{"id":268736,"date":"1993-06-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-06-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993"},"modified":"2017-06-09T14:35:08","modified_gmt":"2017-06-09T09:05:08","slug":"st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993","title":{"rendered":"St. John’S Teacher Training … vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. … on 15 June, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
St. John’S Teacher Training … vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. … on 15 June, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 43, 1993 SCR (3) 985<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nST. JOHN'S TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE(FOR WOMEN). MADURAI ET\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/06\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nSINGH N.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR   43\t\t  1993 SCR  (3) 985\n 1993 SCC  (3) 595\t  JT 1993 (4)\t 78\n 1993 SCALE  (3)10\n\n\nACT:\n%\nEducational Institutions.\nTamil  Nadu   Minority Schools (Recognition and\t Payment  of\nGrants) Rules, 1977.\nTeachers  Training  institutes-Grant  recognition-Conditions\nfor-Held, institutes having no permanent  recognition before\nissue  of the Rules are bound to comply with  conditions  to\nquality\t for  permanent\t recognition-Rules  do\tnot  infract\nArticles  14 and 30(1) of the Constitution.\nTeacher-Education programme-need for improvement-Emphasised.\nConstitution of India 1950.\nArticles  14,  19(1)  (g),  30(1)  Right  of  minorities  to\nestablish  educational institutions-Held, right is  absolute\nin  terms  but subject to regulatory measures-There   is  no\nfundamental  right to recognition and any institute  seeking\nrecognition  should abide by the regulations  prescribed  by\nthe State.\nArticles  32, 226-Educational Institutions-Applications\t for\nwrit of mandamus to grant recognition-Prayer for  directions\nto  allow students to appear at examinations  meanwhile-Held\nCourts\t should\t not  issue  flat  to  allow  students\t  of\nunrecognised  institutions to appear at examination  pending\ndisposal of writ applications.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t state, in the process\tof  overhauling\t the\nmethodology  of\t teaching and administration   of   teachers\ntraining   institutes\tin  order  to  achieve\t qualitative\nexcellence  in\tteacher education , amended the\t Tamil\tNadu\nMinority  Schools (Recognition and Payment of  Grant)  Rules\n1977 by G.O. No.536 dated 17-5-1989 and No. 661 dated  12-6-\n1991. The Rules besides\t providing for instructions teaching\npractice  to be followed and minimum qualification  for\t the\nstaff\tprescribed  certain  other   conditions\t   regarding\nland,building, hotel\n986\nfurniture, library, teaching appliances, sports\t facilities,\nrecognised middle school for providing teaching practice  to\ntrainees,  etc.\t to  be satisfies  by  a  teachers  training\ninstitute   to\tqualify\t for  grant  of\t recognition.\t The\nappellant\/petitioners\tare   various\tTeachers    Training\nInstitute  in  the  State  of Tamil  Nadu.  claiming  to  be\nminority educational institutions in terms of Article  30(1)<\/a>\nof  the Constitution of India The State Government  declined\nto  recognise  these institutions on the  ground  that\tthey\nfailed to sutisfy the conditions for grant of recognition as\nprovided under the Recognition Rules.\nThe  appellants\/petitioners filed writ petitions before\t the\nHigh Court challenging the validity of the Recognition Rules\non the ground that the same were violative of Articles 30(1)\nand  14 of the Constitution.  It was contended that  as\t the\nminorities have a fundamental right under r Article 30(1)<\/a> of\nthe  Constitution  to establish and  administer\t educational\ninstitutions of their choice, the conditions provided  under\nthe  recognitions  Rules  were\twholly\tarbitrary  and\twere\ndesigned  to oust the appellants from the  educational-field\nand the the provisions were so onerous that it was difficult\nrather\timpossible to comply with the same.  The High  Court\ndismissed  the writ petitions.\t The  appellants\/petitioners\nfiled the appeals and the special leave petitions.\nIt was contended on behalf of the appellants that the  Rules\ncould  not  be made applicable to the  institutions  already\nestablished  and given recognition by the  State  Government\nunder  the directions of the Court; and that the  successful\nstudents of these institutions who had taken examinations be\ngiven certificates.\nThis  Court  dismissed\tthe appeals and\t the  special  leave\npetitions  by  its  order dated\t 25-5-1993  indicating\tthat\nreasons therefor would follow.\nGiving reasons for its order dated 25-5-1993, this Court\nHELD  : 1. The High Court was right in holding that none  of\nthe conditions for grant of recognition to teachers training\ninstitutes prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Minority  Schools\n(Recognition  and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977,  infracted\nArticles 14 & 30(1) of the Constitution.  It rightly culled-\nout the following principles\n\t      (i)   The\t  fundamental  right   declared\t  by\n\t      Article 30(1)<\/a> of the\tConstitution\t  is\n\t      absolute\tin terms, but subject to  regulatory\n\t      measures;\n\t      987\n\t      (ii)There\t  is  no  fundamental  right   under\n\t      Article\t19(1)  (g)<\/a>of  the  Constitution\t  to\n\t      establish\t  or   administer   an\t educational\n\t      institution,   if\t  recognition\tis    sought\n\t      therefore;\n\t      (iii) The\t institutions  must  he\t educational\n\t      institutions  of the minorities in  truth\t and\n\t      reality and not mere masked phantoms;\n\t      (iv)  There   is\tno  fundamental\t  right\t  to\n\t      recognition   and\t an%   institution   seeking\n\t      recognition  should abide by  the\t regulations\n\t      prescribed   by\tthe  State   as\t  conditions\n\t      therefor,\n\t      (v)   The minority institutions must be  fully\n\t      equipped\twith educational excellence to\tkeep\n\t      in step with other institutions in the State;\n\t      (vi)  The\t regulations  framed  by  the  State\n\t      cannot  abridge the fundamental right  of\t the\n\t      minorities and they should be in the interests\n\t      (if  the minority institutions themselves\t and\n\t      not  based  on  State  necessity\tor   general\n\t      societal necessities-.\n\t      (vii) The\t regulations should be, with a\tview\n\t      to   promoting  excellence   (of\t educational\n\t      standards\t  and  ensuring\t security   of\t the\n\t      services\tof teachers and other  employees  of\n\t      the institutions and in the true interests  of\n\t      efficiency   (if\t institutions,\t discipline,\n\t      health, sanitation, morality public order\t and\n\t      the like;\n\t      (viii)\t Even  unaided institutions are\t not\n\t      immune from the operations of general laws  of\n\t      the  land such as Contract Law  Tax  measures,\n\t      Economic\t  Laws\t  and,\t  Social     Welfare\n\t      legislations,  Labour and Industrial Laws\t and\n\t      similar other laws which are intended to\tmeet\n\t      the need of the Society.\nKerala education bill,[1959] SCR 995; Rev.  Sidhajbai Sabhai\ns.  v.\tState of Bombay and Anr[1963] 3 SCR 837;  S.  Azeesh\nBasha  v.  Union of India<\/a> [1968] 1 SCR 833; State  o  Kerala\netc.  v. Very Rev.  Mother Provincial etc [1971] 1 SCR\t734;\nRegina v. St. Alosius Higher Elementary School and Anr<\/a>[1971]\nSupp.  SCR 6; The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society\t and\nAnr  etc  v. State of Gujarat and Anr[1975] 1 SCR  173;\t The\nGandhi\tFaiz-e-am College, Shajahanpur v.University of\tAgra<\/a>\nand Anr.[1975] 2 SCC 283; Lilly Kurian v. Sr.  Lewina<\/a> and\n988\nOrs.[1979] 1 SCR 320; All Saints High School, Hyderabad etc.\netc. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. etc [1980] 2 SCR\n924;  The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission,  Bihar\nRanchi\t& Ors v. The State of Bihar & Ors<\/a> [1985] 1 SCR\t410;\nA.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of\nAndhra Pradesh and Anr<\/a>.[1986] 2 SCC 667 Frank Anthony Public\nSchool\tEmployees  Association\tv. Union of  India  and\t Ors<\/a>\n[1986]4 SCC 707 All Bihar Christian Schools Association\t and\nAnr.  v.  State\t of  Bihar and Ors<\/a>. [1988]  1  SCC  206\t St.\nStephon's College v. The University of Delhi JT<\/a>(1991) 4 SCC,\n548  and Unni Krishnan and Anr. v. State of  Andhra  Pradesh\nand Ors<\/a>. [1993] 1 SCC 45 cited.\n2.1  The teacher education programme has to he redesigned to\nbring  in  a  system  of education  which  can\tprepare\t the\nstudent-teacher to shoulder the responsibility of  imparting\neducating with a living dynamism and the traditional pattern\nof \"chalk, talk and teach\" method has to be replaced by more\nvibrant system with improved methods of reaching, to achieve\nqualitative excellence in teacher-education.\nN.M.  Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr<\/a>  [1986]\nSupp SCC 166 Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director  of\nSchool\tEducation  &  Ors<\/a>  (1988) 4  SC\t 431  and  State  of\nMaharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & Ors<\/a>.  J.T.(1992)  5\nSC 175, relied on.\n2.2  It\t is  entirely for the State Government and  not\t for\nthis  Court,  to  lay down the requirements  of\t a  teachers\ntraining  institute campus.  All those institutes which\t did\nnot  have  permanent  recognition before the  issue  of\t the\nRecognition  Rules, 1977 are bound to comply with  the\tsaid\nconditions   before   they   are   entitled   to   permanent\nrecognition.   The High Court was Justified in holding\tthat\nthe  institutions  which  were operating  on  the  basis  of\ntemporary  recognitions,  either  under the  orders  of\t the\nCourts\t or  otherwise,\t shall\thave  to  comply  with\t the\nrecognition rules to enable them to earn recognition.  These\ninstitutions  are  neither properly,  organised\t nor  fully,\nequipped to train the teachers. and have done more harm than\ngood to the cause of education.\n3.1  In\t view of the series of the judgments of\t this  Court\nthe  Courts should not issue fiat to allow the\tstudents  of\nunrecognised   institutions   to   appear   the\t   different\nexaminations\tpending\t  the\tdisposal   of\t the\twrit\napplications.Such  interim  orders  affect  the\t career\t  of\nseveral\t students  and cause unnecessary  embarrassment\t and\nharassment to the authorities, who have to comply with\tsuch\ndirections of the Courts.\n989\nA.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of\nAndhra Pradesh<\/a> [1986] 2 SCC 667, relied on.\n3.2  The  High Court should not have passed  interim  orders\ndirecting  authorities\tconcerned to allow the\tteachers  of\nunrecognised institutions to appear at the examinations.  It\nis  a  matter  of common knowledge  that  many\tinstitutions\nclaiming  themselves to be minority institutions within\t the\nmeaning\t of  Article 30(1)<\/a> of the  Constitution\t invoke\t the\njurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226<\/a> or of\tthis\nCourt  under Article 32<\/a> for a writ of mandamus to  recognise\nthe  institutions  as minority institutions  only  when\t the\ndates  for  examinations  are notified and,  as\t a  part  of\nstrategy, seek directions to allow, meanwhile, the  students\nto  appear at the examinations.\t Many of  such\tinstitutions\nare  not  only\t\"masked phantoms\"  but\tare  established  as\nbusiness   ventures  for  admitting  sub-standard   students\nwithout\t any competitive tests, on basis  of  considerations\nwhich  cannot serve even the interest of the minority.\t The\nteachers  of such institutions cannot derive any benefit  on\nbasis  of  interim  orders when\t ultimately  the  main\twrit\napplications have been dismissed. As such no equity or legal\nright can be pleaded on behalf of the students admitted\t for\ntraning\t by  such minority institutions for  publication  of\ntheir results or award of certificates.\nA.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of\nAndhra\tPradesh<\/a>, [1986] 2 SCC 667; and State of\t Tamil\tNadu\nand  others v. St.  Joseph Teachers Training  Institute\t and\nanother<\/a>, [1991] 3 SCC 87, relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2914-16  of
\n1993 etc. etc.
\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1993 and 29-3- 93  of
\nthe  Madras  High Court in W.P. Nos  15081\/91,\t8002\/92\t and
\n16068\/91.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t      Civil Appeal Nos.\n<\/p>\n
\t      2937\/93
\n\t      3040-40A-B\/93
\n\t      3026-27\/93
\n\t      3025\/93
\n\t      990<\/span>
\n\t      3015-24\/93
\n\t      3028\/93
\n\t      3084\/93
\n\t      3002\/93
\n\t      3032\/93
\n\t      2993-94\/93
\n\t      3003-04\/93
\n\t      3086-87\/93
\n\t      2995\/93
\n\t      3005-07\/93
\n\t      2987-89\/93
\n\t      3014\/93
\n\t      3008-10\/93
\n\t      3086-87\/93
\n\t      2940-41\/93
\n\t      3011-301 IA\/93
\n\t      2998-3000\/93
\n\t      2986\/93
\n\t      3101-07\/93
\n\t       2992\/93
\n\t      3108\/93
\n\t      2982-82A\/93
\n\t      2983-85\/93
\n\t      3029-31\/93
\n\t      3093-94\/93
\n\t      2943-44\/93
\n\t      991<\/span>
\n\t      2955-57\/93
\n\t      2996-97\/03
\n\t      3042-3080\/93
\n\t      3035\/93
\n\t      3039\/93
\n\t      3041\/93
\n\t      3095\/93
\n\t      3033-34\/93
\n\t      3090-92\/93
\n\t      3096-97\/93
\n\t      2981\/93
\n\t      3088-89\/93
\n\t      2979\/93
\n\t      2976-77\/93
\n\t      2960-61\/93
\n\t      2990\/93
\n\t      2968\/93
\n\t      2958-59\/93
\n\t      2971\/93
\n\t      2978\/93
\n\t      2972\/93
\n\t      2942\/93
\n\t      3082-83\/93
\n\t      2969-70\/93
\n\t      2965-67\/93
\n\t      2991\/93
\n\t      992<\/span>
\n\t      2973-75\/93
\n\t      3036-38\/93
\n\t      2962-64\/93
\n\t      3085\/93
\n\t      3127-29\/93
\n\t      3012-13\/93
\n\t      3018\/93
\n\t      2938-39\/93
\n\t      2990\/93
\n\t      2945-54\/93
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\nSpecial\t Leave\tPetition (CIVIL) Nos. 7375,  8009-11,  8108,
\n7416, 7560-62 OF 1993.\n<\/p>\n
Shanti Bhushan, K.K. Venugopal, Soli J. Sorabjee, N. Santosh
\nHegde, Shivasubramaniam.  K. Parasaran, P. Chidambaram, Mrs.
\nRevathy\t Raghavan,  M.A. Krishna  Moorthy,  Kailash  Vasdev,
\nPawan  Kumar,  B. Rabu Manohar, Dr. A. Francis\tJulian\t(For
\nM\/s.\tArputham,   Aruna  and\tCo.),\tP.   Chandrasekhran,
\nAruneshwar  Gupta, A. Chandrasekar, Pushpendra Singh  Bhati,
\nV.  Ramajagadesan, V. Balachandran, V.\tKrishnamurthy,\tK.V.
\nVijaya Kumar, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Selvar thenave, Martin, K.V.
\nMohan,\tR. Mohan, R. Nedumaran, and P.D. Dinakaran  for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
P.R. Seetharaman for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKULDIP\tSINGH,J.These  bunch-appeals  are  by  the  Teachers
\nTraining Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu.\t They  claim
\nto  be\tthe minority educational institutions  in  terms  of
\nArticle\t 30(1)<\/a>\tof  the Constitution of\t India.\t  The  State
\nGovernment  has\t declined to recognise these  institutes  on
\n(lie ground that they have failed to satisfy the  conditions
\nfor  grant of recognition as provided under the\t Tamil\tNadu
\nMinor-\n<\/p>\n
993<\/span><\/p>\n
ity  Schools(Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules,\t1977
\nas  amended  by the Government Order No. 536 dated  May\t 17,
\n1989  and  Government  Order No. 861 dated  June  12,  1991.
\n(Recognition Rules)
\nThe  appellants challenged, before the Madras High Court  by
\nway of writ petitions under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution,
\nthe  validity of the Recognition Rules. inter alia,  on\t the
\n,rounds that the said Rules are violative of Articles  30(1)
\nand  14 of the Constitution of India.  A Division  Bench  of
\nthe  High Court consisting of M. Srinivasan and\t Thangamani,
\nJJ,  dismissed\tthe writ petitions.  M. Srinivasan  J.,\t who
\nspoke  for the Bench, has given a scholarly  judgment.\t The
\ncase-law  on the subject has been dealt with in\t detail\t and
\nthe   conclusions  culled  out\tsuccinctly.The\tHigh   Court
\njudgment has been of utmost assistance to us.  These appeals
\nvia  special leave are by the Teachers\tTraining  Institutes
\nagainst\t the  judgment\tof the Division Bench  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
We  announced our conclusions in  these\t matters–dismissing
\nthe  appeals and special leave petitions–on May  25,  1993.
\nNow we proceed to give our
\nreasoned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The Recognition Rules provide for instructions and  teaching
\npractice to be followed, minimum qualifications for teaching
\nand   non-teaching  staff  and\tthe   following\t  additional
\nConditions to be satisfied by a teachers training  institute
\nto quality for grant of recognition\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.The Teachers Training Institute should\thave
\n\t      at least 10 acres of suitable land of its\t own
\n\t      to  he used for construction of  Building\t for
\n\t\t\t    Institution\t and Administration and for  Hoste
\nl
\n\t      accommodation and staff quarters and also\t for
\n\t      Play Ground purposes,\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.The  Institution  Building must\t consist  of
\n\t      suitable rooms to provide for class rooms with
\n\t      roughly 60 sq. feet of carpet area per  inmate
\n\t      one  Auditorium  cum projection hall  with  an
\n\t      area  of about 2000 Sq. feet.  Laboratory\t and
\n\t      Special Rooms.  Library Staff-rooms separately
\n\t      for  Men\tand Women staff,  Principal’s  Room,
\n\t      Off-ice\tRoom,  Store  Room  for\t Craft\t and
\n\t      Physical\tEducation articles.  Toilet  facili-
\n\t      ties separately for men and women and  women’s
\n\t      Common Room;\n<\/p>\n
\t      3.Bath  rooms and toilets should be  provided.
