PETITIONER: ST. JOHN'S TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE(FOR WOMEN). MADURAI ET Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT15/06/1993 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 43 1993 SCR (3) 985 1993 SCC (3) 595 JT 1993 (4) 78 1993 SCALE (3)10 ACT: % Educational Institutions. Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977. Teachers Training institutes-Grant recognition-Conditions for-Held, institutes having no permanent recognition before issue of the Rules are bound to comply with conditions to quality for permanent recognition-Rules do not infract Articles 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution. Teacher-Education programme-need for improvement-Emphasised. Constitution of India 1950. Articles 14, 19(1) (g), 30(1) Right of minorities to establish educational institutions-Held, right is absolute in terms but subject to regulatory measures-There is no fundamental right to recognition and any institute seeking recognition should abide by the regulations prescribed by the State. Articles 32, 226-Educational Institutions-Applications for writ of mandamus to grant recognition-Prayer for directions to allow students to appear at examinations meanwhile-Held Courts should not issue flat to allow students of unrecognised institutions to appear at examination pending disposal of writ applications. HEADNOTE: The respondent state, in the process of overhauling the methodology of teaching and administration of teachers training institutes in order to achieve qualitative excellence in teacher education , amended the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules 1977 by G.O. No.536 dated 17-5-1989 and No. 661 dated 12-6- 1991. The Rules besides providing for instructions teaching practice to be followed and minimum qualification for the staff prescribed certain other conditions regarding land,building, hotel 986 furniture, library, teaching appliances, sports facilities, recognised middle school for providing teaching practice to trainees, etc. to be satisfies by a teachers training institute to qualify for grant of recognition. The appellant/petitioners are various Teachers Training Institute in the State of Tamil Nadu. claiming to be minority educational institutions in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India The State Government declined to recognise these institutions on the ground that they failed to sutisfy the conditions for grant of recognition as provided under the Recognition Rules. The appellants/petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the Recognition Rules on the ground that the same were violative of Articles 30(1) and 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that as the minorities have a fundamental right under r Article 30(1) of the Constitution to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, the conditions provided under the recognitions Rules were wholly arbitrary and were designed to oust the appellants from the educational-field and the the provisions were so onerous that it was difficult rather impossible to comply with the same. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The appellants/petitioners filed the appeals and the special leave petitions. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Rules could not be made applicable to the institutions already established and given recognition by the State Government under the directions of the Court; and that the successful students of these institutions who had taken examinations be given certificates. This Court dismissed the appeals and the special leave petitions by its order dated 25-5-1993 indicating that reasons therefor would follow. Giving reasons for its order dated 25-5-1993, this Court HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that none of the conditions for grant of recognition to teachers training institutes prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977, infracted Articles 14 & 30(1) of the Constitution. It rightly culled- out the following principles (i) The fundamental right declared by Article 30(1) of the Constitution is absolute in terms, but subject to regulatory measures; 987 (ii)There is no fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g)of the Constitution to establish or administer an educational institution, if recognition is sought therefore; (iii) The institutions must he educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked phantoms; (iv) There is no fundamental right to recognition and an% institution seeking recognition should abide by the regulations prescribed by the State as conditions therefor, (v) The minority institutions must be fully equipped with educational excellence to keep in step with other institutions in the State; (vi) The regulations framed by the State cannot abridge the fundamental right of the minorities and they should be in the interests (if the minority institutions themselves and not based on State necessity or general societal necessities-. (vii) The regulations should be, with a view to promoting excellence (of educational standards and ensuring security of the services of teachers and other employees of the institutions and in the true interests of efficiency (if institutions, discipline, health, sanitation, morality public order and the like; (viii) Even unaided institutions are not immune from the operations of general laws of the land such as Contract Law Tax measures, Economic Laws and, Social Welfare legislations, Labour and Industrial Laws and similar other laws which are intended to meet the need of the Society. Kerala education bill,[1959] SCR 995; Rev. Sidhajbai Sabhai s. v. State of Bombay and Anr[1963] 3 SCR 837; S. Azeesh Basha v. Union of India [1968] 1 SCR 833; State o Kerala etc. v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial etc [1971] 1 SCR 734; Regina v. St. Alosius Higher Elementary School and Anr[1971] Supp. SCR 6; The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Anr etc v. State of Gujarat and Anr[1975] 1 SCR 173; The Gandhi Faiz-e-am College, Shajahanpur v.University of Agra and Anr.