Madras High Court
Fathima Secondary Grade Teachers ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 24 July, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1992MAD1, AIR 1992 MADRAS 1, (1990) WRITLR 186 (1990) 2 MAD LW 259, (1990) 2 MAD LW 259
ORDER Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. The question which has been referred for our answer by the learned single Judge and which has brought us together to constitute the Full Bench to decide the same runs as follows :
"Whether students of unrecognised educational institutions can be permitted to write the public examinations held by the Government?"
The Institutions concerned in these writ petitions are yet to get the recognition. These writ petitions have been filed seeking direction for the students to sit for the examinations. There are pronouncements even at the level of the highest court in the land and they have countenanced the general proposition that there should not be taking of examinations conducted by the Government, by the students without the Institutions in which they have undergone the educational courses getting recognition. In Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , the Supreme Court discountenanced the plea put forth on behalf of the students, who have undergone training in private institutions, which are yet to get the recognition, to appear for examinations and it was observed as follows (at p. 1191 of AIR) :
"If by a fiat of the Court, we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination, we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose."
2. In A. P. C. M. E. Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, dealing with a similar situation, the Supreme Court rejected the request of the students to be permitted to appear at the examinations even though affiliations have not been granted to the institutions. The following passages in the pronouncement clearly bring out the view of the Supreme Court (at pp. 1496-97 of AIR) :
"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 Darusalam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University. Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to 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 than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws."
3. In Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Lalit Narain Mithila University, , a Full Bench of the High Court of Patna, while dealing with the request to issue a writ of mandamus to permit students of unrecognised and unaffiliated institutions in technical fields including the teachers training institutes, to sit in the University examinations, observed as follows (Paras 13 and 20 of AIR) :
"In the light of the above, there would remain little doubt that the law has now imposed a complete ban on an unrecognised and unaffiliated institution in technical fields including the teachers' training institutes. The necessary corollary thereof is that, the purported students of these unauthorised institutions are not entitled to sit in the University examinations. Indeed, they cannot do so either by the dubious medium of recognised institution or even as private students. Once that is so, would it be possible to issue a mandamus in favour of a person in direct infraction and contravention of such law. The answer has to be rendered in a categoric negative both on principle and in view of the binding precedent in (supra), Nageshvaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh."
..... plainly enough, no mandamus can be issued to perpetuate a mistake. If the law places a total ban on the students of unrecognised and unaffiliated institutions to take the examination of Bachelor or Education then it is not for this Court to override the same and of all things through the medium of a mandamus contrary to law."
4. In the State of Tamil Nadu v. S. P. Sree Ragha (1987 Writ LR 392, a Bench of this Court deprecated the granting of reliefs to students in cases where affiliation is declined to a college, and the following observations are worth noting :
"An impression seems to be gaining ground that courts ultimately will come to the rescue of the students who have got themselves admitted into unrecognised educational institutions. The ultimate beneficiary in such cases is the unscrupulous persons who unauthorisedly start educational institutions more by way of an adventure in business only with the object of making money. The beneficiaries of such court's order though immediately are the students, unfortunately it is the correspondents of such institutions who will be emboldened to continue with their activities of starting unauthorised educational institutions. Weighing the interest of the individual students and the interest of the community as a whole and also to prevent students from falling into the trap laid by these adventurers in the field of education, it is time we take rather a strong view of the matter and do not interfere by ordering any alternative arrangement in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is neither any right in the petitioner to get an order directing the recognition of an educational institution nor to get themselves admitted to an institution of their choice, it is difficult to see how by way of interim relief any order could be made directing the students to be admitted in any particular institution. In our view, having regard to the increased tendency of starting unauthorised educational institutions there was hardly any scope for making the kind of order which has been made by the learned single Judge."
One of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) in St. Joseph's Teacher Training Institute v. The Director of School Education, had occasion to advert to the above principles and it was held that undue delay in considering the question of recognition may not be a relevant factor on the issue of permitting the students of unrecognised institutions to sit for examinations. In our view, these pronouncements settle the answer for the question beyond ambguity that the participation in and taking the examinations to be conducted by the Government can be done only by the students of the institutions, which have obtained the recognition.
5. Our attention was drawn to some pronouncements where Courts including the highest in the land, have been lenient towards students facing similar predicaments. The pronouncements to which our attention was drawn are :
Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, ; Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education, AIR 1989 SC 183 and The Malankara Syrian Catholic Arch Diocese of Trivandrum v. The Joint Director of School Education, (1987) 100 Mad LW 976.
