- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Tamil Nadu And Others v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
In the State of Tamil Nadu, several educational institutions were established to conduct Teachers Training courses without first obtaining recognition from the Directorate of Education. Despite the absence of recognition, these institutions admitted students and later sought permission for those students to sit the government-conducted public examinations for the Diploma in Teachers Training.
When the Education Department refused to allow such students to participate in the examinations, the institutions filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking mandamus for recognition and for permission for their students to write the examinations and have their results declared. A learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Full Bench.
On 24 July 1990 the Full Bench held that students of unrecognised institutions were not entitled to appear in public examinations, yet, “on humanitarian grounds,” it directed the State to conduct a special supplementary examination for them. A Division Bench, relying on that Full Bench decision, granted identical relief in a separate batch of writ petitions filed by the respondent institutions. The present appeals arise from the Division Bench’s orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether students enrolled in educational institutions that have not obtained statutory recognition are entitled to sit for the public examinations conducted by the State Education Department.
- Whether minority-run educational institutions can rely on Article 30 of the Constitution and Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Act to have their students appear in public examinations without first securing recognition and complying with the State’s regulatory conditions.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- Smt Nalini Chidambaram contended that, by virtue of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Act and Article 30 of the Constitution, minority communities have the right to establish educational institutions without government permission and that students from such institutions are entitled to appear in public examinations.
Appellants' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the appellants' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P., 1986 Supp SCC 166 | Permitting students of unrecognised institutions to take examinations encourages unauthorised institutions and should not be allowed under Article 32 or Article 226 jurisdiction. | Relied on to show that granting examination permission to students of unrecognised institutions is impermissible. |
| A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P., (1986) 2 SCC 667 | Court cannot order that students be allowed to appear in examinations when the institution lacks affiliation or recognition; such a direction would transgress statutory provisions. | Cited to reinforce that courts should not require students to disobey statutory requirements for recognition. |
| All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar, (1988) 1 SCC 206 | While minorities may establish institutions under Article 30, the State may impose regulatory conditions to ensure educational standards. | Used to reject the argument that minority institutions can bypass recognition yet demand access to public examinations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that none of the respondent institutions possessed recognition from the State Education Department, and, in law, their students therefore lacked entitlement to sit the public examinations. It approved the Full Bench’s substantive finding to that effect but held that the humanitarian directions subsequently issued were “unauthorised and wholly unjustified” because they undermined the rule laid down.
Relying on the precedents in N.M. Nageshwaramma and A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society, the Court reiterated that judicial directions permitting students of unrecognised or unaffiliated institutions to take public examinations would condone statutory violations and erode the rule of law. The Court emphasised that it cannot grant relief contrary to statute “on humanitarian grounds.”
Addressing the respondents’ minority rights argument, the Court acknowledged the freedom under Article 30 to establish and administer educational institutions but clarified, with reference to All Bihar Christian Schools Association, that the State may impose regulatory requirements to secure educational standards. Consequently, a minority institution that seeks recognition must satisfy those requirements and cannot compel the State to present its students for public examinations absent such recognition.
Because the Division Bench’s order merely replicated the erroneous humanitarian directions of the Full Bench, the Supreme Court found the impugned orders unsustainable in law.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed; High Court orders set aside; writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.
The immediate effect is that students from the respondent unrecognised institutions are barred from sitting the State Teachers Training public examinations, and the special supplementary examination ordered by the High Court stands quashed. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts cannot override statutory recognition requirements on equitable or humanitarian considerations and serves as a caution against the proliferation of unauthorised educational institutions. No new legal doctrine is created, but existing precedent is reaffirmed.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. In the State of Tamil Nadu a number of educational institutions were set up for running courses for teachers training. The respondent institutions and certain other institutions sought recognition from the Director and the Joint Director of Education of the State of Tamil Nadu for running the teachers training courses. In some cases the recognition was not accorded as the institutions did not fulfil the conditions required for setting up the Teachers Training Institution while in other cases the application for recognition was pending consideration. Indisputably none of the respondent institutions had been accorded recognition but they admitted students to the course of study for conferring the Diploma in Teachers Training. Since, the Education Department of the State Government was not willing to allow the students of such institutions to appear at the public examination held by the government, the affected institutions filed writ petitions before the High Court claiming relief for issuance of mandamus directing the government to recognise the institutions and also for a direction permitting the students to appear at the public examination with a further direction for declaring the result of the examination. A learned Single Judge of the High Court referred the matter to Full Bench.
3. The Full Bench considered the question: “Whether the students of unrecognised educational institutions can be permitted to write the public examinations held by the government.” The Full Bench on an elaborate discussion held that in the absence of recognition accorded to an educational institution, the students of such institutions were not entitled to appear at the public examination held by the government. In this view of the Full Bench the students were not entitled to any relief but the Full Bench adopted a peculiar course to grant relief. The Full Bench on account of the “persistent and persuasive stand of the petitioners” issued directions to the State Government and the Education Department on humanitarian grounds directing them to hold supplementary examination for enabling the students of the concerned unrecognised institutions to appear at the examination with a condition that the declaration of their result will be subject to the ultimate settlement of the question of recognition. With these directions the Full Bench disposed of the writ petitions before it by its order dated July 24, 1990.
4. The writ petitions out of which the present appeals have arisen were filed by the unrecognised educational institutions. These petitions were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench following the decision of the Full Bench in W.P No. 2712 of 1990 and other connected matters (Fathima Secondary Grade Teachers Training Institute v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Education Department) issued similar directions permitting the students to appear at the examination and directing the State Government to arrange for supplementary examination to enable the students to appear at that examination. These appeals are directed against the order of the Division Bench.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that these appeals must succeed. There is no dispute that the respondent educational institutions were established for imparting education in Teachers Training Course without obtaining recognition from the Education Department of the State Government. In the absence of recognition from the Education Department the students pursuing their studies in these institutions could not appear at the public examination held by the Education Department. The Full Bench rightly held that students of unrecognised educational institutions could not be permitted to appear at the public examination held by the government. On its own findings, the Full Bench should have refused relief to the petitioners, but it was persuaded to issue directions on humanitarian grounds which were in effect destructive of its own findings, and the law laid down by it. The Full Bench issued directions permitting the students to appear at the examination and directing the appellant authorities to make a special provision for supplementary examination. These directions in our opinion were unauthorised and wholly unjustified.
6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. In N.M Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P 1986 Supp SCC 166 this Court observed that if permission was granted to the students of an unrecognised institution to appear at the examination, it would amount to encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. The court declared that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be frittered away for such a purpose. In A.P Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667 a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court observed that 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. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.
7. Smt Nalini Chidambaram contended that under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Act a minority community is entitled to establish an educational institution without obtaining permission from the government and the students of such institution are entitled to appear at the public examinations. We find no merit in the submission. Under Article 30 of the Constitution minorities based on religion or language, have fundamental freedom to establish educational institutions of their own choice, but the State has right to prescribe regulatory provisions for ensuring educational excellence. Minority institutions which do not seek recognition are free to function according to their own choice, but if such an institution seeks recognition from the State, it has to comply with the prescribed conditions for granting recognition, and in that event the minority institution has to follow prescribed syllabus for examination, courses of study and other allied matters. These conditions are necessary to be followed to ensure efficiency and educational standard in minority institutions. See: All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar (1988) 1 SCC 206. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even if a minority community has fundamental right to establish and administer educational institution, it has no right to insist upon the State to allow students to appear at the public examinations without recognition or without complying with the conditions prescribed for such recognition.
8. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert