http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

PETITIONER:

L. MUTHUKUMAR AND ANOTHER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/09/2000

BENCH:

M. Jagannadha Rao & Shivaraj V. Patil

JUDGMENT:

Shivaraj V. Patil,J.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Since these petitions raise common questions based on

similar set of facts they are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

The petitioners filed their respective writ petitions

against the respondents praying for the publication of their

results and to issue diploma in teachers training,

contending that on successful completion of the higher

secondary they underwent secondary grade teachers training

in different training institutes between the period 1989 to

1991; they had taken public examination in May, 1992 but

their results were not published and certificates were not

awarded. The institutes in which they had undergone

training course had recognition but the same was withdrawn

subsequently. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ

petitions following the judgment of the Division Bench of

the High Court in P.M. Joseph vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

and others (Writ Petition No. 9494 of 1992). Writ appeals

filed against the order of learned single Judge were also

dismissed affirming the view taken by the learned single

Judge stating that the petitioners were only entitled to get

the results declared and were not entitled to get mark

sheets or diplomas/certificates as the institutes in which

they had undergone training were de- recognized. Hence

these petitions are brought before us in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners urged: -

1. The petitioners having undergone the training course

in the institutions, which had recognition on the date of

public examination, could not be deprived of their right to

obtain mark sheets and diplomas/certificates merely on the

ground that those institutes were de-recognized by virtue of

a decision rendered by the High Court subsequent to the

public examination.

2. The treatment of the respondents was unfair and

discriminatory in the case of the petitioners inasmuch as to

few others similarly placed the respondents have given

diplomas/certificates although with an endorsement that they

have undergone training in unrecognized institutes.

The learned counsel for the respondents made submissions

supporting the orders impugned in these petitions.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7

In order to appreciate the rival contentions we consider

it useful to refer to the decision in P.M. Joseph's case

(supra). In the said judgment the Division Bench of the

High Court in para 11 has stated thus: -

"11. We have no doubt that orders or recognition were

granted only on extraneous considerations as alleged by the

petitioner. We have already referred to the express

allegation in paragraph 20 of the petitioner's affidavit

that a few officials working in the Secretariat and the

Director of School Education issued the orders of

recognition as dictated by the Hon'ble Minister for

Education. We doubt, the Minister is not a party to this

writ petition and we may not be able to investigate the said

allegation as against him. But, the Secretary to Government

is representing the State as first respondent and the

Director of School education is the second respondent. They

have not chosen to deny the said allegations in their

counter affidavits. The facts referred to by us above as

called out from Annexures V and VI filed by the Government

at our instance, clearly show that the orders of recognition

were passed only on a specific direction from a person in

the higher echelons at the ministerial level. Otherwise,

the officials, who are before us, would not have been bold

enough to pass such orders in utter violation of the

provisions of G.O.Ms. Nos.535 and 536 dated 17.5.1989 as

well as the rules which were in force prior to the passing

of the said G.O.s. Thus, the Government, to say the least,

played havoc in the matter of Teacher Training Education and

ruined the same. The direct impact would necessarily be on

the Secondary Grade Education, as the holders of the Diploma

in Teachers Training Education are the persons who are to

handle the classes I to VIII in Secondary Grade Schools.

The Government has not only failed to do its duty but is

guilty of gross abuse of powers."

As is evident from the paragraph 14 of the same judgment

that a contention similar to the contention No. 1, urged

before us in this case, was raised but it was negatived.

The position as to whether the candidates like the

petitioners were entitled for the issue of a diploma or

certificate was abundantly made clear in paragraph 22 of the

said judgment, which reads: -

"22. It may be said that only some of the institutions

listed in Annexure V and VI are bogus institutions and the

remaining are genuine. But it has been established now that

none of the institutions excepting Annai Sathya Teacher

Training Institute for Women has fulfilled the requirements

of the rules. Hence, we are constrained to quash all the

orders of recognition passed by the Government and setout in

Annexure V and VI excepting G.O.No.(2B) 6, Education (VI)

dated 8-1-1992 in favour of Annai Sathya Teacher Training

Institute (W), Periya Kumitti, South Arcot District shown in

item No. 115 in Annexure V. If any of the institutions has

since fulfilled the requirements of the rules, it is open to

them to satisfy the authorities to that effect and seek

orders of recognition. If the students of the institutions

where recognition has been quashed, have already written the

examinations, the results thereof shall be published by the

respondents. But, the publication will not confer any right

whatever on the institutions or their students to get any

consequential relief or benefit such as issue of diploma or

certificate of this writ petition, and of an sitting singly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7

