L. Muthukumar
& ANR Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors [2000] INSC 500 (28 September 2000)
M. Jagannadha
Rao & Shivaraj V. Patil Shivaraj V. Patil,J.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Since these petitions raise common questions based on similar set of facts they
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The
petitioners filed their respective writ petitions against the respondents
praying for the publication of their results and to issue diploma in teachers
training, contending that on successful completion of the higher secondary they
underwent secondary grade teachers training in different training institutes
between the period 1989 to 1991; they had taken public examination in May, 1992
but their results were not published and certificates were not awarded. The
institutes in which they had undergone training course had recognition but the
same was withdrawn subsequently. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ
petitions following the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in
P.M. Joseph vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others (Writ Petition No. 9494 of
1992). Writ appeals filed against the order of learned single Judge were also
dismissed affirming the view taken by the learned single Judge stating that the
petitioners were only entitled to get the results declared and were not
entitled to get mark sheets or diplomas/certificates as the institutes in which
they had undergone training were de- recognized. Hence these petitions are
brought before us in this Court.
The
learned counsel for the petitioners urged: -
1. The
petitioners having undergone the training course in the institutions, which had
recognition on the date of public examination, could not be deprived of their
right to obtain mark sheets and diplomas/certificates merely on the ground that
those institutes were de-recognized by virtue of a decision rendered by the
High Court subsequent to the public examination.
2. The
treatment of the respondents was unfair and discriminatory in the case of the petitioners
inasmuch as to few others similarly placed the respondents have given
diplomas/certificates although with an endorsement that they have undergone
training in unrecognized institutes.
The
learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the orders
impugned in these petitions.
In
order to appreciate the rival contentions we consider it useful to refer to the
decision in P.M. Joseph's case (supra). In the said judgment the Division Bench
of the High Court in para 11 has stated thus: - "11. We have no doubt that
orders or recognition were granted only on extraneous considerations as alleged
by the petitioner. We have already referred to the express allegation in
paragraph 20 of the petitioner's affidavit that a few officials working in the Secretariat
and the Director of School Education issued the orders of recognition as
dictated by the Hon'ble Minister for Education. We doubt, the Minister is not a
party to this writ petition and we may not be able to investigate the said
allegation as against him. But, the Secretary to Government is representing the
State as first respondent and the Director of School education is the second
respondent. They have not chosen to deny the said allegations in their counter
affidavits. The facts referred to by us above as called out from Annexures V
and VI filed by the Government at our instance, clearly show that the orders of
recognition were passed only on a specific direction from a person in the
higher echelons at the ministerial level. Otherwise, the officials, who are
before us, would not have been bold enough to pass such orders in utter
violation of the provisions of G.O.Ms. Nos.535 and 536 dated 17.5.1989 as well
as the rules which were in force prior to the passing of the said G.O.s. Thus,
the Government, to say the least, played havoc in the matter of Teacher
Training Education and ruined the same. The direct impact would necessarily be
on the Secondary Grade Education, as the holders of the Diploma in Teachers
Training Education are the persons who are to handle the classes I to VIII in
Secondary Grade Schools.
The
Government has not only failed to do its duty but is guilty of gross abuse of
powers." As is evident from the paragraph 14 of the same judgment that a
contention similar to the contention No. 1, urged before us in this case, was
raised but it was negatived.
The
position as to whether the candidates like the petitioners were entitled for
the issue of a diploma or certificate was abundantly made clear in paragraph 22
of the said judgment, which reads: - "22. It may be said that only some of
the institutions listed in Annexure V and VI are bogus institutions and the
remaining are genuine. But it has been established now that none of the
institutions excepting Annai Sathya Teacher Training Institute for Women has
fulfilled the requirements of the rules. Hence, we are constrained to quash all
the orders of recognition passed by the Government and setout in Annexure V and
VI excepting G.O.No.(2B) 6, Education (VI) dated 8-1-1992 in favour of Annai Sathya
Teacher Training Institute (W), Periya Kumitti, South Arcot District shown in
item No. 115 in Annexure V. If any of the institutions has since fulfilled the
requirements of the rules, it is open to them to satisfy the authorities to
that effect and seek orders of recognition. If the students of the institutions
where recognition has been quashed, have already written the examinations, the
results thereof shall be published by the respondents. But, the publication
will not confer any right whatever on the institutions or their students to get
any consequential relief or benefit such as issue of diploma or certificate of
this writ petition, and of an sitting singly dismissed W.M.P. 13729 of 1992
filed by the petitioner for injunction restraining the publication of results
of the examinations held in May, July and August, 1992. The petitioner filed
W.A. No. 1209 of 1992 against the said order and the First Bench of this Court
passed an order on 23.9.1992 in C.M.P. Nos. 12839 and 12840 of 1992 restraining
the respondents from issuing certificates to the candidates who wrote the
examinations until further orders while permitting them to declare the results
of the examinations. In the circumstances, we direct the students of the
institutions, the recognition of which has now been quashed, by this order, are
not entitled to get certificates or diplomas from the respondents."