[1975] 2 SCC 283; Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina and 988 Ors.[1979] 1 SCR 320; All Saints High School, Hyderabad etc. etc. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. etc [1980] 2 SCR 924; The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission, Bihar Ranchi & Ors v. The State of Bihar & Ors [1985] 1 SCR 410; A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.[1986] 2 SCC 667 Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India and Ors [1986]4 SCC 707 All Bihar Christian Schools Association and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1988] 1 SCC 206 St. Stephon's College v. The University of Delhi JT(1991) 4 SCC, 548 and Unni Krishnan and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [1993] 1 SCC 45 cited. 2.1 The teacher education programme has to he redesigned to bring in a system of education which can prepare the student-teacher to shoulder the responsibility of imparting educating with a living dynamism and the traditional pattern of "chalk, talk and teach" method has to be replaced by more vibrant system with improved methods of reaching, to achieve qualitative excellence in teacher-education. N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr [1986] Supp SCC 166 Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education & Ors (1988) 4 SC 431 and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & Ors. J.T.(1992) 5 SC 175, relied on. 2.2 It is entirely for the State Government and not for this Court, to lay down the requirements of a teachers training institute campus. All those institutes which did not have permanent recognition before the issue of the Recognition Rules, 1977 are bound to comply with the said conditions before they are entitled to permanent recognition. The High Court was Justified in holding that the institutions which were operating on the basis of temporary recognitions, either under the orders of the Courts or otherwise, shall have to comply with the recognition rules to enable them to earn recognition. These institutions are neither properly, organised nor fully, equipped to train the teachers. and have done more harm than good to the cause of education. 3.1 In view of the series of the judgments of this Court the Courts should not issue fiat to allow the students of unrecognised institutions to appear the different examinations pending the disposal of the writ applications.Such interim orders affect the career of several students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to the authorities, who have to comply with such directions of the Courts. 989 A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1986] 2 SCC 667, relied on. 3.2 The High Court should not have passed interim orders directing authorities concerned to allow the teachers of unrecognised institutions to appear at the examinations. It is a matter of common knowledge that many institutions claiming themselves to be minority institutions within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32 for a writ of mandamus to recognise the institutions as minority institutions only when the dates for examinations are notified and, as a part of strategy, seek directions to allow, meanwhile, the students to appear at the examinations. Many of such institutions are not only "masked phantoms" but are established as business ventures for admitting sub-standard students without any competitive tests, on basis of considerations which cannot serve even the interest of the minority. The teachers of such institutions cannot derive any benefit on basis of interim orders when ultimately the main writ applications have been dismissed. As such no equity or legal right can be pleaded on behalf of the students admitted for traning by such minority institutions for publication of their results or award of certificates. A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 2 SCC 667; and State of Tamil Nadu and others v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and another, [1991] 3 SCC 87, relied on. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2914-16 of
1993 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1993 and 29-3- 93 of
the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos 15081/91, 8002/92 and
16068/91.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos.
2937/93
3040-40A-B/93
3026-27/93
3025/93
990
3015-24/93
3028/93
3084/93
3002/93
3032/93
2993-94/93
3003-04/93
3086-87/93
2995/93
3005-07/93
2987-89/93
3014/93
3008-10/93
3086-87/93
2940-41/93
3011-301 IA/93
2998-3000/93
2986/93
3101-07/93
2992/93
3108/93
2982-82A/93
2983-85/93
3029-31/93
3093-94/93
2943-44/93
991
2955-57/93
2996-97/03
3042-3080/93
3035/93
3039/93
3041/93
3095/93
3033-34/93
3090-92/93
3096-97/93
2981/93
3088-89/93
2979/93
2976-77/93
2960-61/93
2990/93
2968/93
2958-59/93
2971/93
2978/93
2972/93
2942/93
3082-83/93
2969-70/93
2965-67/93
2991/93
992
2973-75/93
3036-38/93
2962-64/93
3085/93
3127-29/93
3012-13/93
3018/93
2938-39/93
2990/93
2945-54/93
WITH
Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Nos. 7375, 8009-11, 8108,
7416, 7560-62 OF 1993.
