http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: ANDHRA KESARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/11/1988

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  183            1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 893  1989 SCC  (1) 392        JT 1988 (4)   431  1988 SCALE  (2)1334  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1990 SC 592  (6)  E&D        1992 SC1926  (10)

ACT:     Professional     Colleges--College    of     Education-- Affiliation--Grant of--Nagarjuna University--Guidelines laid by  High  Court--Necessity for  compliance--Essentiality  of teachers--Role--Importance   stressed  Rigorous   training-- Necessity for.

HEADNOTE:     In August, 1984 the State Government granted  permission to  various  private  bodies and  individuals  for  starting colleges   of  education  (B.Ed.)  courses,   with   several conditions  required to be complied with within a period  of six months. The appellant was one among these beneficiaries. When  a change of the Government ensued in  September  1984, the  permissions  granted were suspended or  cancelled.  The appellant   and   other  institutions   aggrieved   by   the cancellation  moved the HighCourt for relief  under  Article 226.  The  High  Court  while  disposing  of  all  the  writ petitions  by  a common order was of the  opinion  that  the cancellation  was as arbitrary as the grant  of  permission. Since  the  parties  had  invested  large  sums  money   for establishing  the colleges a via media was taken.  The  High Court laid down certain conditions and issued directions for compliance  for granting permission and recognition  to  the colleges.     The   District   Educational   Officer   inspected   the appellant’s college and made a report stating that there was non-compliance  with  the  directions  of  the  High  Court. Accepting that report, Director of School Education made  an order  declaring  that the College of  the  appellant  shall cease to exist with effect from the last working day of  the academic year 1985-86.     Challenging  the  validity  of  that  declaration,   the appellant  again  moved  the High Court  by  filing  a  writ petition.  He filed two more writ petitions for a  direction to  the  Nagarjuna University to grant  affiliation  to  the appellant’s   college  and  for  a  declaration   that   the resolution  of  the Nagarjuna University refusing  to  grant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

affiliation  to the college of the appellant  was  arbitrary and  illegal. The students of the college also filed a  writ petition  for  a direction to declare the results  of  their B.Ed.  examination held in 1985. The High Court by a  common order disposed of all the four writ petitions.                                                    PG NO 893                                                    PG NO 894     The appellant filed an appeal to this Court only against the order dismissing writ petition No. 1645 of 1987, on  the ground  that  the  appellant  has  not  complied  with   the conditions  laid  down by the High Court.  Before  the  High Court  the  appellant did not contend that it  had  complied with all the conditions laid down for recognition.  However, it was contended that the college is a minority  institution and,   therefore,  it  need  not  comply  with   all   those requirements. The High Court did not accept this contention. Before  this Court he relied solely on the ground  that  the conditions   laid   down  by  the  High  Court   have   been substantially  complied  with. On behalf of  the  respondent State  it  was contended that the appellant has been  a  law breaker from the very beginning and no concession should  be extended  to  perpetuate the illegality  by  permitting  the students to appear in the examination and in any event, more than 100 students should not be permitted.     Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1. While considering the validity of the  earlier cancellation of the permission, the High Court had laid down certain guidelines and issued some directions for obedience. The  High  Court  made that order in  the  interest  of  the institution  and the students, though strictly  speaking  it was  beyond the power of the High Court. The High Court  did make  it  clear that if those conditions were  not  complied with  within  the prescribed period, the  institution  shall cease  to function. The record reveals that there were  many deficiencies in the institution. The reports of the District Educational  Officer and Inspection Commission of  Nagarjuna University indicated that the appellant did not satisfy  all the  requirements  for granting permission  or  affiliation. [900D-E]     2. The permission to start the college by the  appellant was   cancelled  twice  by  the  authorities  for  want   of requirements. On that ground,the University also has refused to  grant affiliation to the college. The order of the  High Court affirming the decision of the University is not  under appeal  before this Court. In spite of it,  the  appellant’s sought  an  interim order from this Court and  admitted  160 students.  If  the Government order had  been  delayed,  the appellant  ought  to have asked the Convenor,  B.Ed.  Common Entrance  test  to allot the students for admission  to  the college.  That  was one of the conditions laid down  by  the High Court also. Even that was not complied with. [903B-D]     3.  They  are  the students who  were  admitted  on  the strength of the interim order made by this Court. It may not be  proper to drive them to street if they  have  under-gone the  prescribed course with the necessary syllabi and  other                                                    PG NO 895 matters  relating thereto. But it would be for the  Director of School Education and the Registrar, Nagarjuna  University to consider and satisfy themselves and not for this Court at once to permit them to appear in the examination. [903E-F]     4. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the  role of teachers is central to all processes of  formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills  and intellectual capabilities of students. He is ’engine’ of the educational   system.  He  is  a  principal  instrument   in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

