1. In all these writ petitions, filed by the respective petitioners, they seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue duplicate certificate of the Teacher Training Examination, which was held before 1989, In all these cases, the petitioners contend that they were issued certificates, but the same were lost and though they have complied with the other formalities their request for getting the duplicate certificate is rejected. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners seek the assistance of this Court.

2. The main contention raised by the respondents is that all these institutes were not given recognition and even the recognition granted was declared by the court as invalid. It is further contended that while declaring the recognition as invalid, the court has also further declared that the students, who have already written the examinations, will be entitled only to get the results published and they will not be entitled to any certificates or Diplomas nor the issuance of the mark sheet. In view of the said declaration by this Court, it is contended by the respondents that the issuance of duplicate certificate is also prohibited. Only if there is a valid certificate that could be issued, the question of giving a duplicate certificate will arise. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioners have passed the examinations, but their only case is that the institutes, in which they were undergoing the course, were not recognised or whose recognition was declared invalid. Therefore, they are justified in not issuing the Duplicate, certificates.

3. I heard the learned Advocates for the writ petitioners and also the learned Additional Government Pleader.

4. As I have said, respondents do not dispute the fact that these petitioners were successful in their examinations, and the only contention that raised is on the basis of the decision reported in P.M.Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 W.L.R. 604, where the writ petition was filed as a public Interest Litigation by one P.M.Joseph against the Government. There are about 192 institutions got recognition between January, 1992 and July, 1992 and the petitioner therein alleges that most of them were bogus institutions, that Order s of recognition were issued without any reference to the District Educational Officers or the Chief Educational Officers concerned, that recognition Order s have been issued by respondents 2 and 3 therein for extraneous considerations, and newspapers have reported that there was corruption in the matter of grant of recognition. It was further alleged that the rules relating to attendance and syllabus were given a go-by and persons who had no training whatever in the so-called institutes were permitted to write the examinations held in May, 1992. It was also alleged therein that a few officials working in the Secretariat and the Director of School Education have issued the Order s of recognition as indicated by the Hon'ble Minister for Education.

5. It is clear from the above facts, that the subject-matter in issue in the above writ petition was regarding those institutions, whose recognition was given during the period between January, 1992 and July, 1992. The court after elaborately considering the circumstances under which the recognition was granted, found that except for a very few, the recognition was really purchased or obtained for some other consideration. Regarding the students who have written the examination, this Court declared that the candidates, who underwent the course in institutions which are not recognised and those recognition was against rules, will be entitled only to have their results published, and they will not be entitled to the consequential benefit such as issue of diploma or certificate etc. If the principle enunciated in the decision reported in P.M.Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 W.L.R. 604, is applied to the facts of this case, I do not think that the Additional Government Pleader was right in making the submission.

6. As I said earlier, the subject matter in the referred to case was the recognition between January, 1992 and July, 1992. In this case, all the petitioners have completed their examinations before 1989, and they were also successful in their examinations. During that time, the institution in which they were undergoing the training was a recognised one, which is also not a matter in dispute. The names of the institutions in which the petitioners underwent the training, were also included in the Public Interest Litigation Petition filed by the said P.M.Joseph. In the counter filed by the Government in the above said writ petition, it is seen that only 26 institutions had permanent recognition, 16 institutions had temporary recognition. Thereafter recognition was given for 111 institutes temporarily as per the court Order s and the department also gave recognition for 59 institutions. Upto 31.5.1992, 160 institutions were recognised. It is in respect of those institutions, this Court declared, the students will not be entitled to any benefit, except to have their results declared.

7. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the validity of recognition before 1990 was not in issue in any of the proceedings, and therefore, the decision on which the Government relies will have no application insofar as the facts of this case are concerned. It is also submitted by them that at the time when they were admitted and when they wrote the examinations, and when their results were published, there was no dispute as to the validity of the recognition, and there was no occasion for any court to doubt their recognition.

When the fact that it is a recognised institution is admitted, whether it is valid or not is a matter, which the Government will have to take into consideration, and till date, the Government had not placed any material that the institute did not obtain any valid recognition prior to 1990. The institutions as well as the State represented to the public that the institutions in which the petitioners underwent the training are recognised, and even if there is a subsequent derecognition, long thereafter, the representation of the State as well as the institutions will enable them to get a certificate and consequently a duplicate certificate also.

8. Having considered the rival contentions, I feel that the decision reported in P.M.Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 W.L.R. 604 may not have any application to the facts of this case. For the said purpose, I get guidance from the decision reported in Suresh Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , wherein a similar question came up for consideration. The Government of Haryana had recognised a certificate course in Physical Education in Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasarak Manda, Amravati, Maharashtra and that was considered to be a qualification for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor in Government Schools in Haryana. On the basis of this recognition for the certificate course of physical Education, the petitioners before the Supreme Court joined the institute as Physical Instructors, and they continued in their service for sometime. While so, the State of Haryana, derecognised the certificate course, with the result, the certificate obtained by the petitioners before the Supreme Court became useless, for obtaining service as Physical Training Instructors in Haryana. The aggrieved persons moved the High Court for a direction to recognise the certificates obtained by them, since they had joined the course on the basis of the recognition given by the State of Haryana, and the recognition was also in force at the time when they joined the course. The High Court of Haryana did not accept the contention and rejected the writ petition. The matter ultimately came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships held thus:

We are of the view that since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the Government of Haryana and it was on the basis of the recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognised, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course, it was derecognized by the State Government on January 9, 1985. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the State Government to recognize the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others similarly situate as a result of completing the certificate course in Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in government schools in Haryana. Of course, if any person has joined the certificate course after January 9, 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail.

