1993 Supreme(Mad) 186

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANGAMANI
Quaid-E-Millath Teachers Training Institute - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Others - Respondents
Writ Petn. Nos. 9611 and 5582 of 1992
Decided On : 23 March 1993

A court cannot act in violation of law and issue directions to the Government to transgress the provisions of law. Students of an unrecognised institution are not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Educational Department of the Government, and 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.

Headnote:

RECOGNITION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - TEMPORARY RECOGNITION - VALIDITY - CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF - PUBLICATION OF RESULTS - ISSUE OF CERTIFICATES - LEGALITY - RULE OF LAW.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an educational institution, sought a mandamus directing the respondents to permit its students to write the Government Examination for Diploma in Teacher Training Education, publish the results, and issue diplomas and certificates. The petitioner had applied for recognition in 1986, but the application was not considered. The petitioner filed a writ petition, and a single Judge directed the authorities to permit the students to write the examinations subject to certain conditions. The writ petition was later disposed of, directing the Director of School Education to pass orders on the application for recognition. The petitioner filed another writ petition, alleging that the application for recognition was not considered. An order was passed directing the respondents to publish the results of the students who had written the examinations earlier. The Government and the authorities filed a writ appeal, which was dismissed by the First Bench of the Court. The Bench directed the petitioner to give a copy of the application for recognition to the respondents and directed the third respondent to dispose of the same within six weeks. The petitioner sent a copy of the petition to the authorities, but they did not comply with the directions issued by the Court. The petitioner filed another writ petition seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to pass an order on the application for recognition. Pending that writ petition, the petitioner filed a writ miscellaneous petition for a direction to the respondent to grant temporary recognition to the petitioner-Institute. A single Judge of the Court directed the respondents to grant provisional recognition for a period of three years from the date of grant subject to the fulfillment of the rules that were in vogue prior to G.O.Ms. No. 536, Education, dated 17-5-1989 within the said period of three years subject to the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 536 dated 17-5-1989.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order passed by the learned single Judge granting temporary recognition to the petitioner-Institute was invalid as it traveled beyond the scope of the main writ petition and such a relief should not have been granted by the Court. The Court further held that the students of the petitioner were not entitled to any consequential benefits, such as the publication of results and the issue of certificates or diplomas, as the recognition granted to the petitioner was invalid. The Court also held that the petitioner could not be granted time to fulfill the requirements of G.O. Ms. No. 536, as the rules framed thereunder had to be obeyed and there could be no exception.

Issues: 1. Whether the temporary recognition granted to the petitioner-Institute was valid. 2. Whether the students of the petitioner were entitled to consequential benefits, such as the publication of results and the issue of certificates or diplomas. 3. Whether the petitioner could be granted time to fulfill the requirements of G.O. Ms. No. 536.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order passed by the learned single Judge granting temporary recognition to the petitioner-Institute was invalid as it traveled beyond the scope of the main writ petition and such a relief should not have been granted by the Court. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute, wherein it was held that a court cannot act in violation of law and issue directions to the Government to transgress the provisions of law. 2. The Court held that the students of the petitioner were not entitled to any consequential benefits, such as the publication of results and the issue of certificates or diplomas, as the recognition granted to the petitioner was invalid. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebran Roundale, wherein it was held that the directions issued by the High Court to the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination, etc., were subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption, and feeding source for indiscipline. 3. The Court held that the petitioner could not be granted time to fulfill the requirements of G.O. Ms. No. 536, as the rules framed thereunder had to be obeyed and there could be no exception. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, wherein it was held that the subsequent derecognition of a course would not affect the students who had already joined the Course when there was a valid recognition, but those who had joined the course after derecognition were not entitled to take benefit of the order.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition in so far as the third prayer for the issue of certificates was concerned. The first prayer had already been granted in an interlocutory order. The second prayer for the publication of results was granted, but the Court clarified that the publication of the results would be without any effect in so far as the rights of the students of the petitioner-Institute were concerned. It would not entitle the students of the petitioner to any further consequential reliefs such as issue of certificates or diplomas.