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 infusenobler and national ideas in younger minds.  His  involvement  in national  integration  is  more important, indeed Indispensible. It is, therefore,  needless to  state  that  teachers should be  subjected  to  rigorous training  with  scrutiny  for  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. [903H; 904A-D]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal NO.  293  of 1988.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  24.4.1987  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. NO.1645 Of 1987.     M.C. Bhandare, M. Qamaruddin and Mrs. M. Qamaruddin  for the Appellant.     P.A.  Choudhary, A.V. Rangam and T.V.S.N. Chari for  the Respondents.     The Judgment Of the Court was delivered by.     JAGANNATHA  SHETTY, J. This appeal by leave is  directed against  the judgment and order dated April 24, 1987 Of  the Division   Bench  Of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra   Pradesh dismissing the writ petition NO.1645 Of 1987.                                                    PG NO 896     Briefly stated, the facts are these:     In the month of August 1984 a Ministry headed by Sri  N. Bhaskara  Rao  suddenly  came into power in  A.P.  The  said Ministry just lasted for about a month and had to go out  of office  for  want  of  vote  of  confidence  by  the   State Legislative Assembly. During that short term, the Government granted  a number of permissions to various  private  bodies and  individuals for starting colleges of education  (B.Ed.) courses.  The appellant was one among  those  beneficiaries. The  permission was granted with several  conditions.  Those conditions were required to be complied with within a period of  six  months. In the middle of  September  1984  Bhaskara Rao’s Ministry went out of office and the Government  headed by Sri N.T. Rama Rao came back to power. Soon thereafter the permissions   granted  were  suspended  or  cancelled.   The appellant   and   other  institutions   aggrieved   by   the cancellation  moved  the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh  for relief under Article 226. ˜he appellant filed writ  petition No.  812 of 1986. The State contended that the  parties  did nOt  comply with the conditions of the grant of  permission. All  those writ petitions were disposed of by  common  order dated March 7, 1986. The High Court was of opinion that  the cancellation was as arbitrary as the grant of permission. So a via media was taken since the parties have invested  large sums of money for establishing the colleges. The High  Court laid  down  certain  conditions and  issued  directions  for compliance  for granting permission and recognition  to  the colleges. Some of those directions are as follows|     "(1)  The petitioners shall comply with the  requirement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

of  the  deposit of Rs.4,50,000 within one month  from  this date. If the Director of School Education does not cooperate with the petitioners in opening a joint account the  deposit shall be made in a fixed deposit account in the name of  the college in any nationalised or scheduled bank. (It shall  be open  to  the  petitioner  to  pursue  his  application  for exemption  meanwhile  but the time limit  prescribed  herein remains or applies to this petition as well).     (2)  The petitioners shall comply with the  requirements relating  to  the  appointment of qualified  staff  and  the laboratory, Library and audio-visual equipment within  three months  from  today. For the purpose of recruitment  of  the teaching staff, the petitioners shall issue Notifications in two  dailies  with wide circulation in  this  State  Calling                                                    PG NO 897 for  applications from the qualified teachers on receipt  of applications  selections  shall  be made  by  the  Selection Committee if one is already constituted by the Government or the University and if no Selection Committee is constituted, it  shall  be  constituted consisting of  a  member  of  the Management, the Director of School Education or his nominee, not below the rank of a Joint Director and in his absence by D.E.O  and an Expert to be nominated by the University.  The petitioners  shall  send communications to the  Director  of School Education and the University as soon as  applications are  received for the purpose of constituting the  Selection Committee  and  the said officers shall take  the  necessary steps in this behalf.     (3)  If  the  qualified  staff do  not  respond  to  the Notification issued by the petitioners and consequently  the petitioners  find difficulty in appointing  qualified  staff the petitioners shall made a representation to the  Director of School Education seeking his help in the recruitment  and appointment of qualified teaching staff.     (4) All other requirements, including the Model  School, subject  to which permissions were initially granted to  the petitioners  shall be complied with by the  petitioners  not later than 3]st July, 1986.     (5)  The petitioners shall send a compliance  report  to the Director of School Education as soon as the  requirement regarding deposit of Rs.4,50,00() within the permitted  time is  complied  with duly endorsing a copy of  the  compliance report  to the Government. Similarly, the petitioners  shall send a compliance report to the Director of School Education regarding  the appointment within the permitted time of  the required qualified teaching staff and also the provision  of library  laboratory and audio-visual equipment  endorsing  a copy  of the compliance shall send a report to the  Director of  School  Education  endorsing  a  copy  thereof  to   the Government   regarding   the   compliance   of   all   other requirements as directed above by 3 Ist July, 1986."     The Director of School Education was asked to make  such enquiry as he thinks fit to satisfy himself about compliance of  the  above requirements. If there  was  no  satisfactory compliance within the prescribed period, the High Court said                                                    PG NO 898 that  the concerned institution shall cease to  function  at the end of the academic year 1985-86.     In accordance with directions issued by the High  Court, the  District Educational Officer inspected the  appellant’s college.  He made a report dated June 25, 1986 stating  that there  was  non-compliance with the directions of  the  High Court.  Accepting  that report, the Director made  an  order dated  September 20, 1986 declaring that the  college  shall cease to exist with effect from the last working day of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

