http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ST. JOSEPH TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTEAND ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/04/1991

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (2) 231        1991 SCC  (3)  87  JT 1991 (2)   343        1991 SCALE  (1)737

ACT:      Constitution   of  India,  1950:  Article   30-Minority Community-Establishing    and   administering    educational institution-Fundamental  right of-conditions prescribed  for recognition-Necessary for maintaining educational  standard- Not complying with the same-No right to insist upon State to allow its students to appear in public examination.      Practice  and Procedure: Courts-Relief on  humanitarian grounds- Grant of-Not to be contrary to law.

HEADNOTE:      In   the   appellant  State,  there  were   number   of educational institutions running teachers straining  course. Recognition  was not accorded to some institutions  as  they did  not  fulfill  the  conditions.   In  other  cases,  the recognition  was under consideration.  Admittedly,  none  of the respondent-institutions was accorded recognition.      Since  the  Education Department did not  permit  their students   to   appear  at  the  Public   Examination,   the respondent-institutions  filed  a Writ Petition  before  the High  Court praying for direction to the appellant-State  to recognise   the  institutions  and  also  for  a   direction permitting   their   students  to  appear  at   the   Public Examination.      Following  the  decision of the Full-Bench  in  similar cases,  the Division Bench directed the  appellant-State  to arrange  for  supplementary examination in  respect  of  the students of the respondent-institutions.      Against the said Judgment the State has preferred these appeals, by special leave.      Allowing the appeals, this court,      HELD:  1.1.  In  the absence of  recognition  from  the Education Department the students pursuing their studies  in such Institution could not appear at the public  examination held  by the Education Department.  The Full  Bench  rightly held that students of unrecognized educational                                                        232 institutions could not be permitted to appear at the  public examination  held by the Government.  On its own  findings,s the   Full   Bench  should  have  refused  relief   to   the petitioners.   The  Full Bench’s directions  permitting  the student  to  appear  at the examination  and  directing  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