Shanti Bhushan, K.K. Venugopal, Soli J. Sorabjee, N. Santosh
Hegde, Shivasubramaniam. K. Parasaran, P. Chidambaram, Mrs.
Revathy Raghavan, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Kailash Vasdev,
Pawan Kumar, B. Rabu Manohar, Dr. A. Francis Julian (For
M/s. Arputham, Aruna and Co.), P. Chandrasekhran,
Aruneshwar Gupta, A. Chandrasekar, Pushpendra Singh Bhati,
V. Ramajagadesan, V. Balachandran, V. Krishnamurthy, K.V.
Vijaya Kumar, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Selvar thenave, Martin, K.V.
Mohan, R. Mohan, R. Nedumaran, and P.D. Dinakaran for the
Appellants.
P.R. Seetharaman for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH,J.These bunch-appeals are by the Teachers
Training Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu. They claim
to be the minority educational institutions in terms of
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The State
Government has declined to recognise these institutes on
(lie ground that they have failed to satisfy the conditions
for grant of recognition as provided under the Tamil Nadu
Minor-
993
ity Schools(Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977
as amended by the Government Order No. 536 dated May 17,
1989 and Government Order No. 861 dated June 12, 1991.
(Recognition Rules)
The appellants challenged, before the Madras High Court by
way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the validity of the Recognition Rules. inter alia, on the
,rounds that the said Rules are violative of Articles 30(1)
and 14 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of
the High Court consisting of M. Srinivasan and Thangamani,
JJ, dismissed the writ petitions. M. Srinivasan J., who
spoke for the Bench, has given a scholarly judgment. The
case-law on the subject has been dealt with in detail and
the conclusions culled out succinctly.The High Court
judgment has been of utmost assistance to us. These appeals
via special leave are by the Teachers Training Institutes
against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court.
We announced our conclusions in these matters–dismissing
the appeals and special leave petitions–on May 25, 1993.
Now we proceed to give our
reasoned judgment.
The Recognition Rules provide for instructions and teaching
practice to be followed, minimum qualifications for teaching
and non-teaching staff and the following additional
Conditions to be satisfied by a teachers training institute
to quality for grant of recognition
1.The Teachers Training Institute should have
at least 10 acres of suitable land of its own
to he used for construction of Building for
Institution and Administration and for Hoste
l
accommodation and staff quarters and also for
Play Ground purposes,
2.The Institution Building must consist of
suitable rooms to provide for class rooms with
roughly 60 sq. feet of carpet area per inmate
one Auditorium cum projection hall with an
area of about 2000 Sq. feet. Laboratory and
Special Rooms. Library Staff-rooms separately
for Men and Women staff, Principal’s Room,
Off-ice Room, Store Room for Craft and
Physical Education articles. Toilet facili-
ties separately for men and women and women’s
Common Room;
3.Bath rooms and toilets should be provided.
if the Institution is meant for both sexes
separate Such facilities should be provided
for
994
men and women teaching staff non-teaching
staff and men and women candidates. As far as
bath rooms and toilets are concerned
arrangements should he made at the rate of one
for ten inmates.
4.(a) Adequate furniture and office equipment
including furnitures for class rooms, Library,
Laboratory and other rooms should be provided
to the value of at least a lakh of rupees,
(b)Laboratory equipments worth at least a lakh
of rupees should be provided for Science,
Geography, Home;
(c)Teaching appliances. audio visual aids,
charts, maps etc. worth about Rs. 50,000
should be provided.
(d)Sports/Games/Arts/Music Equipments worth
about Rs. should be provided.
(e)Equipment and Material for work experience
worth about Rs. 50,000 should be provided.