academic  year  1985-86. Challenging the  validity  of  that declaration,  the appellant moved the High Court  with  writ petition  No. 1645 of 1987. The appellant also  filed  three more  writ  petitions. Writ petition No. 11087 of  1985  was filed for a direction to the Nagarjuna University, Guntur to grant affiliation to the appellant’s college. Writ  petition No.  9417  of  1986 was filed for  a  declaration  that  the resolution  of  the Nagarjuna University refusing  to  grant affiliation  to the college was arbitrary and illegal.  Writ petition No. 17725 of 1986 was filed by the students of  the college  for  a direction to declare the  results  of  their B.Ed. examination held on October 7, 1985.     All the four writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a common order which is now under appeal before us. The  writ  petition No. 1645 of 1987 was  dismissed  on  the ground  that  the  appellant  has  not  complied  with   the conditions  laid down by the High Court. Consequently,  Writ Petition  Nos.  11087 of 1985 and 9417 of  1986  which  were filed against the Nagarjuna University were also  dismissed. The High Court however, made some observations regarding the manner  in  which  the syndicate of the  University  has  to dispose  of the application for affiliation. The High  Court observed  that denial of affiliation affects the  very  life and existence of institution.Therefore, it would be fair and proper  that the syndicate or other competent  authority  of the University which deals with the question of affiliation, must give reasons for refusal to grant affiliation. However, there are no appeals before this court against the dismissal of  those  two writ petitions. The present  appeal  is  only against  the order of dismissing writ petition No.  1645  of 1987.     At  the  outset. it may be stated that before  the  High Court  the  appellant did not contend that it  had  complied with  all  the  conditions laid down  for  recognition.  The contention.  however,  was that the college  is  a  minority institution and therefore. it need not comply with all those requirements.   The   High  Court  did   not   accept   that contentionand  in our opinion very rightly. It was  observed that since the appellant has deliberately refused to  comply                                                    PG NO 899 with the conditions by taking a new and untenable stand that it  is  a minority institution, it is not  entitled  to  any relief.  The  High Court also noted the  inadequacy  in  the recruitment  of lecturers. As against seven lecturers,  only five lecturers were appointed by the appellant. The posts of lecturer  in  Mathematics  and Physical  Science  were  left unfilled. The Principal was not qualified to hold the  post. The  lecturer in social studies was also not qualified.  The High Court further referred to the deficiencies pointed  out by  the  Inspection Commission of Nagarjuna  University  and finally said:     "The   court  allowed  the  writ  petition  subject   to directions  (a)  to (j) contained in paragraph  134  of  its judgment.  Direction  (b) clearly says that  the  selections shall  be  made by a selection committee comprising  of  one nominee of the Director of School Education and one  nominee of the University. This was so directed notwithstanding  the contention  urged  by the petitioner that it is  a  minority institution.  Indeed, the Bench was of the opinion that  the said  aspect is totally irrelevant in the  circumstances  of the  case. The reason is evident. The Division Bench  merely directed  the  petitioner-institution  to  comply  with  the conditions of grant within a certain extended period and  no more.  The petitioner did not question the judgment  of  the Division  Bench  dated  7.3.1986, which means  that  he  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