(Emphasis supplied) This Court in St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for
women), Madurai and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others dealing with
conditions for recognition of minority teachers training institutes laid down
under Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules,
1977, in para 9 has stated thus: - "9. The High Court rightly emphasised
the need for maintaining very high standards of Education, Sports,
administration and maintenance of the Teachers Training Institutes. These
Institutions are established with the avowed object of training teachers and
educationists who have to shoulder the responsibility of moulding the nation.
This
Court in N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [1986] Supp SCC 166 observed as under: -
"The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of
impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children,
teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be
required to pass the examination but that may not be enough.
Training
for a certain minimum period in a properly organized and equipped Training
Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched." Jagannatha
Shetty, J. speaking for this Court in Andhra Kesari Educational Society v.
Director of School Education & Ors. J.T. (1988) 4 S.C. 431 observed as
under:
"Though
teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teacher is central
to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the
skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the 'engine' of the
educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to
cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to
deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as
would inspire and motivate into action the benefitter. He must keep himself abreast
of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative
way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler
and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is
more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that
teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of
efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained
or sub- standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if
not a punishment on our children.
The
Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy
in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous
consideration." In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas. Sahebrao Roundale & Ors.,.J.T (1992) 5 S.C.
175, K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for this Court observed as under: - "The
teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres
and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The
formal education needs proper equipment by the teachers to meet the challenges
of the day to impart lessons with latest technics to the students on secular,
scientific and rational outlook.
A
well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual
capabilities of the students in their pursuits.
The
teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a Principal
instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual
excellence and discipline.
The
teachers, therefore, must keep abreast ever changing technics, the needs of the
society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the
children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and
energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The
qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and
motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such
trainee students in a school or a college all facilities and equipments are
absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor
entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirement
is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode
of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management
of the education." As can be seen from paragraph 16 in the said case also
learned senior counsel representing the parties pleaded that the results of the
students, who had already taken the examinations, be directed to be declared
and if successful, certificates be awarded to them. Not accepting the said
argument this Court in para 19 has held thus: - "19. We see no ground to
differ with the view taken by the High Court. This court in N.M. Nageshramma's
case (supra) has held that training in a properly organised and equipped
training institute is essential before a candidate becomes qualified to receive
teachers training certificate.
Simply
passing the examination is not enough. The future teachers of the country must
pass through the institutions which have maintained standards of excellence at
all levels." Thus looking to the decision of the Division Bench of the
High Court in P.M. Joseph's case and the decision of this Court in St. John's
Teachers Training Institute's case abovementioned, it is clear that even the
candidates who had written the examination at the time when their institutes
had recognition, were not entitled for diplomas/certificates consequent upon
de- recognition of their institutions subsequently and that such candidates
were only entitled for publication of the results of the examination taken and
nothing more.
The
learned single Judge in these cases of the petitioners, consistent with the
legal position covered by the decisions aforementioned was right in taking the
view that the petitioners were entitled only for the declaration of the results
of the examination and on account of subsequent de-recognition of the
institutes in which they underwent training courses were not entitled for
issuance of mark sheets or diplomas. The Division Bench of the High Court had
no good reason to disturb the orders passed by the learned single Judge.
The
learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the same learned
single Judge of the High court in the case of Jhansi Rani and others vs. The
Secretary, The Director of Government Examinations, Chennai and others . In our
view this decision does not help the petitioners.
That
was a case in which petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to issue duplicate certificate of the teacher training examination,
which was held before 1989 contending that certificates issued to them earlier,
were lost. This judgment was delivered by the learned single Judge on 17th November, 1997. S.S.
Subramani,J.
the same learned Judge in the case of D.
Balamurugan
and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others delivered judgment on 19th January, 1998 following the case of P.M. Joseph
(supra) rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to issue mark sheet and
diploma.
Yet in
the case of The Director of School Education vs.
A.
Dennis Lilly Burk Mary and others a Division Bench of the same High Court has
held thus: - "It is not necessary for us to go through the history of the
Teacher Training Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu, except to say that they
found their Waterloo when a public interest litigation was commenced in respect
of such Teacher Training Institutes in the State and the Division Bench had occasion
to go through the entire history of the Teacher Training Institutes in the
State. Therefore, so far as the students of the 5th respondent institute is
concerned, the question had been well and squarely decided once for all by the
Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench has been acclaimed by the Apex Court and was affirmed. There is no room
for extending any sympathy in favour of such institutes or the students, who
are said to have been trained in such institutes. In fact, this particular school,
viz., the 5th respondent - school had disobeyed every order of the school
authorities even at the time of the grant of temporary recognition. Temporary
recognition was in fact granted only for admitting 40 students.
