench by order dated 12. 2008 permitted the students of the petitioner institution to appear for examinations for the year 2006-07 commencing from 12. 2008 and by subsequent order dated 4. 2008, the Hon ble First Bench directed the first respondent to consider both the staff lists submitted by the petitioner viz., the original staff list and the resubmitted staff list by treating them as one and the same and submitted before the cut-off date. 9(b). It is, thereafter inspection was conducted on 15. 2008 and in the report, it was stated that none of the staff members including the Principal was working in the institution, but the staff members viz., Tmt.Sangeetha, Tmt.Revathi, Thiru Parthiban, Thiru Hariharan, Thiru Ramadoss and Thiru Arul who were appointed prior to 15. 2008 were present and they signed the attendance register from 15. 2008 and among them, Thiru Parthiban was working as a full-time lecturer in the same management and the classes were conducted and 20 students of second year batch were receiving instructions in maths handled by Tmt.Sangeetha and the attendance register produced at the time of visit for approval for the year 2006-07 was considered and therefore, the petitioner institution was informed by the first respondent by means of impugned communication dated 16. 2008 that the approval could not be granted for the academic year 2006-07 and 2007-08. 10. The petitioner in the above writ petition in fact has filed a reply affidavit controverting the allegations made in the counter affidavit inter alia stating that it is a case of animosity of the first respondent and the first respondent is taking a different stand for rejecting the proposal of the petitioner in one manner or the other. 11. 10. The petitioner in the above writ petition in fact has filed a reply affidavit controverting the allegations made in the counter affidavit inter alia stating that it is a case of animosity of the first respondent and the first respondent is taking a different stand for rejecting the proposal of the petitioner in one manner or the other. 11. It is seen that this Court by order dated 30.6.2009 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.20244 of 2008, taking note of the contention of the petitioner that the defects pointed out by the respondents have been rectified which fact has been controverted by the Special Government Pleader, directed the Deputy Director of Teacher Education to inspect the petitioner institution to verify the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and submitted a report. The said order is as follows: "3. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the Deputy Director of Teacher Education to inspect the petitioner Institute, verify the genuinity of the claim of the petitioner and submit the report to this Court within a period of two weeks from today." 12. It is, pursuant to the said direction, the Deputy Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training filed the inspection report dated 17. 2009. The relevant portion of the report is as follows: "1. As per the consolidated particulars of change of faculty members for the academic year 2006-2007, copy whereof was produced at the time of Inspection, the under mentioned teaching staff have been appointed. 1.Thiru S.Rajasekaran, Principal 2.Thiru D.Anandakrishnan, Lecturer in Tamil 3.V.Jayapriya, Lecturer in English 4.Thiru D.Ramachandran, Lecturer in Mathematics 5.Thiru T.V.Mohan, Lecturer in Science 6.Tmt.V.Parimala, Lecturer in Social Science. 2. Attendance Registers for the staff appointed during 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were not produced during the Inspection. Thiru s.Rajasekaran, the Principal appointee and Thiru D.Anandakrishnan, Lecturer appointee in Tamil were present at the time of inspection. Their original certificates were produced for verification. Tmt.V.Jayapriya, Lecturer appointee in English is said to have been replaced by Thiru Kuppusamy from 01.02.2009. The undermentioned Lecturer appointees were not available in the TTI at the time of inspection and their certificates were not produced for verification. 1.Thiru D.Ramachandra, Lecturer appointee in Mathematics. Their original certificates were produced for verification. Tmt.V.Jayapriya, Lecturer appointee in English is said to have been replaced by Thiru Kuppusamy from 01.02.2009. The undermentioned Lecturer appointees were not available in the TTI at the time of inspection and their certificates were not produced for verification. 1.Thiru D.Ramachandra, Lecturer appointee in Mathematics. 2.Thiru T.V.Mohan, Lecturer appointee in Science 3.V.Parimala, Lecturer appointee in Social science It is stated that V.Jayapriya, Lecturer appointee in English from 01.07.2007 to 31.01.2009 has resigned from the Institute and was relieved on her appointment as P.G.Teacher in Government School. It is humbly submitted that, since the Attendance Registers for the staff appointed during 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were not produced for Inspection on 11.07.2009 and also as the faculty for the subjects of Mathematics, Science and Social Science namely D.Ramachandran, T.V.Mohan and V.Parimala respectively, were not present on the day of Inspection and their certificates were not produced." 13. W.P.Nos.13508 of 2008, 14830 of 2008 and 16723 of 2008 are filed by one and the same institution viz., Concord Teacher Training Institute, Krishnagiri. W.P.No.13508 of 2008 is for direction against the respondents to permit the students admitted in the petitioner institution for the academic year 2006-07 to take up their internal teaching observation practice and Commission. It is stated that NCTE granted recognition on 11. 2006 to conduct D.T.Ed. course with annual intake of 50 students and thereafter, the petitioner approached the second respondent for permission to admit students for the academic year 2006-07. Since there was no response, the petitioner was forced to admit for the academic year 2006-07 and commenced classes from 111. 