\n\t      if  the  Institution is meant for\t both  sexes
\n\t      separate\tSuch facilities should\tbe  provided
\n\t      for
\n\t      994<\/span>
\n\t      men  and\twomen  teaching\t staff\tnon-teaching
\n\t      staff and men and women candidates.  As far as
\n\t      bath   rooms   and   toilets   are   concerned
\n\t      arrangements should he made at the rate of one
\n\t      for ten inmates.\n<\/p>\n
\t      4.(a) Adequate furniture and office  equipment
\n\t      including furnitures for class rooms, Library,
\n\t      Laboratory and other rooms should be  provided
\n\t      to the value of at least a lakh of rupees,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)Laboratory equipments worth at least a lakh
\n\t      of  rupees  should be  provided  for  Science,
\n\t      Geography, Home;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)Teaching  appliances.\taudio  visual  aids,
\n\t      charts,  maps  etc.  worth  about\t Rs.  50,000
\n\t      should be provided.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)Sports\/Games\/Arts\/Music  Equipments   worth
\n\t      about Rs. should be provided.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)Equipment and Material for work  experience
\n\t      worth about Rs. 50,000 should be provided.\n<\/p>\n
\t      5.A  room with a space of\t approximately\t1000
\n\t      sq. ft. with sufficient storage space to\tkeep
\n\t      the  equipment furnishing to organise  various
\n\t      learning situations, and provision to  observe
\n\t      the   trainees  at  work\tin  the\t  laboratory
\n\t      situations.  without being noticed has  to  be
\n\t      provided.\t  Sufficient  furnitures  such\t as,
\n\t      working\ttables\t and  almirahs\t should\t  be
\n\t      provided.\n<\/p>\n
\t      6.    Each Teacher Training Institution should
\n\t      have  a  good  library with  at  least  10,000
\n\t      volumes  of back and reference books worth  at
\n\t      least a lakh of rupees:\n<\/p>\n
\t      7.    Play ground space for sports, gymnastics
\n\t      and  other Physical Education activities\twith
\n\t      an area about 5 acres should be provided.\t  If
\n\t      the Institute is meant for both sexes, another
\n\t      3 acres of and should he provided\t exclusively
\n\t      for women candidates.  The Play ground  should
\n\t      he  provided adjacent to the main\t Institution
\n\t      building within the campus and not in a remote
\n\t      place away from the Institution,
\n\t      995<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t      8.    At\tleast  one full\t fledged  recognised
\n\t      Middle School with Standards I to VIII  should
\n\t      be  functioning under the same  management  of
\n\t      every   Teacher  Training\t Institute   seeking
\n\t      recognition,  for\t the  purpose  of  providing
\n\t      teaching practice to the trainess.  This\twill
\n\t      be a precondition even at the time of  sending
\n\t      in  applications for recognition\tof  Teachers
\n\t      Training Institutes.  The practical aspects of
\n\t      the  Training will be assessed by a  competent
\n\t      board  to\t be  constituted  by  the  concerned
\n\t      authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t      9.    (a)\t The  need for the  opening  of\t the
\n\t      institution in that area will be assessed by a
\n\t      District\tCommittee  with\t a  Joint   Director
\n\t      nominated\t by Director of School Education  as
\n\t      Chairman\twith Chief Educational\tOfficer\t and
\n\t      District\tEducational  Officer\/Inspectors\t  of
\n\t      Girls  Schools  as members as  the  case\tmay.
\n\t      This  committee  will submit  a  report  about
\n\t      satisfaction  of\tnorms  based  on  which\t the
\n\t      competent authority will consider\t Recognition
\n\t      for the institution,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   The\t  Authority   competent\t  to   grant
\n\t      recognition  shall take into account the\tneed
\n\t      for  granting  such  recognition\tto   Teacher
\n\t      Training Institutes taking into  consideration
\n\t      the  trained  teachers already  available\t and
\n\t      waiting  for  appointment\t and  potential\t to.
\n\t      absorb the Teachers to be trained in future in
\n\t      the   services  of  Government   and   Private
\n\t      Schools.\n<\/p>\n
\t      10.   There  should  he economic\tstrength  as
\n\t      prescribed  by the education department.\t The
\n\t      teachers training institutes should not  admit
\n\t      more than forty students in all for the course
\n\t      and should not exceed this limit either in the
\n\t      first or second year.\n<\/p>\n
It  was argued before the High Court that as the  minorities
\nhave  a\t fundamental  right  under  Article  30(1)<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution   to  establish  and   administer\t educational
\ninstitutions of their choice, the conditions provided  under
\nthe  Recognition  Rules are wholly arbitrary and  have\tbeen
\ndesigned to oust the appellants from the  educational-fieled
\nand  the provisions regarding, having a middle school’.\t ten
\nacres  of  land, play grounds, library\twith  10,000  books,
\nlaboratory,  hostel, staff quarters, bathrooms for  students
\netc.  etc.  are\t so  onerous that  it  is  difficult  rather
\nimpossible to comply with the same.\n<\/p>\n
996<\/span><\/p>\n
While  dealing with the argument based on Article  30(1)<\/a>  of
\nthe Constitution of India the High Court discussed in detail
\nthe  judgments of this Court in Kerala Education  Bill[1959]
\nSCR 995, Rev,.\tSidhajbhai Sabhai & Ors. v. State of  Bombay
\nand Anr<\/a> [ 1963] 3 SCR 837.  S Azeez Basha v. Union of  India<\/a>
\n[1968]\t1  SCR\t833, State of kerala  etc,  v.\tVery.\tRev.
\nMother\tProvincial  etc, [ 1971] 1 SCR 734-, Regina  v.\t St.
\nAloysius Higher Elementary School and Anr<\/a>, [19711 Supp.\t SCR\n<\/p>\n
6. The Gandhi Faiz-e-am College, Shahjahanpur v.  University
\nof  Agra and Anr<\/a>. [ 19751 2 SCC 283, Lilly,.  Kurian v.\t Sr.
\nLewina\tand Ors<\/a>, [ 1 979] 1 SCR 820,All Saints High  School,
\nHyderabad  etc. etc. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh &\tOrs.
\netc [1980] 2 SCR 924; The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi
\nMission,  Bihar Ranchi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar &  Ors<\/a>.,
\n[1985]\t1  SCR\t410,  A.P.  Christians\tMedical\t Educational
\nSociety\t v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh and Anr<\/a> 1986] 2\t SCC
\n667,  Frank Anthony Public School Employees  Association  v.