Admittedly
the school entertained more than 200 students in the class only to benefit
themselves. Any amount of criticism and comments by this Court only seem to
fall on deaf ears. The petitioners can only get at the hands of the Court,
direction to the respondents to publish the results and nothing more. In other
words, as observed by the Division Bench, it is made clear that the students
are not entitled to get any certificates or diplomas from the appellants."
(Emphasis supplied) We may add here that, in relation to teachers training course,
mere passing of public examination is not enough.
It
must be coupled with proper training in a recognized institute in order to get
meaningful and purposeful results.
Hence
the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in our
view, is untenable and consequently it is rejected.
As
regards second contention we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as
to what is the use or advantage of getting the diploma/certificate, which will
contain an endorsement that a candidate has studied in an unrecognized
institute. He submitted that might be the candidates will get employment in
some private schools. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents
reference is made to the case of P.M. Joseph and the case of St. John's Teacher
Training Institute and it is stated that in view of the said judgments
petitioners cannot seek direction to get mark sheet or diploma/certificate.
Further the petitioners were bound by the Division Bench judgment of the High
Court delivered on 27.4.1993 (P.M. Joseph's case) as the institutions in which
the petitioners underwent training courses were de-recognized and that such
candidates were only entitled to get their results of the examination published
and were not entitled for issuance of either mark sheets or diplomas/
certificates. The petitioners could not approach the High Court again for the
same relief after a period of six years. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit
reads:- "It is therefore submitted that in view of the facts and
circumstances stated above the petitioners are not entitled to have the
indulgence of this Hon'ble
Court for an order
enabling them to get mark sheet and the diploma with an endorsement that the
petitioners studied in an unrecognized institution. It is further submitted that
the said certificate with such endorsement will not serve any purpose to the
petitioners but on the other hand the issuance of such certificate will give
room for manipulations as there are thousands of students whose results had
been declared but they were not provided with Diploma certificate or mark sheet
as per the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
It is respectfully submitted that the release of mark sheets and diplomas with
an endorsement that the petitioners studied in an unrecognized institution will
also go against the verdict of the Supreme Court. It will also be against the
basic principles that the training should be had only in fully equipped
institutions which have been duly recognized. It is likely that the candidates
may attempt to misuse such certificates.
The
petitioners have no legal claim at all even for such certificates i.e.
certificates with endorsements." Having regard to the specific stand of
the respondents and in the light of the Division Bench judgment of the High
Court in the case of the P.M. Joseph which was affirmed by this Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 2914-16 of 1993 decided on June 15, 1993 (St. John's Teachers
Training Institute case) aforementioned no mark sheet or diploma/certificate
can be issued. Further two special leave petitions filed against the same
judgment of the High Court (SLP No. 10110/93 and 9421/93) were also dismissed
by this Court on 4.10.1993 and 19.7.1993 respectively. It is not expected that
the respondents would issue diplomas/certificates with the endorsement to other
candidates. Assuming that in few cases such mistakes are committed in issuing
diplomas/certificates with the endorsement that the Teacher Training Institute
in which a student studied is not recognized by the Director of School
Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, such mistakes cannot be allowed to be
repeated or perpetuated in the light of the judicial pronouncements referred to
above, which have become final. Added to this, the institutes where the Petitioners
underwent training which were de-recognized by virtue of judgment in P.M.
Joseph's case were covered by the said judgment. Hence the Petitioners cannot
escape but are bound by the said judgment. Their seeking writ of mandamus for
issuance of mark sheets and/or diplomas/certificates contrary to the said
judgment, that too after a period of six years, could not be granted by the
High Court and rightly so in our opinion. We are of the considered opinion that
before teachers are allowed to teach innocent children, they must receive
appropriate and adequate training in a recognized training institute satisfying
the prescribed norms, otherwise standard of education and career of children
will be jeopardized. In most civilized and advanced countries, job of a teacher
in primary school is considered important and crucial one because moulding of
young minds begins in primary schools.
Allowing
ill-trained teachers coming out of derecognised or unrecognized institutes or
licensing them to teach the children of impressionable age, contrary to the
norms prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself in
the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers and
educational institutions also play vital role. In cases like these, interest of
individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to larger public interest. Thus
considering all relevant aspects, Petitioners' prayers cannot be granted. Hence
we do not find any substance in the second contention urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
In the
light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in these petitions.
Hence these are dismissed but without costs.
Back
