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