\nUnion  of India and ors<\/a>,[1986]4 SCC 707,All  Bihar-Christion
\nSchools\t Association andAnr. v. State of Bihar and Ors\t[  1
\n988] 1 SCC 206; St. Stephen’s College v.. The University  of
\nDelhiJT\t [1991]4  SC  548; Unni Krishnan  andAnr.  v.  State
\nofAndhra  Pradesh  and Ors.  Writ Petition  (C)\t No.  607\/92
\ndecided\t on  February4,1993  and  TheAhmedabad\tSt   Xaviers
\nCollege\t Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat and  Anr  1
\n975 ] 1 SCR 173.  On the analysis of the above judgments the
\nHigh Court culled-out the following principles\n<\/p>\n
1)The  fundamental  right declared by Article 30(1)<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution is absolute in terms, but subject to regulatory
\nmeasures’,\n<\/p>\n
2)There\t is no fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g)<\/a>  of
\nthe  Constitution to establish or administer an\t educational
\ninstitution, if recognition is sought therefor;\n<\/p>\n
3)   The  institutions must be educational  institutions  of
\nthe minorities in   truth  and reality and not\tmere  masked
\nphantoms,\n<\/p>\n
4)   There  is no fundamental right to recognition  and\t any
\ninstitution   seeking  recognition  should  abide   by\t the
\nregulations,prescribed by the State as conditions therefor;\n<\/p>\n
5)The  minority\t institutions must be  fully  equipped\twith
\neducational   excellence   to  keep  in\t step\twith   other
\ninstitutions in the State;\n<\/p>\n
6)  The regulations framed by the State cannot\tabridge\t the
\nfundamental  right of the minorities and they should  be  in
\nthe interests of
\n997<\/span>
\nthe minority institutions themselves and not based on  State
\nnecessity or general societal necessities;\n<\/p>\n
7)   The  regulations  should be with a\t view  to  promoting
\nexcellence of educational standards and ensuring security of
\nthe  services  of  teachers  and  others  employees  of\t the
\ninstitutions  and  in the true interests  of  efficiency  of
\ninstitutions,  discipline,  health,  sanitation,   morality,
\npublic order and the like,\n<\/p>\n
8)   Even  unaided  institutions  are not  immune  from\t the
\noperations of general laws of the land such as Contract Law,
\nTax  measures,\tEconomic Laws, Social  Welfare\tLegislations
\nLabour and Industrial Laws and similar other laws which\t are
\nintended to meet the need of the Society,
\nNo fault can he found with the above quoted legal principles
\nenunciated  by\tthe High Court.\t Mrs. Kitty  Kumar  Manglam.
\nMr.  Shanti Bhushan, Mr. K.K. Venugopal.  Mr. K.  Parasaran,
\nMr.  P. Chindambram and other learned counsel appearing\t for
\nthe  appellants\t fairly\t conceded that the  High  Court\t has
\ncorrectly  summed  upthe  conclusions  arising\tout  of\t the
\ninterpretation\tof  Article  30(1)<\/a> of  the  Constitution  of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tdealing\t with the Recognition Rules the\t High  Court
\nreferred  to the Guidelines framed pursuant to the  National
\nEducational   Policy  introduced  in  the  year\t 1986,\t the
\nrecommendations of the Education Commission (1964-1966), the
\nrole of the National Council for Teacher Education under the
\nNational  Council of Educational Research and Training,\t the
\nviews  of  various  eminent educationists and  came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that there is a need for drastic change  in\t the
\nbasic\tconcept\t of  teachers  training\t in   the   country.
\nComprehensive  overhauling  of administrative  structure  of
\nthese  institutions  was urgently needed.   The\t High  Court
\ndealt-with in detail the revised syllabus for the diploma in
\nteacher\t education  course and also the\t curriculum  of\t the
\ninstitutes  of Education Training set up by the\t Tamil\tNadu
\nGovernment  which shows that the State.of Tamil Nadu  is  in
\nthe  process of overhauling the methodology of teaching\t and
\nadministration\tof the teachers training institutes  in\t the
\nState  of  Tamil Nadu.\tThe High Court referred\t to  various
\njudgments  of this Court wherein the importance\t of  teacher
\ntraining   and\t need  to  uplift  the\tstandard   of\tsuch
\ninstitutions was repeatedly highlighted.
\nThe  High Court rightly emphasised the need for\t maintaining
\nvery high standards of Education, Sports, administration and
\nmaintenance of the Teachers
\n998<\/span>
\nTraining  Institutes.\tThese Institutions  are\t established
\nwith   the   avowed   object  of   training   teachers\t and
\neducationists  who  have to shoulder the  responsibility  of
\nmoulding  the nation.  This Court in N.M.  Nageshwaramma  v.
\nState of Andhra Pradesh & Anr<\/a>. [1986] Supp SCC 166  observed
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to
\n\t      teach  children of impressionable age  and  we
\n\t      cannot  let loose. on the innocent and  unwary
\n\t      children,\t teachers  who\thave  not   received
\n\t      proper and adequate training.  True they\twill
\n\t      be  required to pass the examination but\tthat
\n\t      may  not\tbe enough.  Training for  a  certain
\n\t      minimum  period  in a properly  organised\t and
\n\t      equipped\t Training  Institute   is   probably
\n\t      essential\t  before  a  teacher  may  be\tduly
\n\t      launched.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Jagannatha  Shetty,  J. speaking for this  Court  in  Andhra
\nKesari\tEducation Society v. Director of School Education  &
\nOrs<\/a>.  J.T.(1988) 4 S.C. 431 observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Though teaching is the last choice in the job
\n\t      market, the role of teacher is central to\t all
\n\t      processes\t of formal education.\tThe  teacher
\n\t      alone   could   bring  out  the\tskills\t and
\n\t      intellectual capabilities of students.  He  is
\n\t      the ‘engine’ of the educational system.  He is
\n\t      a principal instrument in awakening the  child
\n\t      to  cultural values.  He needs to\t be  endowed
\n\t      and energised with needed potential to deliver
\n\t      enlightened  service  expected  of  him.\t His
\n\t      quality  should be such as would\tinspire\t and
\n\t      motivate into action the benefitter.  He\tmust
\n\t      keep   himself   abreast\tof   ever   changing
\n\t      conditions.  He is not to perform in a  wooden
\n\t      and  unimaginative  way.\t He  must  eliminate
\n\t      fissipasrous  tendencies\tand  attitudes\t and
\n\t      infuse  nobler and national ideas\t in  younger
\n\t      minds.\t His   involvement    in    national
\n\t      integration   is\t more\timportant,    indeed
\n\t      indispensable.  It is, therefore. needless  to
\n\t      state  that  teachers should be  subjected  to
\n\t      rigorous\ttraining  with\trigid  scrutiny\t  of
\n\t      efficiency.   It has greater relevance to\t the
\n\t      needs  of\t the day.  The ill trained  or\tsub-
\n\t      standard teachers would be detrimental to\t our
\n\t      educational system, if not a punishment on our
\n\t      children.\t  The Government and the  University
\n\t      must,   therefore,  take\tcare  to  see\tthat
\n\t      inadequacy in the training of teachers is\t not
\n\t      compounded by any extraneous consideration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  State  of  Maharashtra v. Vikas<\/a>.   Sahebrao\t Roundale  &
\nOrs.,.J.T (1992) 5
\n999<\/span>
\nS.C. 175, K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for this Court  observed
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  teacher plays pivotal role\tin  moulding
\n\t      the  career,character  and  moral\t fibres\t and
\n\t      aptitude\t for   educational   excellence\t  in
\n\t      impressive   young   children.\tThe   formal
\n\t      education\t  needs\t proper\t equipment  by\t the
\n\t      teachers to meet the challenges of the day  to
\n\t      impart  lessons  with latest technics  to\t the
\n\t      students\ton secular, scientific and  rational
\n\t      outlook.\tA well equipped teacher could  bring
\n\t      the    needed    skills\t and\tintellectual
\n\t      capabilities   of\t  the  students\t  in   their
\n\t      pursuits.\t   The\t teacher   is\tadorned\t  as
\n\t      Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is  a
\n\t      Principal instrument to awakening the child to
\n\t      the  cultural ethos,  intellectual  excellence
\n\t      and discipline.  The teachers, therefore, must
\n\t      keep abreast ever changing technics, the needs
\n\t      of  the  society\tand  to\t cope  up  with\t the
\n\t      psychological approach to the aptitudes of the
\n\t      children\tto  perform that pivotal  role.\t  In
\n\t      short   teachers\tneed  to  he   endowed\t and
\n\t      energised\t with needed potential to serve\t the
\n\t      needs   of  the  society.\t   The\t qualitative
\n\t      training\tin the training colleges or  schools
\n\t      would inspire and motivate them into action to
\n\t      the  benefit of the students.   For  equipping
\n\t      such trainee students in a school or a college
\n\t      all  facilities and equipments are  absolutely
\n\t      necessary and institutions bereft thereof have
\n\t      no place to exist nor entitled to recognition.