2006 even before the cut-off date which was 30.11.2006 as prescribed by the Government. 13(a). The petitioner produced the list of staff members for approval to the second respondent on 211. 2006 which was refused by the second respondent stating that the cut-off date for receipt of staff list for the year 2006-07 was 20.11.2006. So, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1589 of 2007 in which there was an interim injunction on 11. 2007 against the authorities from returning the staff list. When the writ petition was pending, the Government passed the G.O. by extending the last date for submitting the teachers list for approval as 3. 2007 and subsequently, the same was extended up to 13. So, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1589 of 2007 in which there was an interim injunction on 11. 2007 against the authorities from returning the staff list. When the writ petition was pending, the Government passed the G.O. by extending the last date for submitting the teachers list for approval as 3. 2007 and subsequently, the same was extended up to 13. 2007 for the academic year 2006-07 and in those circumstances, the second respondent entertained the list of staff members only on 3. 2007 and forwarded the same to the first respondent for approval. 13(b). The first respondent on 24. 2007 returned the same for certain deficiencies, viz., the Principal D.A.Chellammal had only 4= years of experience instead of 5 years; the Tamil Lecturer had not produced his M.A. certificate; and the science lecturer had not produced 5 years experience certificate. The above said order was received by the petitioner on 25. 2007. Immediately the petitioner submitted the rectified list on 6. 2007 and the second respondent returned on 16. 2007 on the ground that the Principal s experience certificate was to be attested by the Principal District Institute of Education and Training, Cuddalore and on 7. 2007, the petitioner resubmitted the same for approval for the academic year 2006-07. However, the second respondent by communication dated 7. 2007 returned the list on the ground that the last date for submission of staff list was 3. 2007 and hence, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.24885 of 2007 and the above said order of the second respondent dated 7. 2007 was set aside by this Court on 27. 2007 directing the respondents to pass fresh orders. 13(c). Even after that order, again the first respondent passed the order dated 30.8.2007 giving the same reasons viz., the Principal had 4= years of experience instead of 5 years and the science lecturer had not produced five years experience certificate which defects, according to the petitioner, were cured and the order was mechanically passed. The petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.37404 of 2007 challenging the order of the first respondent dated 6. 2007 again the said order was set aside with direction to the respondents to approve the staff list for the academic year 2006-07 and the case of the petitioner is that in spite of the said order directing the first respondent to pass fresh orders, no order has been passed. 2007 again the said order was set aside with direction to the respondents to approve the staff list for the academic year 2006-07 and the case of the petitioner is that in spite of the said order directing the first respondent to pass fresh orders, no order has been passed. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 14. This Court by order dated 16. 2008 directed the respondents to permit the students of the petitioner institution admitted for the year 2006-07 to take up the internal observation practice and commission. 15. The same institute has filed W.P.No.14830 of 2008 for direction against the respondents to permit the students admitted in the petitioner institution for the academic year 2007-08 to take up their first year examinations scheduled to be held on 26. 2008 on the same grounds stating that for the said year the petitioner admitted 25 students under management quota and the admission of 16 students under Government quota which was lapsed was also admitted by the petitioner and totally, 41 students were admitted. 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in the above said case, while admitting the above averments made in the writ petition, it is stated that for the academic year 2006-07, the Division Bench issued interim direction on 12. 2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 directing the students of the petitioner institution admitted subject to the maximum intake permitted by NCTE to appear for the teacher training examinations scheduled to be held from 12. 2008 and permitting those students to write the examinations from 12. 2008 to 20.2.2008. 16(a). There was a subsequent direction while disposing of the writ petition on 4. 2008, to the effect that the respondents should consider the staff list submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It was, pursuant to the said direction, on scrutiny it was found that the appointment of one Thiru Alagarsamy, as lecturer in science group could be accepted, but the appointment of principal could not be accepted on the ground that Tmt.Zarinabegum, Principal appointee was replaced by Tmt.D.A.Chellammal of Thenpathi with effect from 26. 2007 and the relieving order was countersigned by the Principal of District Institute of Education and Training, Kurukathi on 7. 2007 and the appointment was beyond the cut-off date prescribed by the Government in G.O.2D.No.7 School Education dated 2. 2007 and the relieving order was countersigned by the Principal of District Institute of Education and Training, Kurukathi on 7. 2007 and the appointment was beyond the cut-off date prescribed by the Government in G.O.2D.No.7 School Education dated 2. 2007 and the staff list was not submitted in the complete form before 3. 2007 the cut-off date. The first respondent passed orders on 16. 