Madras High Court
M.Muniappan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 June, 2022
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.11469 of 2021
M.Muniappan ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Teacher Education and Research,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 009.
4. Bharathiya Siksha Parishad,
Represented by its Registrar,
2/268, Gomathi Nagar,
Vishwas Khand, Lucknow-227 105.
Uttarpradesh.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
5. Shanthi Nikenthan Professional Training Centre,
Attur,
Salem District ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second
respondent in Na.Ka.No.2813/m3/2012 dated 19.06.2018 and to call for the
re cords of the third respondent in EQC/Mun/April 2018 033 dated
24.04.2018 and quash the same and directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to
issue evaluation equivalent certificate to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ravichandran
For Respondents Mr.K.H.Ravikumar
Govt. Advocate
For R.1 and R.2
Mr.M.Palanimuthu
For R.3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
24.04.2018 passed by the third respondent rejecting the petitioner's
application dated 13.02.2013 requesting for issuance of Equivalent Certificate
for the degrees B.Lit, M.A and B.Ed obtained by the petitioner from the
fourth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
2. The third respondent has rejected the petitioner's application on
the ground that the fourth respondent is not a recognized University by the
University Grants Commission. The petitioner has challenged the impugned
order on the ground that the directions issued by this Court on 20.09.2017 in
Review Application (Writ) No.659 of 2017 and W.P.No.32940 of 2013 have
not been followed in letter and spirit. He has also challenged the impugned
order on the ground that it is a non-speaking order.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent
denying the allegations of the petitioner and they have stated as follows:-
(a) That the fourth respondent is not recognised by NCTE
and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have the
benefit of evaluating his certificate in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.1236, Education dated 17.09..1984 and
G.O.(ID)No.26 Education dated 21.02.2003;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
(b) The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad by its judgment
dated 21.04.2009 in CM W.P.No.15797 of 2004 in the
case of Om Prakash Sharma vs State of Uttar Prades and
others, has issued directions to close the fourth respondent
and take appropriate criminal action against the persons in
charge of the affairs of the fourth respondent for
misrepresentation and fraud.
© The petitioner's diploma in Teacher Education Certificate
could not be evaluated and therefore, the petitioner is not
eligible to attend the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by
the Teachers Recruitment Board.
d) Madurai Bench of this Court in its Order dated
09.08.2012 made in W.P (MD) No.8412 of 2006 has held
that the fourth respondent has not been recognized for
imparting teacher education by the competent authority, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
petitioner, therein, has no legal or statutory right to seek for
evaluation of B.Ed Degree certificate.
4. Heard Mr.K.H.Ravi Kumar, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Palanimuthu, learned counsel for the third
respondent.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1
and 2 has placed before this Court a Letter dated 29.07.2005 sent by NCTE
to the second respondent informing the second respondent about the order
passed by the High Court of Allahabad against the fourth respondent referred
to supra. He would submit that being an unrecognised Institution, the request
made by the petitioner for equivalent certificate has been rightly rejected
under the impugned order.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that a clear direction was issued by this Court in Review Application (Writ)
No.659 of 2017 and W.P.No.32940 of 2013 that final orders have to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
passed in the light of the decisions rendered by various Courts and
communications issued by the fourth respondent which was referred in the
said order passed by this Court on 20.09.2017. According to him, under the
impugned order, none of those orders were considered and therefore, it is a
non-speaking order. The operative portion of the order dated 20.09.2017
passed by this Court in Review Application (Writ) No.659 of 2017 and
W.P.No.32940 of 2013 is extracted hereinunder:-
“ 17. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the
view that in the light of the decisions, supra, the case
of the review applicant/petitioner should be
considered in the light of the aforesaid decisions
rendered by various courts and communication
issued by the Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad, an
University at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the review
application and the writ petition are allowed and the
concerned respondents are directed to consider the
representations of the review applicant/writ
petitioners dated 06.11.2012 and 13.02.2013, in the
light of the decisions, supra, and the letter of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, an University at
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Such orders, in accordance
with law, shall be passed by the respondent authority
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
7. As seen from the aforementioned order, a direction was issued to
the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application, seeking for
issuance of equivalent certificate in the light of the decisions rendered by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in that writ petition as well as the
communication issued by the fourth respondent. However, as seen from the
impugned orders dated 19.06.2018 and 24.04.2018 issued by the
respondents 2 and 3 respectively, the decisions which are reflected in the
order dated 20.09.2017 passed by this Court in Review Application (Writ)
No.659 of 2017 and W.P.No.32940 of 2013 have not been considered, but,
instead, the petitioner's application has been rejected only on the ground that
the fourth respondent is not a recognized University. The respondents 2 and 3
ought to have considered the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, which is reflected in the order dated 20.09.2017 in Review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
Application (Writ) No.659 of 2017 and W.P.No.32940 of 2013. Since the
same has not been considered, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order is a non-speaking order with regard to the decisions which
are reflected in the order dated 20.09.2017.
8. Though the reasons given by the respondents 2 and 3 for
rejecting the petitioner's application, seeking for equivalent certificate seems
to be reasonable in view of the fact that the fourth respondent is not
recognized by NCTE, the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have followed the
directions issued by this Court in letter and spirit by giving due consideration
to the decisions which are reflected in the order dated 20.09.2017 passed in
Review Application (Writ) No.659 of 2017 and W.P.No.32940 of 2013 and
they having not done so in the impugned order insofar as those decisions are
concerned, the impugned order is a non-speaking one.
9. Since the directions issued by this Court in Review Application
(Writ) No.659 of 2017 and W.P.No.32940 of 2013 dated 20.09.2017 have not
been followed in letter and spirit, the impugned orders will have to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
necessarily quashed and the matter remanded back to the respondents 2 and 3
respectively for fresh consideration by giving due consideration to the
directions issued by this Court on 20.09.2017 in Review Application (Writ)
No.659 of 2017 and W.P.No.32940 of 2013 in letter and spirit. The
respondents 2 and 3 shall pass final orders within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.06.2022
sr
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Teacher Education and Research,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 009.
4. Bharathiya Siksha Parishad,
Represented by its Registrar,
2/268, Gomathi Nagar,
Vishwas Khand, Lucknow-227 105.
Uttarpradesh.
5. Shanthi Nikenthan Professional Training Centre,
Attur,
Salem District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10837 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
sr
W.P. No.10837 of 2021
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
