The court emphasized the importance of considering previous court directions and communications issued by the university in evaluating applications for Equivalent Certificates.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: 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.)

1. 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.

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;

(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.

(c) 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 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 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