2008 stating that the proposal could not be considered for the year 2006-07 and directing to present papers for 2007-08 and since Tmt.Zarinabegum was relieved from the previous institute only on 27. 2007, the staff approval could not be considered for 2007-08 and the same was informed to the petitioner on 16. 2008. 16(b). It is stated that the Hon’ble First Bench in the order dated 4. 2008 in W.A.No.137 of 2008, etc. batch categorically stated that unless and until the staff list is approved, even though the students wrote examinations, they are not entitled to have their results declared. It is admitted that by virtue of the interim direction given by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in this writ petition, 39 students of the petitioner institution were permitted to write the examinations for the academic year 2007-08 held in June, 2008. It is stated that the Honble First Bench of this Court has also given the direction that the students who are stated to have been admitted in the petitioner institution are deemed to be students admitted in unrecognized institution and therefore, as per the Supreme Court rulings, they are not entitled to sit in examinations and even to continue the course. 16(c). In respect of the above said institution, when the first respondent passed orders on 16. 2008 to the effect that in respect of 50 students who have written examinations between 12. 2008 and 20.2.2008 as per the direction of this Court for the academic year 2006-07, the results cannot be declared, the petitioner institution has filed W.P.No.16723 of 2008 also for a direction to the first respondent to approve the staff list submitted by the petitioner for the academic year 2006-07. 17. In the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition while reiterating the stand which has been taken earlier, it is stated that the impugned order is based on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 18. 17. In the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition while reiterating the stand which has been taken earlier, it is stated that the impugned order is based on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 18. I perused the file produced by the learned Special Government Pleader in respect of the petitioner institution in W.P.No.14840 of 2008. 19. Before adverting to the contentions of the respective counsel, it is relevant to point out that in all these cases it is the admitted fact that the mere recognition by the NCTE for conducting classes in D.T.Ed. is not sufficient for the respective institutions to start the course and the recognition itself is subject to various conditions, out of which the most important condition is that the lists of teaching staff appointed by the respective educational institutions are to be approved by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai. 20. It is relevant to point out that in respect of all the institutions in these cases they are not existing private teacher training institutes and they have been started for the year 2006-07 with recognition from NCTE, but they are not either affiliated or the lists of staff are not approved by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training. The Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O.Ms.No.94, School Education (VI) Department, dated 5. 2008 in the form of guidelines in respect of grant of affiliation, approval of staff list and admission of students for private teacher training institutes recognized by the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE. The guidelines contemplate for application for affiliation and approval of staff list to be submitted by the recognized institutes on or before 31st of May of the year for which affiliation is sought for and thereafter, the Inspection Committee appointed by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training shall submit its report and affiliation is granted in terms of section 14(6)(a) of the Central Act (Act 73/1993). Clause III of the said G.O. enumerates the procedure to be followed for the grant of approval to the list of staff with necessary qualifications and clause IV deals with the admission of students. The said clauses are as follows: "IV.ADMISSION OF STUDENTS: 1. Clause III of the said G.O. enumerates the procedure to be followed for the grant of approval to the list of staff with necessary qualifications and clause IV deals with the admission of students. The said clauses are as follows: "IV.ADMISSION OF STUDENTS: 1. Self-financing Private Teacher Training Institutes are permitted to make admission of students only after getting affiliation and approval to the Staff list from the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai. 2. The institute should not admit more than 50 per cent of the intake as permitted by SRC, NCTE under management quota. The remaining 50 per cent will be the Government quota. In respect of those Teacher Training Institutes which seek and get minority status, the number of seats under the management quota will be as per rules in force. 3. While making admission of students, the orders of Government regarding the number of students to be admitted, role of reservation, reservation for special categories, percentage to be followed for Men and Women, etc., shall be followed by the managements. 4. The list containing the names of students admitted under management quota should be submitted and approved by the DTERT as specified in G.O.(Ms).No.108 School Education (U1) Department, dated 17.05.2007. 5. No admission shall be made after the last date as specified in G.O.(Ms).No.108, School Education (U1) Department, dated 15. 2007." 21. Therefore, as per condition No.1, admission of students in self-financing private teacher training institute is possible only after getting affiliation and approval to the staff list from the Director of Teacher, Education and Training, Chennai 6, as per the terms of above G.O. dated 5. 