Institute got recognition without following guidelines.

Except in W.P.No.18931 of 1997, in all the other writ petitions, petitioners were students of Fathima Teacher Training Institute for Men, Ramanathapuram Educational District during 1988-90. They completed their Teacher Training Course and they wrote their Examination in 1992. Since the petitioners did not get pass mark in all subjects, they appeared for examination held in 1992 and 1993, Petitioner in W.P.No.18812 of 1997 sat for the examination in July, 1993. The grievance of the petitioners is that their results have not been published and certificates have not been issued.

2. In W.P.No.18931 of 1997, petitioners who are six in number were students of Little Flower Teacher Training Institute, Pudukkotai, during 1989-91. Their Registration Numbers have been given in the affidavit. They wrote their Examination in May, 1992, and, for the failed subjects, they wrote the Examination in July, 1993. Their grievance is that their results have not been published and certificates have not been issued.

3. In all these cases, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that at the time when these petitioners got admitted in the Institutes, they were recognized and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get their results declared, and they are also entitled to get their mark-sheet and Diploma.

4. It is not disputed by learned counsel that Institute in which they (petitioners) were studying were de-recognised by virtue of the decision reported in P.M.Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 Writ L.R. 604. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court, led by Srinivasan, J., as he then was, held that the students who had already written the examination will be entitled only to have their results declared and they will not be entitled to either mark-sheet or Diploma certificate. In that case, the Division Bench further found that the recognition obtained by the Institute was not in accordance with law. A reading of the judgment makes it clear that for some of Institutes recognition was granted even before an application was made, and the Government was not following the proper procedure in granting recognition in any case.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Judgment in P.M.Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 Writ L.R. 604 is not binding on them, since petitioners herein were admitted even before the litigation started. The subjectmatter in all these writ petitions is regarding recognition from 1991 onwards. I do not think, I should accept this submission of learned counsel for petitioners in view of the binding precedent which was brought to my notice by learned Additional Government Pleader (Education).In V.John Rajasekaran and 219 others v. The Director of Teacher Education and Research Training, College Road, Madras-6 and others, W.P. No.2519 of 1992 order dated 29. 1997, a Division Bench of this Court has met this argument. In that case, the students underwent the course in an Institute which as recognised in the year 1988 temporarily and the said recognition continued till 1994. Petitioners therein were not permitted to write the examination in April, 1992, and it was in those circumstances, they filed the writ petition. The Division Bench met the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioners therein, after taking mote of P.M.Joseph’s case, and held as follows:

“...the only relief that can be given to the petitioners is that the respondents shall be directed to publish the results and not more than that. In other words, the petitioners will not be issued with any certificates or diplomas relating to the Teacher Training Course.”

That judgment has become final, in the sense that the same has been fully approved by the Supreme Court of India. In the Division Bench Judgment, the learned Judges have further said thus:

“... We have made a reference to this aspect of the case, while considering the case of two students of the very same school in W.A.No.261 of 1997. Therefore, we have