5.A room with a space of approximately 1000
sq. ft. with sufficient storage space to keep
the equipment furnishing to organise various
learning situations, and provision to observe
the trainees at work in the laboratory
situations. without being noticed has to be
provided. Sufficient furnitures such as,
working tables and almirahs should be
provided.
6. Each Teacher Training Institution should
have a good library with at least 10,000
volumes of back and reference books worth at
least a lakh of rupees:
7. Play ground space for sports, gymnastics
and other Physical Education activities with
an area about 5 acres should be provided. If
the Institute is meant for both sexes, another
3 acres of and should he provided exclusively
for women candidates. The Play ground should
he provided adjacent to the main Institution
building within the campus and not in a remote
place away from the Institution,
995
8. At least one full fledged recognised
Middle School with Standards I to VIII should
be functioning under the same management of
every Teacher Training Institute seeking
recognition, for the purpose of providing
teaching practice to the trainess. This will
be a precondition even at the time of sending
in applications for recognition of Teachers
Training Institutes. The practical aspects of
the Training will be assessed by a competent
board to be constituted by the concerned
authority.
9. (a) The need for the opening of the
institution in that area will be assessed by a
District Committee with a Joint Director
nominated by Director of School Education as
Chairman with Chief Educational Officer and
District Educational Officer/Inspectors of
Girls Schools as members as the case may.
This committee will submit a report about
satisfaction of norms based on which the
competent authority will consider Recognition
for the institution,
(b) The Authority competent to grant
recognition shall take into account the need
for granting such recognition to Teacher
Training Institutes taking into consideration
the trained teachers already available and
waiting for appointment and potential to.
absorb the Teachers to be trained in future in
the services of Government and Private
Schools.
10. There should he economic strength as
prescribed by the education department. The
teachers training institutes should not admit
more than forty students in all for the course
and should not exceed this limit either in the
first or second year.
It was argued before the High Court that as the minorities
have a fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice, the conditions provided under
the Recognition Rules are wholly arbitrary and have been
designed to oust the appellants from the educational-fieled
and the provisions regarding, having a middle school’. ten
acres of land, play grounds, library with 10,000 books,
laboratory, hostel, staff quarters, bathrooms for students
etc. etc. are so onerous that it is difficult rather
impossible to comply with the same.
996
While dealing with the argument based on Article 30(1) of
the Constitution of India the High Court discussed in detail
the judgments of this Court in Kerala Education Bill[1959]
SCR 995, Rev,. Sidhajbhai Sabhai & Ors. v. State of Bombay
and Anr [ 1963] 3 SCR 837. S Azeez Basha v. Union of India
[1968] 1 SCR 833, State of kerala etc, v. Very. Rev.
Mother Provincial etc, [ 1971] 1 SCR 734-, Regina v. St.
Aloysius Higher Elementary School and Anr, [19711 Supp. SCR
6. The Gandhi Faiz-e-am College, Shahjahanpur v. University
of Agra and Anr. [ 19751 2 SCC 283, Lilly,. Kurian v. Sr.
Lewina and Ors, [ 1 979] 1 SCR 820,All Saints High School,
Hyderabad etc. etc. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
etc [1980] 2 SCR 924; The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi
Mission, Bihar Ranchi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.,
[1985] 1 SCR 410, A.P. Christians Medical Educational
Society v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh and Anr 1986] 2 SCC
667, Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v.