2008. It is also relevant to point out that the validity of the G.O. came to be questioned in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.13200/08, etc. and K.Chandru,J. in an elaborate order dated 210. 2008 by referring to various judgments of the Apex Court, upheld the validity of the G.O. except in respect of single window system. 22. In the light of legal position as on date and after the said G.O. has come into effect, any admission of students made before the affiliation or approval of staff list cannot be recognized. 2008 by referring to various judgments of the Apex Court, upheld the validity of the G.O. except in respect of single window system. 22. In the light of legal position as on date and after the said G.O. has come into effect, any admission of students made before the affiliation or approval of staff list cannot be recognized. But, the cases on hand are relating to recognition granted by NCTE much earlier viz., in 2006 itself and the applications filed by the petitioner institutions for approval of staff lists were made from 2006 onwards and the same were rejected on various occasions due to various reasons by the first respondent, the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, of course, for which he has jurisdiction. While considering those instances in the light of challenge made against the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 15. 2007, by which various directions were issued regarding fixing of academic year, calendar of activities, etc., I passed an order on 11. 2008 in the batch of writ petitions allowing them in part with various directions regarding the calendar of activities and guidelines to be followed for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the said order was challenged in writ appeal and the Division Bench in W.A.No.137 of 2008, etc. batch by judgment dated 4. 2008 finally decided the issue in question. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows: "24. G.O.Ms.No.108 has been issued only to comply with the said order and even in the impugned order, P.Jyothimani,J. has accepted the contention that the State has the power to lay down guidelines and especially since records have been produced to show that a majority of the institutes has complied with the calendar of activities, we cannot sustain the fresh guidelines given by the learned Judge in the order that is assailed herein. We have already confirmed the impugned order as regards communal reservation. As regards Clause (iii), the directions relating to piece-meal approval of staff list are deleted. As regards Clause (vi) and Clause (vii), the calendar of activities is not postponed and it shall come into effect from the academic year 2007-2008 and the approval of the list of teachers shall be in accordance with the NCTE Regulations and the cut-off date shall be as per G.O.Ms.No.108. Approval of the list of teachers sent by the private institutes is not automatic. Approval of the list of teachers sent by the private institutes is not automatic. It shall be considered whether there is compliance with the NCTE Regulations as applicable and the cut-off dates, and appropriate orders will be passed. In all other respects, the impugned order is confirmed and the States appeals are dismissed. 25. We will be dealing with the individual writ petitions where the individual TTIs seek mandamus to approve the staff list or seek to quash the order rejecting the staff list and separate orders will be passed in accordance with our decision above. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the State had requested the NCTE that it will follow Appendix V of the 2002 Regulations and not Appendix II of the 2005 Regulations as regard the staff list, unless the individual TTIs specifically exercise their option that they shall be governed by Appendix II. This is recorded. 26. As regards the appeals filed by the Self-Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association, in view of our decision in the appeals filed by the State and for the reasons stated hereinabove, W.A.No.361 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. 27. W.A.No.278 of 2008 filed by the Director of Teacher Education is disposed of, holding that unless and until the staff list is approved, even if the students write the examinations, they are not entitled to have the results declared and the decision with regard to individual institutes will be given separately." 23. It was only thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.94 School Education (U1) Department, dated 5. 2008 came into existence and therefore, as per judgment of the Division Bench it was held that individual cases of the institutions for approval of staff lists should be taken into consideration, even though in W.A.No.278 of 2008 the observation so made is that until the staff list is approved, even if the students wrote examinations, they are entitled to have the results declared. Therefore, ultimately the decision in these cases would depend upon the approval of the staff lists submitted by the petitioner institutions. 24. The Supreme Court in Minor Sunil Oraon Tr.Guardian and others vs. C.B.S.E., and others [2007 (4) Law Weekly 97 (SC)] while considering the usual plea of innocent children in having undergone the course or writing the examinations, by referring to various earlier decisions, has held as follows: “22. 24. The Supreme Court in Minor Sunil Oraon Tr.Guardian and others vs. C.B.S.E., and others [2007 (4) Law Weekly 97 (SC)] while considering the usual plea of innocent children in having undergone the course or writing the examinations, by referring to various earlier decisions, has held as follows: “22. In State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 ), it was held that the students of unrecognized and unauthorized educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. This Court observed: "12. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education." 23. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations. 24. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against School as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion." 25. That was also the view of a learned Judge of this Court in respect of Teacher Training Institutions and K.Mohanram,J. in W.P.No.7734 and 12237 of 2007 in the order dated 21.04.2007 (K.Ananthi and others vs. Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Villupuram and others), while dealing with the case of unauthorized admission made in anticipation of favourable orders, held as follows: "13. When all the contentions put forth by the first respondent institution have been fully considered and a similar prayer as made in these writ petitions has been rejected by the learned Judge, the petitioners who are the affected students cannot seek the said relief with..... When all the contentions put forth by the first respondent institution have been fully considered and a similar prayer as made in these writ petitions has been rejected by the learned Judge, the petitioners who are the affected students cannot seek the said relief with..... permitted intake of the first respondent institution, if the petitioners had taken the risk of joining the first respondent institution, this Court cannot show any sympathy to them. If the relief sought for by the petitioners is granted by misplaced sympathy, it will set a bad precedent and other unscrupulous institutions who have admitted the students illegally over and above the permitted intake will be embolden to approach this Court seeking similar such relief and further they will be embolden to commit the same illegality in future also. 14. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners are not entitled for any sympathy. If the petitioners have been cheated by the first respondent, it is for the petitioners to initiate appropriate civil and criminal actions against the first respondent including action for damages. In the light of the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.48239 of 2006, the above writ petitions are not entertainable and in such view of the matter, the above writ petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Mps. are closed." 26. In fact, those were cases where the students have approached the Court, wherein this Court as well as the Apex Court held that the misplaced sympathy cannot be shown in violation of statutory rules resulting in the reduction of standard. While the statute prescribes an affiliating authority to grant affiliation, no institution can claim right on the basis that NCTE has granted approval for the institution. That was the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, to which I am a party, rendered in Rukmani College of Education vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (1) MLJ 1217 ). While the statute prescribes an affiliating authority to grant affiliation, no institution can claim right on the basis that NCTE has granted approval for the institution. That was the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, to which I am a party, rendered in Rukmani College of Education vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (1) MLJ 1217 ). Applying the yardstick propounded therein to the facts of the present case, in the context that the validity of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 03.05.2008 has been upheld, by which no educational institution can admit students before the approval of the staff list and affiliation by the Education Department, more particularly in the circumstance that only the Institutions have approached the Court for the purpose of releasing the result and not the students, there is no difficulty to conclude that the admission of the students in these institutions are against the statutory provisions and even the interim orders passed by this Court on various occasions permitting the students either to undergo the course or to write the examinations were all made with specific condition that the same was subject to the final result of the writ petitions and therefore, even the students cannot claim as a matter of equity that their results should be declared. It may not be a case where students were aware of the irregularities on the part of the petitioner Institutions in not getting approval of the teaching staff at the time when they were admitted, but that does not mean that their results are to be declared merely because they had written the examinations as per the interim directions of the Court. .27. Even on considering the individual facts which are elicited above, it is undoubtedly .true that the authorities contemplated as per the Government Order and as per the statutory provisions have not yet approved the Teachers list and it is not a case where originally teachers list were approved but additional teachers list is pending with the authorities. These are all the cases where at the starting stage of petitioner institutions after the recognition was given by NCTE, the competent authorities under the State Government have never granted approval for teachers list or affiliation to the institutions, which are the necessary preconditions for the petitioner institutions to start the classes. These are all the cases where at the starting stage of petitioner institutions after the recognition was given by NCTE, the competent authorities under the State Government have never granted approval for teachers list or affiliation to the institutions, which are the necessary preconditions for the petitioner institutions to start the classes. Therefore, the admission of the students by any stretch of imagination cannot be taken as legally acceptable in these cases. 