Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Nov 06, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Front Page |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
New Delhi |
Other States |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
For not obtaining government nod for management quota seats on time
MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here has imposed exemplary cost (fine) of Rs.1 lakh on a private teacher training institute at Thiruthikonam in Kanyakumari district for not obtaining government approval for its management quota seats on time.
The Kalluppalam Teacher Training Institute has been directed to pay Rs.50,000 to the Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training and the rest of the amount to the Chief Justice’s Relief Fund maintained by the High Court.
However, Justice S. Nagamuthu allowed a writ petition filed by the private institute and quashed the Principal’s order refusing to approve the admission of students. He warned the petitioner institute “to be careful in future in the matter of admission of students.”
The Judge said that it would not be appropriate to reject the petitioner’s plea, especially when the students had completed the first year of the course and written their examinations on the basis of interim orders passed by another judge.
“At this length of time, if the students are made to leave the college it will not be in the interest of justice and the future of the students. Therefore, on the ground of equity also, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is liable to be quashed,” he said.
Additional Government Pleader R. Anitha argued that that the petitioner institute was authorised to admit a total of 25 students under the management quota for 2007-08. The process should have been completed before July 31, 2007 as per government stipulations. Contrary to procedures, the institute submitted a list of 10 students on September 26, 2007 and another list for an equal number of candidates on January 9 this year. The Principal approved the first list, but not the second, and hence the writ petition.
Petitioner’s counsel claimed that all the 20 students were admitted to the institute before the prescribed date. But, there was a delay in presenting the lists for approval owing to a sudden change in the management of the institute, he contended.
The Judge said that there could not be any reason to deny approval for the second batch of 10 candidates, especially when the Principal had approved the admission of the first batch of equal number of students though both the lists were submitted belatedly.
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of