Union of India and ors,[1986]4 SCC 707,All Bihar-Christion
Schools Association andAnr. v. State of Bihar and Ors [ 1
988] 1 SCC 206; St. Stephen’s College v.. The University of
DelhiJT [1991]4 SC 548; Unni Krishnan andAnr. v. State
ofAndhra Pradesh and Ors. Writ Petition (C) No. 607/92
decided on February4,1993 and TheAhmedabad St Xaviers
College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat and Anr 1
975 ] 1 SCR 173. On the analysis of the above judgments the
High Court culled-out the following principles
1)The fundamental right declared by Article 30(1) of the
Constitution is absolute in terms, but subject to regulatory
measures’,
2)There is no fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) of
the Constitution to establish or administer an educational
institution, if recognition is sought therefor;
3) The institutions must be educational institutions of
the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked
phantoms,
4) There is no fundamental right to recognition and any
institution seeking recognition should abide by the
regulations,prescribed by the State as conditions therefor;
5)The minority institutions must be fully equipped with
educational excellence to keep in step with other
institutions in the State;
6) The regulations framed by the State cannot abridge the
fundamental right of the minorities and they should be in
the interests of
997
the minority institutions themselves and not based on State
necessity or general societal necessities;
7) The regulations should be with a view to promoting
excellence of educational standards and ensuring security of
the services of teachers and others employees of the
institutions and in the true interests of efficiency of
institutions, discipline, health, sanitation, morality,
public order and the like,
8) Even unaided institutions are not immune from the
operations of general laws of the land such as Contract Law,
Tax measures, Economic Laws, Social Welfare Legislations
Labour and Industrial Laws and similar other laws which are
intended to meet the need of the Society,
No fault can he found with the above quoted legal principles
enunciated by the High Court. Mrs. Kitty Kumar Manglam.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr. K.K. Venugopal. Mr. K. Parasaran,
Mr. P. Chindambram and other learned counsel appearing for
the appellants fairly conceded that the High Court has
correctly summed upthe conclusions arising out of the
interpretation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of
India.
Before dealing with the Recognition Rules the High Court
referred to the Guidelines framed pursuant to the National
Educational Policy introduced in the year 1986, the
recommendations of the Education Commission (1964-1966), the
role of the National Council for Teacher Education under the
National Council of Educational Research and Training, the
views of various eminent educationists and came to the
conclusion that there is a need for drastic change in the
basic concept of teachers training in the country.
Comprehensive overhauling of administrative structure of
these institutions was urgently needed. The High Court
dealt-with in detail the revised syllabus for the diploma in
teacher education course and also the curriculum of the
institutes of Education Training set up by the Tamil Nadu
Government which shows that the State.of Tamil Nadu is in
the process of overhauling the methodology of teaching and
administration of the teachers training institutes in the
State of Tamil Nadu. The High Court referred to various
judgments of this Court wherein the importance of teacher
training and need to uplift the standard of such
institutions was repeatedly highlighted.
The High Court rightly emphasised the need for maintaining
very high standards of Education, Sports, administration and
maintenance of the Teachers
998
Training Institutes. These Institutions are established
with the avowed object of training teachers and
educationists who have to shoulder the responsibility of
moulding the nation. This Court in N.M. Nageshwaramma v.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [1986] Supp SCC 166 observed
as under:-
“The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to
teach children of impressionable age and we
cannot let loose. on the innocent and unwary
children, teachers who have not received
proper and adequate training. True they will
be required to pass the examination but that
may not be enough. Training for a certain
minimum period in a properly organised and
equipped Training Institute is probably
essential before a teacher may be duly
launched.”
Jagannatha Shetty, J. speaking for this Court in Andhra
Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education &
Ors. J.T.(1988) 4 S.C. 431 observed as under:
“Though teaching is the last choice in the job
market, the role of teacher is central to all
processes of formal education. The teacher
alone could bring out the skills and
intellectual capabilities of students. He is
the ‘engine’ of the educational system. He is
a principal instrument in awakening the child
to cultural values. He needs to be endowed
and energised with needed potential to deliver
enlightened service expected of him. His
quality should be such as would inspire and
motivate into action the benefitter. He must
keep himself abreast of ever changing
conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden
and unimaginative way. He must eliminate
fissipasrous tendencies and attitudes and
infuse nobler and national ideas in younger
minds. His involvement in national
integration is more important, indeed
indispensable. It is, therefore. needless to
state that teachers should be subjected to
rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of
efficiency. It has greater relevance to the
needs of the day. The ill trained or sub-
standard teachers would be detrimental to our
educational system, if not a punishment on our
children. The Government and the University
must, therefore, take care to see that
inadequacy in the training of teachers is not
compounded by any extraneous consideration.”