appellant  authorities  to  make  a  special  provision  for supplementary  examination  were  unauthorized  and   wholly unjustified. [234E-G]      1.2. The Court cannot be a party to direct the students in  disobey the statue as that would be destructive  of  the rule  of  law.  Courts cannot grant relief  to  a  party  on humanitarian  ground  contrary to law.  Since  the  Division Bench  issued the said orders following the Judgment of  the Full Bench, the orders are not sustainable in law.      Nageshwaramma    v.    State   of    Andhra    Pradesh, [1986](Suppl.)   SCC   166  and  A.P.   Christians   Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh &  Anr., [1986] 2 SCC 667, relied on.      2.1  Under  Article 30 of the  Constitution  minorities based  on religion or language, have fundamental freedom  to establish educational institutions of their own choice,  but the  State has the right to prescribe regulatory  provisions for ensuring educational excellence.  Minority  institutions which do not seek recognition are free to function according to  their  own  choice,  but if such  an  institution  seeks recognition  from  the  State  it has  to  comply  with  the prescribed  conditions for granting recognition and in  that event the minority institution has to follow the  prescribed syllabus for examination, courses of study and other  allied matters.   These conditions are necessary to be followed  to ensure  efficiency  and  educational  standard  in  minority institutions. [235C-F]      2.2. Even if a minority community has fundamental right to establish and administer educational institution, it  has no  right to insist upon the State to allow its students  to appear  at  the public examination  without  recognition  or without  complying with the conditions prescribed  for  such recognition. [236A-B]      All Bihar Christian Schools Association & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 206, relied on.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal  Nos.1761-62 of 1991      From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.90 of the Madras High Court in C.M.P. No. 10274 and 10275 of 90.                                                        233                             WITH       C.A. No. 1763-18 of 1991.       V. Krishnamurthy for the Appellants.      Mrs. N. Chidambaram, K.Parasaran, M.N. Krishnamani,  G. Srinivasan,  B.Rabu Manohar G.Vijay Anand,  V.  Balachandran and Ajit K. Sinha for the Respondents.      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted.      In  the  State of Tamil Nadu a  number  of  educational institutions  were set up for running courses  for  teachers training.   The  respondent Institutions and  certain  other institutions  sought recognition from the Director  and  the Joint  Director of Education of the State of Tamil Nadu  for running  the teachers training courses.  In some  cases  the recognition  was  not a corded as the institutions  did  not fulfill the conditions required for setting up the  Teachers Training  Institution while in other cases  the  application for  recognition  was pending  consideration.   Indisputably none  of  the  respondent  Institutions  had  been  accorded recognition  but  they admitted students to  the  course  of study  for  conferring the Diploma  in  Teachers  sTraining.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Since, the Education Department of the State Government  was not  willing to allow the students of such  Institutions  to appear at the public examination held by the Government, the affected  institutions filed writ petitions before the  High Court claiming relief for issuance of mandamus directing the Government  to  recognise the Institutions and  also  for  a direction  permitting the students to appear at  the  public examination  with  a  further direction  for  declaring  the result  of the examination.  A learned Single Judge  of  the High Court referred the matter to Full Bench.      The  Full Bench considered the question:  "Whether  the students  of  unrecognized Educational Institutions  can  be permitted  to  write  the public examinations  held  by  the Government."  The Full Bench on an elaborate discussion held that   in  the  absence  of  recognition  accorded   to   an Educational  Institution, the students of such  Institutions were  not entitled to appear at the public examination  held by  the  Government.   In this view of the  Full  Bench  the students were not entitled to any relief but the Full  Bench adopted  a peculiar course to grant relief.  The Full  Bench on account of the "persistent and persuasive stand of the                                                        234 petitioners"  issued directions to the State Government  and the  Education Department on humanitarian  ground  directing them  to  hold supplementary examination  for  enabling  the student of the concerned unrecognized Institution to  appear at the examination with a condition that the declaration  of their  result will be subject to the ultimate settlement  of the question of recognition.  With these directions the Full Bench disposed of the writ petitions before it by its  order dated 24.7.1990.      The  writ  petitions out of which the  present  appeals have  arisen  were  filed by  the  unrecognized  Educational Institutions.   These  petitions were heard  by  a  Division Bench  of the High Court.  The Division Bench following  the decision of the Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 2712 of 1990 and   other  connected  matters  (fathima  Secondary   Grade Teachers Training Institute v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Education Department), issued similar directions permitting  the  student to appear at  the  examination  and directing the State Government to arrange for  supplementary examination  to  enable  the  students  to  appear  at  that examination.   These appeals are directed against the  order of the Division Bench.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties were  are of the opinion that these appeals must succeed. There is  no dispute  that the respondent educational  Institutions  were established  for  imparting education in  Teachers  Training Course  without  obtaining recognition  from  the  Education Department  of  the  State Government.  In  the  absence  of recognition  from  the  Education  Department  the  students pursuing  their  studies  in these  Institutions  could  not appear  at  the  public examination held  by  the  Education Department  The  Full Bench rightly held  that  students  of unrecognized educational institutions could not be permitted to appear at the public examination held by the  Government. On  its  own  finding, the Full Bench  should  have  refused relief  in  the petitioners, but it was persuaded  to  issue directions  on  humanitarian  ground which  were  in  effect destructive  of its own findings, and the law laid  down  by it.   The  Full  Bench  issued  directions  permitting   the students  to  appear at the examination  and  directing  the appellant  authorities  to  make  a  special  provision  for supplementary examination.  These directions in our  opinion were unauthorised and wholly unjustified.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    The  practice  of admitting  students  by  unauthorised educational  Institutions  and then seeking  permission  for permitting  the  students to appear at the  examination  has been looked with disfavour by this Court.                                                        235 In  Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh,  [1986]  Supl. SCC  166 this Court observed that if permission was  granted to  the student of an unrecognised Institution to appear  at the  examination,  it  would  amount,  to  encouraging   and condoning  the establishment of  unauthorised  institutions. The Court declared that the Jurisdiction of this Court under Article  32  or of the High Court under Article 226  of  the Constitution  should  not  be frittered  away  for  such  of purpose.  In A.P. Christains Medical Educational Society  v. Government  of  Andhra Pradesh & Anr., [1986] 2  SCC  667  a similar  request made on behalf of the institution  and  the student  for  permitting them to appear at  the  examination even  though affiliation had not been granted, was  rejected by this court.  The court observed that any direction of the nature  sought for permitting the students to appear at  the examination  without  the institution  being  affiliated  or recognised would be in clear transgression of the  provision of the Act and the regulations.  The Court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that  would be  destructive  of the rule of law.  The full  Bench  noted these decisions and observations  and yet is granted  relief to the students on humanitarian ground Courts can not  grant relief  to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to  law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not  entitled  to  appear at the  examination  held  by  the Education Department of the Government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such  students for  appearing  at the public examination.   The  directions issued by the full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since   the  Division  Bench,issued  the   impugned   orders following  the  judgment  of the Full  Bench,  the  impugned orders are not sustainable in law.      Smt. Nalini Chidambaram contended that under Section  9 of  the Tamil Nadu Act a minority community is  entitled  to establish an educational institution without obtaining permission  from  the Government and the  students  of  such institution   are   entitled  to  appear   at   the   public examinations.   We find no merit in the  submission.   Under Article 30 of the Constitution minorities based on  religion or   language,   have  fundamental  freedom   to   establish educational  institutions  their own choice, but  the  State has  right to prescribe regulatory provisions  for  ensuring educational excellence.  Minority institutions which do  not seek recognition are free to function according to their own choice,  but if such an institution seeks  recognition  from the  State, it has to comply with prescribed conditions  for granting  recognition,  and  in  that  event  the   minority institution    has   to  follow  prescribed   syllabus   for examination,  courses  of study and  other  allied  matters. These  conditions  are necessary to be  followed  to  ensure efficiency and educational standard in                                                        236 minority  institutions.   See: All Bihar  Christian  Schools Association & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1988] 1 S.C.C. 206.   We  are,  therefore, of the opinion that  even  if  a minority  community has fundamental right to  establish  and administer  educational  institution,  it has  no  right  to insist  upon  the State to allow students to appear  at  the public examinations without recognition or without complying with the conditions prescribed for such recognition.

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

    We,  accordingly, allow the appeals and set  aside  the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents.  There will be no  order as to costs. G.N.                                    Appeals allowed.                                                        237