28. Whether the grounds of rejection made by the competent State authorities in respect of the teachers list stated to have been submitted by the petitioner institutions are flimsy or not, it is not for this Court to decide, unless these are gross mala fide attitude on the part of the respondent authorities which are brought to the notice of this Court. In all these cases, there have been certainly deficiencies either regarding the qualifications or experience of the teachers proposed. In fact, as stated above, in some of the cases the list of teachers is varying with the report of inspection conducted by the authorities, because at the time of visit the faculty members mentioned were not available, and in such circumstances it cannot be construed as if the students admitted illegally by the petitioner Institutions have been imparted with education by the competent teachers. 29. The impugned order which is challenged in W.P.No.14786 of 2008 shows that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.06.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.20244 of 2008, when inspection was conducted on 11.07.2009, it was found that the attendance register for the staff appointed during 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 was not produced and the faculty members for various subjects were not present at the time of inspection. When that is the factual finding given by the authority as per the direction of this Court, it is certainly not possible to consider the plea of the petitioner Institutions to release the results of the students, and if any such direction is issued, that would in effect ratify the patent illegality committed in admission of students in these institutions. .30. In fact in W.P.No.20244 of 2008, the allegation made by the respondents is that the .counter signature made by the principal of DIET is not genuine. .30. In fact in W.P.No.20244 of 2008, the allegation made by the respondents is that the .counter signature made by the principal of DIET is not genuine. It is true that in some of the cases filed by the students, wherein by virtue of interim directions given by this Court the students have taken up the examinations, directions were given to release the results subject to the condition of imposing some financial burden on the institutions, by directing them to pay a large amount to various organisations doing social work through the Government, with a view to infuse fear in the minds of the erring institutions not to repeat the same in future. But, by and large, those cases relate to the additional intake of students, viz., more students than the required strength were admitted or cases where students had approached the Court and on those facts, such orders came to be passed. I am of the considered view that the said yardstick cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case at all for more than one reason, viz., (i) from the beginning there has been no approval of teachers list in respect of petitioner institutions, (ii)no one of the students has raised about the difficulties experienced; and (iii) there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the students who were admitted on the pretext that the teachers list has been approved by the authority competent and the institutions have been affiliated by the State authorities, were given proper education by the competent teachers who are well qualified as per the norms prescribed by the NCTE as well as the State authorities as per the directions of the NCTE. When the impugned orders are categorical about the deficiencies of qualifications of various teachers whose names were sent by way of proposal by the institutions, this Court cannot certainly substitute its view to accept those teachers and consequently direct the release of results, and among such direction to release the results will only encourage the erring Managements. .31. When the impugned orders are categorical about the deficiencies of qualifications of various teachers whose names were sent by way of proposal by the institutions, this Court cannot certainly substitute its view to accept those teachers and consequently direct the release of results, and among such direction to release the results will only encourage the erring Managements. .31. It is no doubt true that the students and their parents are the ultimate sufferers and the students who have spent some of their valuable years in the institutions at the inducement of the institutions, but unfortunately such sufferings cannot be the ground for legalizing the illegalities committed by the petitioner institutions as it has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that misplaced sympathy cannot be shown at the cost of the merit and ability. Since ultimately the students of the petitioner institutions for whose favour these writ petitions are filed by the institutions, have not been taught by the competent teachers as per the statutory regulations, there is a danger of allowing the students of the petitioner institutions who cannot be said to be qualified as per the statutes to teach the future generation, which will have more serious .consequence than the sufferings of the students of the petitioner institutions. 32. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by this Court as enumerated above, it is for the affected students to work out their remedy against the erring institutions and that will have more correctional value against the institutions who have commercialized the sacred concept of education. In such view of the matter, I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by imposing stringent conditions suitable orders can be passed for the purpose of releasing the results. Therefore, as observed by the Honble First Bench of this Court as enumerated above, even in respect of the individual cases of the petitioner Institutions, I am not satisfied with the reasons and on the other hand, the reasons adduced for not approving the teachers list cannot be said to be without any basis whatsoever. In such circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as claimed in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed with costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.