In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas. Sahebrao Roundale &
Ors.,.J.T (1992) 5
999
S.C. 175, K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for this Court observed
as under:-
“The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding
the career,character and moral fibres and
aptitude for educational excellence in
impressive young children. The formal
education needs proper equipment by the
teachers to meet the challenges of the day to
impart lessons with latest technics to the
students on secular, scientific and rational
outlook. A well equipped teacher could bring
the needed skills and intellectual
capabilities of the students in their
pursuits. The teacher is adorned as
Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a
Principal instrument to awakening the child to
the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence
and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must
keep abreast ever changing technics, the needs
of the society and to cope up with the
psychological approach to the aptitudes of the
children to perform that pivotal role. In
short teachers need to he endowed and
energised with needed potential to serve the
needs of the society. The qualitative
training in the training colleges or schools
would inspire and motivate them into action to
the benefit of the students. For equipping
such trainee students in a school or a college
all facilities and equipments are absolutely
necessary and institutions bereft thereof have
no place to exist nor entitled to recognition.
In that behalf compliance of the statutory
requirement is insisted upon. Slackening the
standard and judicial fiat to control the mode
of education and examining, system are
detrimental to the efficient management of the
education.”
The teacher-education programme has to be redesigned to
bring in a system of education which can prepare the
student-teacher to shoulder the responsibility of imparting,
education with a living dynamism. Education being closely
interrelated to life the well trained teacher can instill
anesthetic excellence in the life of his pupil. The
traditional, stereotyped. lifeless and dull pattern
of”‘chalk. talk and teach” method has to be replaced by a
more vibrant system with improved methods of teaching. to
achieve qualitative excellence in teacher-education.
Keeping in view the National Policy of Education, the
Government of Tamil Nadu has published, a revised syllabus
for the diploma in teacher education course. in the
Government Gazette of August 15, 1990. The aims and
objectives of the said syallbus and curriculum as given by
the State of Tamil Nadu are as under:-
1000
.LM15
“A sound Programme of Elementary Teacher Education is inevi-
table for the qualitative improvement of Education.
Education must become all effective instrument of social
change and the part played by the teacher should be suitable
and significant for this purpose. The gap between the
Teacher Education curriculum and the school curriculum has
to he minimized for enabling the teachers to act as agents
of social change which necessitates that the education
imparted in schools has relevance to the personal as well as
social life of individuals and to “the needs and aspirations
of the people. In order to be a catalyst in the process of
developing a citizen who is productive and who believes in
social justice and national integration, tile teacher
himself needs to become such a citizen through appropriate
learning experience.”
The High Court has examined the legality of the impugned
Recognition Rules in the above background. It has discussed
in detail the object and utility of laying down the impugned
conditions for recognition. The High Court has found that
none of the conditions infract Articles 14 and Article 30(1)
of the Constitution of India. We agree with the reasoning
and the conclusions reached by the High Court. This Court
cannot go into the question as to whether a Teachers
Training Institute should be set up on a campus consisting
of 10 acres or 5 acres. It is also not for this Court to
lay down the sizes of the class rooms. laboratories, number
of’ toilets or the number of books to he kept in the
library. It is entirely for the State Government to lay
down tile requirements of a teachers training institute
campus.
The learned Advocate General appearing for the State of
Tamil Nadu has contended that the Recognition Rules are also
applicable to Government run teachers training, institutes
and also to the institutes which are Government-aided.
According to him the new Recognition Policy of the
Government has been designed with the object of closing the
“teaching shops” and encouraging the genuine institutions.