accepted  it. The said judgment has become final so  far  as the  petitioner  is  concerned. Now  when  the  question  of compliance with and implementation of those direction arise, the  petitioner  cannot turn round and say  that  since  the petitioner-institution  is a minority institution.  it  need not  comply  with  the said directions.  Such  a  contention cannot  be countenanced, and cannot be taken note of in  the circumstances of the case."     Before  us,  the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  the institution--whether  it is a minority institution  or  not, has not been canvassed. Counsel for the appellant said  that he  will urge that contention in other appropriate case.  He rested this case on one ground that the conditions laid down by  the  High Court have been substantially  complied  with. Reference  was  made  to the earnest  efforts  made  by  the appellant  to recruit the best qualified staff  by  inviting applications  through  successive  advertisements  in   news papers.  When there was no response to  the  advertisements, the  appellant,  it is said, approached the  department  for recruitment of staff. But the department did not  cooperate.                                                    PG NO 900 It was argued that the appellant in the circumstances  could not  be blamed and if at all it should be the department  to be  found  fault with. In the alternative it  was  contended that  the  appellant has since satisfied all  the  necessary requirements for grant of permission and affiliation of  the college.     We do not want to examine the alternate contention urged by  the  appellant.  That  is a  matter  for  the  statutory authorities  like the District Educational Officer  and  the Nagarjuna  University  to satisfy  them-selves  whether  the institution  should be permitted to carry on the  course  of study. Whether it has satisfied the necessary conditions for grant  of permission and affiliation. We express no  opinion on that aspect of the matter.     As  to  the  first contention, very  little  remains  in favour  of the appellant. While considering the validity  of the  earlier cancellation of the permission, the High  Court had laid down certain guidelines and issued some  directions for  obedience.  The  High  Court made  that  order  in  the interest  of  the  institution  and  the  students,   though strictly speaking it was beyond the power of the High Court. The  High Court did make it clear that if  those  conditions were  not  complied with within the prescribed  period,  the institution shall cease to function. The record reveals that there were many deficiencies in the institution. The reports of  the  District  Educational Officer  and  the  Inspection Commission  of  Nagarjuna  University  indicated  that   the appellant did not satisfy all the requirements for  granting permission  or  affiliation.  We find  no  justification  to consider the correctness of those reports. Nor we could find fault  with  the  order of the High Court.  Indeed  we  must accept it in the circumstances of the case.     We  may however, state that if the appellant  has  since substantially  complied with the necessary conditions  after the  disposal  of the matter by the High Court, it  will  be open  to  it  to  approach  the  concerned  authorities  for permission to start the college again.     This however, is not the end of the matter. There  still remains  another question. That question arises out  of  the interim  order  made by this Court. In this Court  when  the Advocates  were  on strike, the appellant  appears  to  have personally  moved  CMP No. 5153 of i988  for  permission  to admit  students for the term l987-88. That petition came  up before  a Bench of this Court on February 23, 1988.  Mr.  J.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Prasad,  petitioner-in-person was present in the  Court  and Mr.  Balasubramaniam on behalf of the State  Government  was present.  No advocate was present. Mr. Balasubramaniam,  was                                                   PG NO 901 an  officer  of  the establishment  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh Government  Legal Cell at Delhi. Obviously he  was  ignorant of,  the facts of the case. This Court after going into  the relevant papers made an interim order as follows:     "We have also read the report of 9th February, 1988 made by  the  District  Educational Officer,  Ongole.  We  direct subject  to compliance of the conditions, petitioners should be  permitted  to admit students for the term  1987-88.  The verification  should be made within one week from today  and if there have been any shortfall, petitioner has opportunity to  comply the same within one week. The time  granted  upto Ist  of  March, 1988 shall stand extended upto  15th  March, 1988. CMP is disposed of."     As  is  obvious from the above interim  order  that  the appellant  was permitted to admit students for the  academic year 1987-88 subject to compliance with the conditions. This Court did not specify the number of students to be admitted. On  March  9, 1988, the Department sent a Committee  of  two persons  for  inspection  and report  about  the  facilities available in the college. The Committee consisted of Shri R. Durga  Prasad of G.G.C.E. Nellore and Shri B.  Venkateswara. District  Educational  Officer,  Ongole.  They  visited  the college  and  submitted  the report  dated  March  9,  1988. Several  irregularities  were  pointed out  in  that  report particularly   with  regard  to  accommodation,   furniture, library. laboratory and games material. With regard to staff it is stated that the staff appointed are qualified, but  it does  not  state whether the required numbers  in  different disciplines  have  been recruited or not.  That  report  was forward  to the Directorate of School  Education.  On  March 11,  1988, the Director wrote to the  Secretary.  Government Education  Department,  A.P.  to examine  the  case  of  the appellant in detail and accord permission to run the college till 1987-88 and also permit admissions of students in  view of  the interim order made by this Court. The Director  also pointed out in his letter that the appellant is claiming  to be  a  minority  institution and seeking  admission  of  160 students.  On  April 4, 1988, the Government made  an  order according  sanction to run the college till 1987-88 with  an intake capacity of 100 students subject to fulfilment, among others, the following conditions:     "(1)   The  college  building  should   be   constructed expeditiouly.  The management should procure  equipment  and material  for  the laboratories expending an amount  of  not                                                   PG NO 902 less than Rs.20,000 during 1987-88. They should also procure audio  visual equipment and material at a cost of  not  less than  Rs.30,000.  The  management  should  provide   library facilities and expend a sum of Rs.5,000 towards purchase  of books. They should also provide adequate furniture.     (2) The management should appoint full contingent  staff on prescribed scales of pay. (3) They should appoint edequate teaching and non-teaching staff on prescribed scales of pay.     (4)  Admissions  into the B.Ed. Course  in  the  College should be through the Common Entrance Examinations conducted by  the University in view of the High Court judgment  dated 8.10.1987 in W.P. No. 552 of 1986.     (6) The management should not collect any capitation  fees.     (7) To establish a Model School