\n\t      In  that\tbehalf compliance of  the  statutory
\n\t      requirement is insisted upon.  Slackening\t the
\n\t      standard and judicial fiat to control the mode
\n\t      of   education  and  examining,\tsystem\t are
\n\t      detrimental to the efficient management of the
\n\t      education.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  teacher-education\tprogramme has to  be  redesigned  to
\nbring  in  a  system  of education  which  can\tprepare\t the
\nstudent-teacher to shoulder the responsibility of imparting,
\neducation  with a living dynamism.  Education being  closely
\ninterrelated  to life the well trained teacher\tcan  instill
\nanesthetic  excellence\tin  the\t life  of  his\tpupil.\t The
\ntraditional,   stereotyped.   lifeless\tand   dull   pattern
\nof”‘chalk.  talk and teach” method has to be replaced  by  a
\nmore  vibrant system with improved methods of  teaching.  to
\nachieve qualitative excellence in teacher-education.
\nKeeping\t in  view  the National\t Policy\t of  Education,\t the
\nGovernment  of Tamil Nadu has published, a revised  syllabus
\nfor  the  diploma  in  teacher\teducation  course.  in\t the
\nGovernment  Gazette  of\t August\t 15,  1990.   The  aims\t and
\nobjectives  of the said syallbus and curriculum as given  by
\nthe State of Tamil Nadu are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
1000<\/span><\/p>\n
.LM15
\n“A sound Programme of Elementary Teacher Education is inevi-
\ntable\tfor  the  qualitative  improvement   of\t  Education.
\nEducation  must\t become all effective instrument  of  social
\nchange and the part played by the teacher should be suitable
\nand  significant  for  this purpose.  The  gap\tbetween\t the
\nTeacher\t Education curriculum and the school curriculum\t has
\nto  he minimized for enabling the teachers to act as  agents
\nof  social  change  which necessitates\tthat  the  education
\nimparted in schools has relevance to the personal as well as
\nsocial life of individuals and to “the needs and aspirations
\nof the people.\tIn order to be a catalyst in the process  of
\ndeveloping  a citizen who is productive and who believes  in
\nsocial\tjustice\t and  national\tintegration,  tile   teacher
\nhimself\t needs to become such a citizen through\t appropriate
\nlearning experience.”\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court has examined the legality of  the  impugned
\nRecognition Rules in the above background.  It has discussed
\nin detail the object and utility of laying down the impugned
\nconditions  for recognition.  The High Court has found\tthat
\nnone of the conditions infract Articles 14 and Article 30(1)<\/a>
\nof  the Constitution of India.\tWe agree with the  reasoning
\nand  the conclusions reached by the High Court.\t This  Court
\ncannot\tgo  into  the  question as  to\twhether\t a  Teachers
\nTraining  Institute should be set up on a campus  consisting
\nof  10 acres or 5 acres.  It is also not for this  Court  to
\nlay down the sizes of the class rooms. laboratories,  number
\nof’  toilets  or  the  number of books to  he  kept  in\t the
\nlibrary.   It  is entirely for the State Government  to\t lay
\ndown  tile  requirements of a  teachers\t training  institute
\ncampus.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Advocate General appearing for  the  State  of
\nTamil Nadu has contended that the Recognition Rules are also
\napplicable  to Government run teachers training,  institutes
\nand  also  to  the institutes  which  are  Government-aided.
\nAccording   to\thim  the  new  Recognition  Policy  of\t the
\nGovernment has been designed with the object of closing\t the
\n“teaching  shops” and encouraging the genuine  institutions.