dismissed W.M.P. 13729 of 1992 filed by the petitioner for

injunction restraining the publication of results of the

examinations held in May, July and August, 1992. The

petitioner filed W.A. No. 1209 of 1992 against the said

order and the First Bench of this Court passed an order on

23.9.1992 in C.M.P. Nos. 12839 and 12840 of 1992

restraining the respondents from issuing certificates to the

candidates who wrote the examinations until further orders

while permitting them to declare the results of the

examinations. In the circumstances, we direct the students

of the institutions, the recognition of which has now been

quashed, by this order, are not entitled to get certificates

or diplomas from the respondents."

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court in St. John's Teachers Training Institute

(for women), Madurai and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and

others dealing with conditions for recognition of minority

teachers training institutes laid down under Tamil Nadu

Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules,

1977, in para 9 has stated thus: -

"9. The High Court rightly emphasised the need for

maintaining very high standards of Education, Sports,

administration and maintenance of the Teachers 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

organized and equipped Training Institute is probably

essential before a teacher may be duly launched."

Jagannatha Shetty, J. speaking for this Court in Andhra

Kesari Educational 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 fissiparous 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7

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 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 be

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."

As can be seen from paragraph 16 in the said case also

learned senior counsel representing the parties pleaded that

the results of the students, who had already taken the

examinations, be directed to be declared and if successful,

certificates be awarded to them. Not accepting the said

argument this Court in para 19 has held thus: -

"19. 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."

Thus looking to the decision of the Division Bench of

the High Court in P.M. Joseph's case and the decision of

this Court in St. John's Teachers Training Institute's case

abovementioned, it is clear that even the candidates who had

written the examination at the time when their institutes

had recognition, were not entitled for diplomas/certificates

consequent upon de- recognition of their institutions

subsequently and that such candidates were only entitled for

publication of the results of the examination taken and

nothing more.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

The learned single Judge in these cases of the

petitioners, consistent with the legal position covered by

the decisions aforementioned was right in taking the view

that the petitioners were entitled only for the declaration

of the results of the examination and on account of

subsequent de-recognition of the institutes in which they

underwent training courses were not entitled for issuance of

mark sheets or diplomas. The Division Bench of the High

Court had no good reason to disturb the orders passed by the

learned single Judge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a

decision of the same learned single Judge of the High court

in the case of Jhansi Rani and others vs. The Secretary,

The Director of Government Examinations, Chennai and others

. In our view this decision does not help the petitioners.

That was a case in which petitioners sought a writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to issue duplicate

certificate of the teacher training examination, which was

held before 1989 contending that certificates issued to them

earlier, were lost. This judgment was delivered by the

learned single Judge on 17th November, 1997. S.S.

Subramani,J. the same learned Judge in the case of D.

Balamurugan and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and

others delivered judgment on 19th January, 1998 following

the case of P.M. Joseph (supra) rejecting the prayer of the

petitioners to issue mark sheet and diploma.

Yet in the case of The Director of School Education vs.

A. Dennis Lilly Burk Mary and others a Division Bench of

the same High Court has held thus: -

"It is not necessary for us to go through the history of

the Teacher Training Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu,

except to say that they found their Waterloo when a public

interest litigation was commenced in respect of such Teacher

Training Institutes in the State and the Division Bench had

occasion to go through the entire history of the Teacher

Training Institutes in the State. Therefore, so far as the

students of the 5th respondent institute is concerned, the

question had been well and squarely decided once for all by

the Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench has

been acclaimed by the Apex Court and was affirmed. There is

no room for extending any sympathy in favour of such

institutes or the students, who are said to have been

trained in such institutes. In fact, this particular

school, viz., the 5th respondent - school had disobeyed

every order of the school authorities even at the time of

the grant of temporary recognition. Temporary recognition

was in fact granted only for admitting 40 students.

Admittedly the school entertained more than 200 students in

the class only to benefit themselves. Any amount of

criticism and comments by this Court only seem to fall on

deaf ears. The petitioners can only get at the hands of the

Court, direction to the respondents to publish the results

and nothing more. In other words, as observed by the

Division Bench, it is made clear that the students are not

entitled to get any certificates or diplomas from the

appellants."

