http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15

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:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15

"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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15

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