\nAccording,  to\thim the policy is based\t on  the  Guidelines
\nissued\tby  the Central Government from time  to  time.\t  He
\nfurther\t stated that the condition of having an area  of  10
\nacres  for the campus has now been reduced to five acres  in
\ncase of the institutions which are set up within the area of
\nMunicipal  Corporation.\t  He  has clarified  that  the\tonly
\nrequirement for setting up the library is that it must\thave
\nreference books worth at least a lakh of rupees.   According
\nto  him\t the  number of toilets. bathrooms  etc.  and  other
\nconditions  regarding  the  institute building\tare  in\t the
\nnature\tof guidelines and are to he  substantially  complied
\nwith.\tOn our suggestion the learned Advocate\tGeneral\t has
\nagreed to command to the State Government. not to insist  on
\nadditional 3 acres of land in case of’ co-\n<\/p>\n
1001<\/span><\/p>\n
educational  institutes in case these institutes are  having
\n10  acres\/5 acres of area as provided under the\t Recognition
\nRules.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Shanti Bhushan appearing in civil appeals arising out of
\nSpecial\t Leave Petitions No. 6762-63\/93 has  contended\tthat
\nthe  appellants institutes started functioning in  the\tyear
\n1984.\tThey  were  refused recognition\t and  as  such\tthey
\nchallenged  the order by way of a writ petition\t before\t the
\nHigh  Court.  The learned counsel has invited our  attention
\nto the judgment of the High Court dated November 3, 1987  in
\nthe said writ petition wherein it is held as under
\n\t      “Consequently, the orders of the respondents 2
\n\t      and  3 are set aside a writ of  mandamus\twill
\n\t      issue directing the third respondent to  grant
\n\t      recognition  to the petitioner-institute\twith
\n\t      effect  from 27th September, 1984.  This\twrit
\n\t      petition is allowed with costs.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Shanti Bhushan contended that the impugned\t Recognition
\nRules  cannot be made applicable to the\t institutions  which
\nhave  already been established and given recognition by\t the
\nState  Government  under directions of the  Court.   Relying
\nupon  the  above quoted judgment of the High  Court  learned
\ncounsel\t  has\tcontended  that\t his  clients\twere   given
\nrecognition  with effect from 1984 under the  directions  of
\nthe  High Court and as such the impugned  Recognition  Rules
\nwhich  came  into  force in the year  1989  cannot  be\tmade
\napplicable  to\tthem.\tIt is not  disputed  by\t Mr.  Shanti
\nBhushan,  that\tunder  the  directions\tof  the\t High  Court
\ntemporary  recognition\twas  given to  his  clients,  though
\naccording  to  him  the order  of  the\tGovernment  granting
\ntemporary recognition was challenged before the High  Court-
\nand  the said petition was also disposed of by the  impugned
\njudgment.  We see no force in the contention of the  learned
\ncounsel.  All those institutes which did not have  permanent
\nrecognition  before the issue of the Recognition  Rules\t are
\nbound  to  comply with the said conditions before  they\t are
\nentitled  to  permanent\t recognition.  The  High  Court\t was
\njustified  in  holding\tthat  the  institutions\t which\twere
\noperating  on  the basis of temporary  recognitions,  either
\nunder the orders of the Courts or otherwise, shall to comply
\nwith   the  recognition\t rules\tto  enable  them   to\tearn
\nrecognition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  K.K. Venugopal contended that a distinction has  to  be
\nmade between the institutions which are functioning  earlier
\nto the coming into force of the recognition rules and  those
\nwhich  have  applied  for recognition for  the\tfirst  time.
\nAccording  to him change-over period should be given to\t the
\nexisting  institutes which are functioning on the  basis  of
\ntemporary recognition.\tWe do not agree with Mr.  Venugopal.
\nThe  training institutes which are functioning on the  basis
\nof
\n1002<\/span>
\ntemporary  recognitions are neither properly  organised\t nor
\nfully equipped to train the teachers.  These institutes have
\ndone more harm than good to the cause of education.
\nMr. Venugopal and Mr. K. Parasaran have further argued\tthat
\nthe students who have already taken the examinations,  their
\nresults\t be  directed  to be  declared\tand  if\t successful,
\ncertificates be awarded to them.  Mr. Chindambram, appearing
\nfor  some  of  the appellants, has  argued  that  there\t are
\nstudents  who have already taken the examination  and  their
\nresults have also been declared but they have not been given
\ncertificates  on  the  ground  that  the  institutes   which
\nsponsored them have not been recognised.
\nIt is no doubt correct that temporary recognitions have been
\ngranted to some of the institutions either under the  orders
\nof  the\t Court\tor  otherwise  and  the\t students  of\tsuch
\ninstitutions  were permitted to write the examinations.\t  In
\nnumber of cases under orders of the Court permission to\t the
\nstudents  to  write the examinations have been\tgiven.\t The
\nHigh  Court  also  directed in some  cases  to\tpublish\t the
\nresults\t of the students who wrote the examination in  April
\n1992..\tAll these situations were brought to the  notice  of
\nthe  High Court in Writ Petition No. 3674 of 1992  and\tWrit
\nPetition  No. 5469 of 1993 which were heard  together.\t The
\nHigh  Court refused to grant relief to the students who\t had
\nwritten\t the examination or who had passed  the\t examination
\nand  were  being denied the certificates.   The\t High  Court
\nobserved as under
\n\t      “Based  on the above orders,  learned  counsel
\n\t      for the petitioner contends that the  students
\n\t      of  the  petitioner-Institution  have  validly
\n\t      written  the  examination when  the  order  of
\n\t      recognition  was in force and the\t results  of
\n\t      the  examination have already been  published,
\n\t      pursuant\tto the orders of this Court.  It  is
\n\t      contended that the students of the  petitioner
\n\t      are  certainly entitled to  the  consequential
\n\t      relief  of  issue\t of  certificates.   Another
\n\t      interlocutory application is now filed in\t WMP
\n\t      No.  5469 of, 1993 on 22.2.93 for a  direction
\n\t      to the third respondent to publish the results
\n\t      of the students who wrote the examination held
\n\t      in July 1992.  In similar cases, we have given
\n\t      directions  to the authorities to publish\t the
\n\t      results.\t But, we have taken care to  observe
\n\t      that  such  publication of  results  will\t not
\n\t      confer  any  right  on  the  students  as\t the
\n\t      Institutions have not complied with the  rules
\n\t      framed  in GOMS.\tNo. 536.  They\tcannot\ttake
\n\t      advantage of the interim orders passed by this
\n\t      court   directing\t the  government  to   grant
\n\t      temporary\t  recognition\t  Orders   of\t such
\n\t      temporary recognition
\n\t      1003<\/span>
\n\t      are  expressly made subject to the  result  of
\n\t      the  main writ petitions.\t Now, we  have\theld
\n\t      that GO Ms. No. 536 is valid and the orders of
\n\t      temporary\t recognition  will  not\t confer\t any
\n\t      other   remedies\ton  the\t students   of\t the
\n\t      petitioner.  So far as these institutions\t are
\n\t      concerned, they should be treated only as non-
\n\t      recognised.   Just because the  students\thave
\n\t      written  the  examinations  and  results\t are
\n\t      published,  they\tare  not  entitled  to\t any
\n\t      further\trelief.\t   The\twrit   petition\t  is
\n\t      dismissed with the above observations”.
