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   The  institutes  in   which  they  had  undergone training  course had recognition but the same was  withdrawn subsequently.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.