(Emphasis supplied)

We may add here that, in relation to teachers training

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7

course, mere passing of public examination is not enough.

It must be coupled with proper training in a recognized

institute in order to get meaningful and purposeful results.

Hence the first contention urged by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, in our view, is untenable and

consequently it is rejected.

As regards second contention we asked the learned

counsel for the petitioners as to what is the use or

advantage of getting the diploma/certificate, which will

contain an endorsement that a candidate has studied in an

unrecognized institute. He submitted that might be the

candidates will get employment in some private schools. In

the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reference is

made to the case of P.M. Joseph and the case of St. John's

Teacher Training Institute and it is stated that in view of

the said judgments petitioners cannot seek direction to get

mark sheet or diploma/certificate. Further the petitioners

were bound by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court

delivered on 27.4.1993 (P.M. Joseph's case) as the

institutions in which the petitioners underwent training

courses were de-recognized and that such candidates were

only entitled to get their results of the examination

published and were not entitled for issuance of either mark

sheets or diplomas/ certificates. The petitioners could not

approach the High Court again for the same relief after a

period of six years. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit

reads:-

"It is therefore submitted that in view of the facts and

circumstances stated above the petitioners are not entitled

to have the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for an order

enabling them to get mark sheet and the diploma with an

endorsement that the petitioners studied in an unrecognized

institution. It is further submitted that the said

certificate with such endorsement will not serve any purpose

to the petitioners but on the other hand the issuance of

such certificate will give room for manipulations as there

are thousands of students whose results had been declared

but they were not provided with Diploma certificate or mark

sheet as per the judgment of the Division Bench of the

Hon'ble High Court of Madras. It is respectfully submitted

that the release of mark sheets and diplomas with an

endorsement that the petitioners studied in an unrecognized

institution will also go against the verdict of the Supreme

Court. It will also be against the basic principles that

the training should be had only in fully equipped

institutions which have been duly recognized. It is likely

that the candidates may attempt to misuse such certificates.

The petitioners have no legal claim at all even for such

certificates i.e. certificates with endorsements."

Having regard to the specific stand of the respondents

and in the light of the Division Bench judgment of the High

Court in the case of the P.M. Joseph which was affirmed by

this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2914-16 of 1993 decided on

June 15, 1993 (St. John's Teachers Training Institute case)

aforementioned no mark sheet or diploma/certificate can be

issued. Further two special leave petitions filed against

the same judgment of the High Court (SLP No. 10110/93 and

9421/93) were also dismissed by this Court on 4.10.1993 and

19.7.1993 respectively. It is not expected that the

respondents would issue diplomas/certificates with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7

endorsement to other candidates. Assuming that in few cases

such mistakes are committed in issuing diplomas/certificates

with the endorsement that the Teacher Training Institute in

which a student studied is not recognized by the Director of

School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, such mistakes

cannot be allowed to be repeated or perpetuated in the light

of the judicial pronouncements referred to above, which have

become final. Added to this, the institutes where the

Petitioners underwent training which were de-recognized by

virtue of judgment in P.M. Joseph's case were covered by

the said judgment. Hence the Petitioners cannot escape but

are bound by the said judgment. Their seeking writ of

mandamus for issuance of mark sheets and/or

diplomas/certificates contrary to the said judgment, that

too after a period of six years, could not be granted by the

High Court and rightly so in our opinion. We are of the

considered opinion that before teachers are allowed to teach

innocent children, they must receive appropriate and

adequate training in a recognized training institute

satisfying the prescribed norms, otherwise standard of

education and career of children will be jeopardized. In

most civilized and advanced countries, job of a teacher in

primary school is considered important and crucial one

because moulding of young minds begins in primary schools.

Allowing ill-trained teachers coming out of derecognised or

unrecognized institutes or licensing them to teach the

children of impressionable age, contrary to the norms

prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the

nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a

great nation, teachers and educational institutions also

play vital role. In cases like these, interest of

individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to larger

public interest. Thus considering all relevant aspects,

Petitioners' prayers cannot be granted. Hence we do not

find any substance in the second contention urged by the

learned counsel for the petitioners.

In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any

merit in these petitions. Hence these are dismissed but

without costs.