\nIt  has\t come  to  the\tnotice\tof  this  Court\t that\tmany
\ninstitutions claiming themselves to be minority institutions
\nwithin\tthe  meaning of Article 30(1)<\/a> of  the  Constitution,
\ninvoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article\t 226<\/a>
\nor of this Court under Article 32<\/a> for a writ of mandamus  to
\nrecognise   the\t  institutions\tin  question   as   minority
\ninstitutions and pending the final disposal of such applica-
\ntions, an interim direction is sought to allow the  students
\nof   such  institutions\t to  appear  at\t  the\texaminations
\nconcerned.   In\t connection with such interim  prayer,\tthis
\nCourt  in the case of A. P. Christians\tMedical\t Educational
\nSociety v. Government of Andhra Pradesh<\/a> (supra) said:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel for\t the
\n\t      students who have been admitted into the\tMBBS
\n\t      course  of this institution, pleaded that\t the
\n\t      interests\t of  the  students  should  not\t  be
\n\t      sacrificed because of the conduct or folly  of
\n\t      the   management\tand  that  they\t should\t  be
\n\t      permitted\t  to   appear  at   the\t  University
\n\t      examination  notwithstanding the\tcircumstance
\n\t      that  permission and affiliation had not\tbeen
\n\t      granted  to the institution.  He\tinvited\t our
\n\t      attention to the circumstance that students of
\n\t      the  Medical college established by  the\tDaru
\n\t      Salam  Educational  Trust\t were  permitted  to
\n\t      appear  at the examination not  with  standing
\n\t      the fact that affiliation had not by then been
\n\t      granted  by  the University.   Shri  Venugopal
\n\t      suggested\t that  we  might  issue\t appropriate
\n\t      directions  Lo the University to\tprotect\t the
\n\t      interests\t of the students.  We do  not  think
\n\t      that  we\tcan possibly accede to\tthe  request
\n\t      made  by\tshri  Venugopal\t on  behalf  of\t the
\n\t      students.\t Any direction of the nature  sought
\n\t      by   Shri\t  Venugopal  would   be\t  in   clear
\n\t      transgression   of  the  provisions   of\t the
\n\t      University  Act<\/a>  and the\tregulations  of\t the
\n\t      University.  We cannot by our fiat direct\t the
\n\t      University to disobey the statute to-which  it
\n\t      owes its existence and the regulations made by
\n\t      the  University  itself.\t We  cannot  imagine
\n\t      anything\tmore destructive of the rule of\t law
\n\t      that  a direction by the court to disobey\t the
\n\t      laws.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1004<\/span><\/p>\n
In  view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this\t Court,\t the
\nHigh  Court should not have passed, interim order  directing
\nthe  respondents  to  allow  the  teachers  of\tunrecognised
\ninstitutions  to  appear at the\t examinations  in  question.
\nSuch  teachers\tcannot derive any benefit on basis  of\tsuch
\ninterim\t orders, when ultimately the main writ\tapplications
\nhave been dismissed by the High Court, which order is  being
\naffirmed by this Court.\t The same view has been expressed by
\nthis  Court,  in connection with the  minority\tunrecognised
\nteachers  training institutions in the State of\t Tamil\tNadu
\nitself, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others v. St.
\nJoseph Teachers Training Institute and another<\/a> [1991] 3\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
87.   As  such no equity or legal right can  be\t pleaded  on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t Teachers  admitted  for  training  by\tsuch
\nminority  institutions,\t for publication of  their  results,
\nbecause\t they  were allowed to appear  at  the\texaminations
\nconcerned,  during  the pendency of  the  writ\tapplications
\nbefore the High Court, on basis of interim orders passed  by
\nthe  High  Court,  which  were in  conflict  with  the\tview
\nexpressed by this Court in the aforesaid cases.
\nWe  see no ground to differ with the view taken by the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t This court in N.M. Nageshramma’s case\t(supra)\t has
\nheld  that  training in a properly  organised  and  equipped
\ntraining  institute is essential before a candidate  becomes
\nqualified to receive teachers training certificate.   Simply
\npassing the examination is not enough.\tThe future  teachers
\nof the country must pass through the institutions which have
\nmaintained standards of excellence at all levels.
\nWe see so ground to interfere with the impugned judgment  of
\nthe  High Court.  We agree with the views expressed  by\t the
\nHigh   Court  on  various  aspects  of\t teachers   training
\ninstitutes.   We  also\tagree with  the\t reasoning  and\t the
\nconclusions reached by the High Court.
\nBefore\twe part with this judgment we consider it  necessary
\nto strike a note of caution in respect of passing of interim
\norders\tby  Courts directing the  students  of\tunrecognised
\ninstitutions,  to appear at the examinations concerned.\t  In
\nview  of’ the series of judgments of this Court, the  Courts
\nshould not issue fiat to allow the students of\tunrecognised
\ninstitutions to appear at the different examinations pending
\nthe disposal of the writ applications.\tSuch interim  orders
\naffect the careers of several students and cause unnecessary
\nembarrassment and harassment to the Authorities, who have to
\ncomply with such directions of the Court.  It is a matter of
\ncommon\tknowledge  that\t as a part of  strategy,  such\twrit
\napplications for directions to recognise the institutions in
\nquestion and in the meantime to allow the students to appear
\nat  the\t examinations  are filed only  when  the  dates\t for
\nexaminations  are justified.  Many of such institutions\t are
\nnot only “masked phantoms” but are
\n1005<\/span>
\nestablished as business ventures for admitting\tsub-standard
\nstudents,  without  any\t competitive  tests,  on  basis\t  of
\nconsiderations\twhich cannot serve even the interest of\t the
\nminority.  There is no occasion for the Courts to be liberal
\nor  generous,  while passing interim orders, when  the\tmain
\nwrit  applications have been filed only when the  dates\t for
\nthe  examination  have\tbeen announced.\t  In  this  process,
\nstudents  without  knowing the design of the  organisers  of
\nsuch institutions, become victim of their manipulations.
\nThe  appeals\/special  leave  petitions\tare  dismissed.\t  No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R.P.\t\t\t\t       Appeals dismissed.\n1006<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India St. John’S Teacher Training … vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. … on 15 June, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 43, 1993 SCR (3) 985 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: ST. JOHN’S TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE(FOR WOMEN). MADURAI ET Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSt. John'S Teacher Training ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. ... on 15 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"St. John'S Teacher Training ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. ... on 15 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-09T09:05:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"St. John’S Teacher Training … vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. … on 15 June, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-09T09:05:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993\"},\"wordCount\":4958,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993\",\"name\":\"St. John'S Teacher Training ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. ... on 15 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-09T09:05:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"St. John’S Teacher Training … vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. … on 15 June, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"St. John'S Teacher Training ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. ... on 15 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"St. John'S Teacher Training ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. ... on 15 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-09T09:05:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"St. John’S Teacher Training … vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. … on 15 June, 1993","datePublished":"1993-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-09T09:05:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993"},"wordCount":4958,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993","name":"St. John'S Teacher Training ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. ... on 15 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-09T09:05:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-johns-teacher-training-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-etc-on-15-june-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"St. John’S Teacher Training … vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. Etc. … on 15 June, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268736"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268736\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}