Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the selection list published by the 1st respondent dated 19.9.2000 selecting the candidate for the Diploma Course in Teacher Training in the 1st respondent school and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to select and admit the petitioner for the Diploma Course in Teacher Training in the 1st respondent school.
2. The petitioner successfully completed her higher secondary course examination conducted during 1998 from Mary Immaculate Girls HigherSecondary School, Tiruppathur, Vellore District and secured 1019/1200 marks. The petitioner applied for admission to Diploma in Teacher Training Education in the 1st respondent school for the academic year 2000-2001. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is a minority institution recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the 1st respondent namely institution is under the control of the 2nd respondent namely the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training Chennai. Even though the petitioner has secured 1019/1200 marks, the 1st respondent selected the candidates with lesser marks than the petitioner. In fact the 3rd respondent has secured only 967/1200 marks and therefore the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from finalising the list of candidates prepared by the 1st respondent for admission to the Diploma Course in Teacher Training for the year 2000-2001 without considering the lawful claim of the petitioner for selection and admission in the 1st respondent school for the said course. Pending the above writ petition, the petitioner had taken out an application for amendment of the prayer. As by the time the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the 1st respondent released the list of candidates selected for admission to the course. Accordingly, the said W.M.P.No.30790 of 2000 was ordered by order dated 25.1.2001 permitting the petitioner to amend the prayer.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 23.10.2000. In view of the urgency of the matter this Court by order dated 24.10.2000 directed the writ petition to be posted for orders. Accordingly, the matter is listed today.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent institution being a minority institution ought to have admitted only 50 % of the total seats on the basis of merits from among the candidates belonging to minority community. The 1st respondent institution is entitled to admit 40 candidates and therefore from the 1st respondent institute can admit only 20 candidates from the candidates belonging to minority community on the basis of merits and the remaining 20 seats ought to have been filled up on the basis of merits and following the rule of reservation. However, the 1st respondent institute without following the above, admitted all the 40 candidates according to their choice from among the candidates belonging to minority community. In fact, the 3rd respondent who has obtained lesser marks has also been admitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire selection list should be quashed.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would on the other hand contend that the 1st respondent institute is entitled to admit 40 candidates. However, on the basis of the instructions given by the 2nd respondent dated 16.8.2000, the 1st respondent was under the bona fide impression that all the 40 candidates can be admitted according to the choice of the 1st respondent from among the candidates belonging to minority community. The admission were made only on bona fide interpretation of the instructions given by the 2nd respondent dated 16.8.2000 and therefore the challenge to the selection at the instance of the petitioner need not be entertained.
6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that she applied for admission to the 1st respondent institute on the basis of the marksobtained by her namely 967/1200 and the 1st respondent selected the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent is undergoing the course. Therefore, the selection of the 3rd respondent need not be set aside.
7. Mr.M. Rathinam, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the 1st respondent ought to have admitted only 20 candidates from among the candidates belonging to minority community and the remaining 20 candidates ought to have been admitted only from among the candidates applying under the open category on the basis of merits and rule of reservation. Since the 1st respondent has not followed the above 50% of entitlement in filing up the seats from among the candidates of minority community, the selection over and above the 50% is not in order. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the admission of all the candidates selected by the 1st respondent institute has been approved by the 2nd respondent and therefore there is no question of setting aside the selection list and on the basis of the approval the students are already undergoing the course for the past four months.
8. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by my judgment rendered in W.P.No.17124 of 2000 dated 19.1.2001 wherein I have held following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others etc v. State of Karnataka and others etc, that the 1st respondent institute being a minority institute is entitled to admit only 50% of the total number of seats according to their choice from among the candidates belonging to minority community and the remaining 50% of the seats shall be filed up only from among the candidates applying under open category strictly following the merits and the rule of reservation. However, in the said judgment I did not disturb the selection of the candidates admitted by the minority institute over and above the admitted limit only on the ground that the admission of those candidates have been approved by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training and the Students are undergoing the course. Basing upon the same principle, the petitioner in this writ petition should also succeed as the 3rd respondent who has been selected by the 1st respondent institute has obtained lesser marks than the petitioner. However, following the above said judgment, I do not disturb the selection made by the 1st respondent institute. However, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted in the 1st respondent institute in the first year teacher training course for the academic year 2000-2001. For the said purpose, the 1st respondent is directed to send a proposal to the National Council for Teacher Education seeking for approval of one additional seat through the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training. On receipt of such applications the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training shall forward the same to the National Council for Teacher Education for approval of one additional seat. The National Council for Teacher Education shall consider such request sympathetically and grant approval for one seat to the 1st respondent institute to accommodate the petitioner in the first year Teacher Training Course for the academic year 2000-2001. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.30789 of 2000 is closed.