According, to him the policy is based on the Guidelines
issued by the Central Government from time to time. He
further stated that the condition of having an area of 10
acres for the campus has now been reduced to five acres in
case of the institutions which are set up within the area of
Municipal Corporation. He has clarified that the only
requirement for setting up the library is that it must have
reference books worth at least a lakh of rupees. According
to him the number of toilets. bathrooms etc. and other
conditions regarding the institute building are in the
nature of guidelines and are to he substantially complied
with. On our suggestion the learned Advocate General has
agreed to command to the State Government. not to insist on
additional 3 acres of land in case of’ co-
1001
educational institutes in case these institutes are having
10 acres/5 acres of area as provided under the Recognition
Rules.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan appearing in civil appeals arising out of
Special Leave Petitions No. 6762-63/93 has contended that
the appellants institutes started functioning in the year
1984. They were refused recognition and as such they
challenged the order by way of a writ petition before the
High Court. The learned counsel has invited our attention
to the judgment of the High Court dated November 3, 1987 in
the said writ petition wherein it is held as under
“Consequently, the orders of the respondents 2
and 3 are set aside a writ of mandamus will
issue directing the third respondent to grant
recognition to the petitioner-institute with
effect from 27th September, 1984. This writ
petition is allowed with costs.”
Mr. Shanti Bhushan contended that the impugned Recognition
Rules cannot be made applicable to the institutions which
have already been established and given recognition by the
State Government under directions of the Court. Relying
upon the above quoted judgment of the High Court learned
counsel has contended that his clients were given
recognition with effect from 1984 under the directions of
the High Court and as such the impugned Recognition Rules
which came into force in the year 1989 cannot be made
applicable to them. It is not disputed by Mr. Shanti
Bhushan, that under the directions of the High Court
temporary recognition was given to his clients, though
according to him the order of the Government granting
temporary recognition was challenged before the High Court-
and the said petition was also disposed of by the impugned
judgment. We see no force in the contention of the learned
counsel. All those institutes which did not have permanent
recognition before the issue of the Recognition Rules are
bound to comply with the said conditions before they are
entitled to permanent recognition. The High Court was
justified in holding that the institutions which were
operating on the basis of temporary recognitions, either
under the orders of the Courts or otherwise, shall to comply
with the recognition rules to enable them to earn
recognition.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal contended that a distinction has to be
made between the institutions which are functioning earlier
to the coming into force of the recognition rules and those
which have applied for recognition for the first time.
According to him change-over period should be given to the
existing institutes which are functioning on the basis of
temporary recognition. We do not agree with Mr. Venugopal.
The training institutes which are functioning on the basis
of
1002
temporary recognitions are neither properly organised nor
fully equipped to train the teachers. These institutes have
done more harm than good to the cause of education.
Mr. Venugopal and Mr. K. Parasaran have further argued that
the students who have already taken the examinations, their
results be directed to be declared and if successful,
certificates be awarded to them. Mr. Chindambram, appearing
for some of the appellants, has argued that there are
students who have already taken the examination and their
results have also been declared but they have not been given
certificates on the ground that the institutes which
sponsored them have not been recognised.
It is no doubt correct that temporary recognitions have been
granted to some of the institutions either under the orders
of the Court or otherwise and the students of such
institutions were permitted to write the examinations. In
number of cases under orders of the Court permission to the
students to write the examinations have been given. The
High Court also directed in some cases to publish the
results of the students who wrote the examination in April
1992.. All these situations were brought to the notice of
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3674 of 1992 and Writ
Petition No. 5469 of 1993 which were heard together. The
High Court refused to grant relief to the students who had
written the examination or who had passed the examination
and were being denied the certificates. The High Court
observed as under
“Based on the above orders, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that the students
of the petitioner-Institution have validly
written the examination when the order of
recognition was in force and the results of
the examination have already been published,
pursuant to the orders of this Court. It is
contended that the students of the petitioner
are certainly entitled to the consequential
relief of issue of certificates. Another
interlocutory application is now filed in WMP
No. 5469 of, 1993 on 22.2.93 for a direction
to the third respondent to publish the results
of the students who wrote the examination held
in July 1992. In similar cases, we have given
directions to the authorities to publish the
results. But, we have taken care to observe
that such publication of results will not
confer any right on the students as the
Institutions have not complied with the rules
framed in GOMS. No. 536. They cannot take
advantage of the interim orders passed by this
court directing the government to grant
temporary recognition Orders of such
temporary recognition
1003
are expressly made subject to the result of
the main writ petitions. Now, we have held
that GO Ms. No. 536 is valid and the orders of
temporary recognition will not confer any
other remedies on the students of the
petitioner. So far as these institutions are
concerned, they should be treated only as non-
recognised. Just because the students have
written the examinations and results are
published, they are not entitled to any
further relief. The writ petition is
dismissed with the above observations”.