In view of the above referred to decision of the Supreme Court, I feel that the petitioners herein will be entitled to get the certificates, If they were undergoing the training before the court declared that their recognition as invalid or the recognition was obtained long prior to 1992.

9. As I said earlier, this fact is not in dispute that all the petitioners have written their examinations long before 1989, and the results were also published long before the Public Interest Litigation petition filed by P.M.Joseph. As submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the disqualification will arise only in such cases, where the recognition itself was a matter in dispute and that too, from January, 1992 onwards. For such candidates, the decision will hold good, and they will not be entitled to get any relief. But in regard to the petitioners, all of them are entitled to get the certificates. The petitioners were issued certificates, but they have lost it. Now they seek for issuance of duplicate certificate. The formalities for getting the duplicate certificates were also complied with in all these cases.

10. In regard to the petitioner in W.P.No. 13618 of 1997, there is one more added reasons for his entitlement to get the duplicate certificate. The petitioner therein was a student of Malankara Syrian Catholic Teacher Training School, Chellamkonam, Kanyakumari District, attached to the Office at Trivandrum. In regard to that institution, there were prior litigations and this Court in W.A.No. 341 of 1987, decided on 26.3.1987, has declared that the students of that Institute are entitled to write the examination and to have the results declared, as if, it was a recognised school. In the said appeal, it has been held thus:

The next question for consideration is, what is the Direction that could be given at this stage. File students have been admitted in the school in the year 1985-86. They have undergone their training in 1985-86 and 1986-87 and they have to appear for the Examination on 15.4.1987. The delay in disposing of the application by 1 1/2 years has resulted in this situation. Though we would not have granted permission to students coming from unrecognised schools to appear for the examination, having regard to the fact that in this case, the applications had not been dealt with as per the rules as expeditiously as it was required in an Order passed on an earlier occasion in a writ petition filed by the appellant in which it was also directed that the application should be disposed of in accordance with law, and still no opportunity having been given before such rejection, we think it just and necessary that the present batch of students should be permitted to write the examination to be held on 15.4.1987 and subsequently, subject to the condition that they satisfy the minimum educational qualification for admission into a training institution and also subject to the condition that they satisfy the age regulations relating to admission for examination from a training institution. Subject to these two conditions being satisfied, the present batch of students as per the nominal roll sent by the appellant should be permitted to write the examination. Their results also should be published as in the case of any recognised institution.

11. It is further seen that the respondents issued certificates to the candidates who were students of Malankara Syrian Catholic Teachers' Training Institute. Initially, it was represented that it is not a recognised Institute. The issuance of such Certificate was also challenged before this Court in various writ petitions and the same was also interpreted by this Court as per judgment in W.P.No. 5462 of 1988 dated 7.7.1988. The endorsements in these certificates were interpreted by the Government itself and the same were recognised by this Court. In Para I of the said judgment, it has been held thus:

On notice being issued to the authorities, learned Government Advocate submits that the Government has clarified the position by stating that the said endorsements are not intended to be a disqualification, for the petitioners who have obtained certificates. Learned Government Advocate produces the letter received from the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Education Department, dated 5.7.1988 wherein it is stated as follows:

In continuation of the ref. Second cited, I am directed to state that the endorsement in question has been made in the Diploma in Teacher Education Certificate of the individuals who have studied in unrecognised Teachers Training Institutes just for identified purpose only. This was made to prevent the growth of unrecognised TTIs. and to arrest the tremendous growth of unrecognised TTIs. Only to differentiate the recognised Institute and the unrecognised Institute, the endorsement was made. This states nothing, but facts. The department have not discussed the admission of the candidate and their employment anywhere in the certificate and in the endorsement. From this, it is evident that there is no other motive.

I find that the explanation offered by the Government satisfied the apprehension entertained by these petitioners. In view of this explanation offered by the Government, there cannot be any valid objections for appointing them as Teachers if the appointing authorities are satisfied about their merits or otherwise. The writ petitions are Order ed accordingly. No costs.

12. In view of the clarification given by the Government and accepted by this Court, even though, in the certificate, it was stated that it was not a recognised institute, that will not affect the prospects of any other petitioners, nor the endorsement, as declared by this Court act as a disqualification.

13. The petitioner in W.P.No. 13618 of 1997 was a student during the relevant period and he completed the course in the year 1987. In fact, he was also issued a certificate on 27.7.1988.

14. In the result, there will be a direction against the respondents, directing them to issue a duplicate certificate to all the petitioners as sought for by them. The respondents are directed to comply with the said direction, within a period of two weeks from today. There will be no Order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.Ps. are dismissed.