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

   The Director of School Education was requested to report the  fulfilment  of  conditions by  the  management  to  the Government  within six months from the date of issue of  the order, failing which the permission accorded as liable to be cancelled without any notice.     This  order  was made subject to final judgment  of  the Supreme Court of India.’’     It  appears even before the aforesaid Government  order, the  appellant had admitted 160 students. The students  were not  allotted by the Convenor, B.Ed., Common Entrance  Test. It  is now said that these 160 students have  undergone  the required  nine months training in the academic year  1987-88 and  therefore, they should be permitted to appear  for  the examination.     Counsel  for the State submitted that the appellant  has been a law breaker from the very beginning and no concession should therefore be extended to perpetuate the illegality by permitting the students to appear in the examination. In any event,  he  said that more than 100 students should  not  be permitted.                                                   PG NO 903     The  explanation  of  the  appellant  however,  in  this context  is, that there is a general circular of  the  State Government permitting unaided schools/colleges to admit  160 students  for  B.Ed.  course  as  economic  viability.   The appellant,  therefore, had to admit the students before  the due  date extended by this Court and could not  have  waited for the belated Government order.     The explanation of the appellant appears to be far  from satisfactory.  The  permission to start the college  by  the appellant was cancelled twice by the authorities for want of requirements. On the ground, the university also has refused to  grant affiliation to the college. The order of the  High Court affirming the decision of the university is not  under appeal before us. In spite of it, the appellant s sought  an interim order from this Court and admitted 160 students.  If the  Government order had been delayed, the appellant  ought to  have asked the Convenor, B.Ed. Common Entrance  Test  to allot  the students for admission to the college.  That  was one of the conditions laid down by the High Court also. Even that  was  not complied with. From the  sequence  of  events which  were  earlier  referred  to,  we  cannot  avoid   the conclusion  that  the  appellant  was  trying  to  overreach everybody body at every stage.     This  is  one  side of the picture.  There  is  however, another side. They are the students who were admitted on the strength  of  the  interim order made  by  this  Court.  The student  were  perhaps  led  to  believe  that  this   Court permitted   the  appellant  to  admit  them.  We   consider, therefore, that it may not be proper to drive them to street if  they  have  undergone the  prescribed  course  with  the necessary syllabi and other matters relating thereto. But it would  be  for  the Director of School  and  the  Registrar. Nagarjuna University to consider and satisfy themselves  and not  for this Court at once to permit to them to  appear  in the examination.     In  the  result we dismiss the writ appeal.  but  direct respondent  1  and  3  to  consider  forthwith  whether  the students  in  the  appellant’s college  have  undergone  the necessary B.Ed. course and if so, permit them to appear  for the ensuing examination and publish their result.     In  the circumstances. however, we make no order  as  to costs.     Before  parting with the case, we should like to  add  a word  more.  Though teaching is the last choice in  the  job

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

market, the role of teachers is central to all processes  of formal  education.  The teacher alone could  bring  out  the                                                   PG NO 904 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   substandard  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. A.P.J.                                  Appeal dismissed.