It has come to the notice of this Court that many
institutions claiming themselves to be minority institutions
within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution,
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
or of this Court under Article 32 for a writ of mandamus to
recognise the institutions in question as minority
institutions and pending the final disposal of such applica-
tions, an interim direction is sought to allow the students
of such institutions to appear at the examinations
concerned. In connection with such interim prayer, this
Court in the case of A. P. Christians Medical Educational
Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) said:-
“Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the
students who have been admitted into the MBBS
course of this institution, pleaded that the
interests of the students should not be
sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of
the management and that they should be
permitted to appear at the University
examination notwithstanding the circumstance
that permission and affiliation had not been
granted to the institution. He invited our
attention to the circumstance that students of
the Medical college established by the Daru
Salam Educational Trust were permitted to
appear at the examination not with standing
the fact that affiliation had not by then been
granted by the University. Shri Venugopal
suggested that we might issue appropriate
directions Lo the University to protect the
interests of the students. We do not think
that we can possibly accede to the request
made by shri Venugopal on behalf of the
students. Any direction of the nature sought
by Shri Venugopal would be in clear
transgression of the provisions of the
University Act and the regulations of the
University. We cannot by our fiat direct the
University to disobey the statute to-which it
owes its existence and the regulations made by
the University itself. We cannot imagine
anything more destructive of the rule of law
that a direction by the court to disobey the
laws.”
1004
In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court, the
High Court should not have passed, interim order directing
the respondents to allow the teachers of unrecognised
institutions to appear at the examinations in question.
Such teachers cannot derive any benefit on basis of such
interim orders, when ultimately the main writ applications
have been dismissed by the High Court, which order is being
affirmed by this Court. The same view has been expressed by
this Court, in connection with the minority unrecognised
teachers training institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu
itself, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others v. St.
Joseph Teachers Training Institute and another [1991] 3 SCC
87. As such no equity or legal right can be pleaded on
behalf of the Teachers admitted for training by such
minority institutions, for publication of their results,
because they were allowed to appear at the examinations
concerned, during the pendency of the writ applications
before the High Court, on basis of interim orders passed by
the High Court, which were in conflict with the view
expressed by this Court in the aforesaid cases.
We see no ground to differ with the view taken by the High
Court. This court in N.M. Nageshramma’s case (supra) has
held that training in a properly organised and equipped
training institute is essential before a candidate becomes
qualified to receive teachers training certificate. Simply
passing the examination is not enough. The future teachers
of the country must pass through the institutions which have
maintained standards of excellence at all levels.
We see so ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of
the High Court. We agree with the views expressed by the
High Court on various aspects of teachers training
institutes. We also agree with the reasoning and the
conclusions reached by the High Court.
Before we part with this judgment we consider it necessary
to strike a note of caution in respect of passing of interim
orders by Courts directing the students of unrecognised
institutions, to appear at the examinations concerned. In
view of’ the series of judgments of this Court, the Courts
should not issue fiat to allow the students of unrecognised
institutions to appear at the different examinations pending
the disposal of the writ applications. Such interim orders
affect the careers of several students and cause unnecessary
embarrassment and harassment to the Authorities, who have to
comply with such directions of the Court. It is a matter of
common knowledge that as a part of strategy, such writ
applications for directions to recognise the institutions in
question and in the meantime to allow the students to appear
at the examinations are filed only when the dates for
examinations are justified. Many of such institutions are
not only “masked phantoms” but are
1005
established as business ventures for admitting sub-standard
students, without any competitive tests, on basis of
considerations which cannot serve even the interest of the
minority. There is no occasion for the Courts to be liberal
or generous, while passing interim orders, when the main
writ applications have been filed only when the dates for
the examination have been announced. In this process,
students without knowing the design of the organisers of
such institutions, become victim of their manipulations.
The appeals/special leave petitions are dismissed. No
costs.
R.P. Appeals dismissed.
1006