From these pronouncements, we are not able to spell out any firm proposition running contrary to the well accepted proposition that recognition must be there before the students of the institutions could go for the examinations. Taking note of the peculiar facts of the cases, dealt with in the pronouncements, Courts have learnt to give appropriate directions and nothing more. But here as Judges constituting the Full Bench, we are being called upon to lay down the general proposition of law. Hence, we answer the reference by saying that when there has been no recognition accorded to educational institutions, the students of such unrecognised educational institutions are not entitled to sit for and write the public examinations held by the Government.
6. The settlement of the above general proposition obliged the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions to put forth pleas on humanitarian grounds. They would submit that since the question of recognition has become a prolonged and an arduous process, the students, who got inducted into the institutions and who have undergone the courses, are prepared to participate in and to take the examinations, subject to the ultimate settlement of the question of recognition. Learned counsel for the petitioners further say that at least this indulgence must be shown and the students shall abide by conditions to be imposed by this Court and take the risk. This plea, we are inclined to consider and implement in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases and on humanitarian grounds, making it clear that this indulgence shown shall not form a lever or basis for the students to insist for rights and liberties or claim results which they do not otherwise possess or are not entitled to in law, on the simple ground that they have been permitted to participate in and take the examinations. By our consideration of this plea and showing the indulgence of giving appropriate directions, we should not be understood to have, in any manner, whittled down the general proposition, which we have answered as above. The present indulgence shall not be counted and quoted as a precedent at all; as we have not intended and do not intend to lay down any precedent by this indulgence. No support or inspiration shall be drawn from the present indulgence of directions for advancing any cause or stand before any quarter. What we have done here is nothing but ex gratia. We are obliged to show the indulgence, taking note of the pleas put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, as advancing the cause of the students concerned. It is true that all the students strength is not before us. But, their interests shall not be jeopardised, and the directions which are propose to give and are giving shall be and could be effectuated only if the student strength concerned give their due and proper consent for the directions laid down hereunder, and that shall not be an imposition on them without their knowing about the implications of the directions and it is for them; and it is their choice and volition to accept and act upon the present directions, or to leave them alone. If they opt for the same, they must be prepared for all the risks ensuing and cannot insist for fruition of any further result on the basis of the present directions. We are obliged and constrained to give the present directions, because of the persistent and persuasive stand of the petitioners, expressed through their learned counsel, that the students may take the risk and give their due and proper consent for going through the present directions. We make it clear that we have acted purely on humanitarian grounds. Accordingly, we give the following directions with reference to the students of the concerned institutions participating in and taking up the examinations, subject to the ultimate settlement of the question of recognition:
(1) The authorities concerned shall hold the requisite supplemental examinations for the students of the concerned institutions in the month of October, 1990, since we are told that the holding of the regular examinations is already over in April, 1990.
(2) The Authorities concerned shall inform the concerned Institutions sufficiently in advance about the date/dates of the holding of the requisite supplemental examinations, so that the concerned Institutions may put on notice their students about the date/dates.
(3) The concerned Institutions shall forward to the Authorities concerned the lists of the eligible students, subject to the permissible strength, who could participate in the supplemental examinations on or before 15-9-1990.
(4) It is made clear that the mere factum of the students participating in and taking the supplemental examinations shall not form a lever or basis for them to insist for rights and liberties which they do not otherwise possess in law, and they cannot insist for fruition of any further result on the basis of the present directions, and their participation in and taking the supplemental examinations shall be at their risk and option and shall be subject to the ultimate settlement of the question of recognition.
(5) The concerned Institutions, when they forward the lists of the eligible students, as per clause (3) supra, must obtain the due and proper consent of the said students for participation in and taking the examinations, subject to what has been stated in clause (4) supra. The concerned Institutions are duty bound and the responsibility is theirs to put the said students on notice of the implications of the present directions and the risks they may run by going through the present directions, and only thereafter obtain the due and proper consent of the said students who may opt for and make the choice of their own volition for the same.
(6) The present directions cover only those petitioners, who are before us in this batch of writ petitions, and they have been given only in the light of and subject to what all have been said earlier including clauses (1) to (5) above.
The above directions, in substance, dispose of the prayers in this batch of writ petitions and they are being disposed of as such. We make no order as to costs.
7. Order accordingly.