Holding

Passing a public examination is not sufficient for a teacher‑training diploma; candidates must also complete training in a recognised institute, and therefore are entitled only to the declaration of results, not to mark sheets or diplomas.

Summary

The petitioners had undergone teacher‑training courses in institutes that were recognised at the time of their public examinations in 1992, but the institutes were later de‑recognised. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to publish their results and issue mark sheets or diplomas. The High Court had held that only the declaration of results was available, not the issuance of certificates, and the Supreme Court affirmed this view. Relying on P.M. Joseph’s case and St. John’s Teachers Training Institute judgment, the Court held that passing a public examination alone is insufficient; proper training in a recognised institute is a prerequisite for a valid diploma. Consequently, the petitioners were entitled only to the publication of results and not to any mark sheets or diplomas, and their petitions were dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether candidates who passed the teacher‑training public examination are entitled to mark sheets or diplomas when the institute of training has been de‑recognised after the examination.
Whether denial of diplomas constitutes unfair or discriminatory treatment violating the petitioners' rights.
Whether the public interest in maintaining standards of teacher training outweighs the individual claim to certificates.

Subjects

teacher trainingrecognitionde‑recognitionpublic interestmandamuswrit petitioneducation standardsdiploma issuance

Judgment

A L. MUTHUKUMAR AND ANR. ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2000

B [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]

Education.

Teachers training-Public examination-De-recognition of institutes
C in which training undertakeii-Results not declared and mark sheets/diplomas
not issued-Writ petition by candidates-Dismissed by single Judge-On
appeal, Division Bench of High Court holding that candidates only entitled
to declaration of results but ·not entitled to get mark sheets/dip/omas-
'"
Validity ·of-Held, mere passing of public examination is not enough and it
D must be coupled with proper training in a recognised institute-Thus,
candidates rightly held not entitled to issuance of mark sheets/diplomas.

Teachers-Standard of-Public interest-Held, must be preferred above
the interest of individuals-Allowing ill trained teachers from de-recognised
or un-recognised institutes to teach children would be detrimental to the
E interest of nation building.

Petitioners underwent teacher training from different institutes and
took public examination. But their results were not declared and mark sheets/
diplomas were not issued tO them since the institutes in which they underwent
F training were de-recognised in view of judgment of High Court in P.M Joseph's
case. Aggrieved, petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court which
were dismissed by single Judge. On appeal, Division Bench holding that the
candidates were only entitled to get the results declared but not entitled to
get mark sheets/diploma~, dismissed the appeals. Hence the present petitions.

G On behalf of petitioners it was contended that since they have undergone
the training course in the institutions, which had recognition on the date of
public examination, they .could not be denied mark sheets/diplomas merely ,-
on the ground that those institutes were de-recognised by virtue of a decision
rendered by the High Co~rt subseque~f fo the public examination; that the
treatment of the respondents was unfair and discriminatory since few others
I-I 462
L. MUTHUKUMAR v. STATE 463

similarly placed, have been given diplomas/certificates although with an A
endorsement that they have undergone training in on-recognised institutes.

-
Dismissing the petitions, the Court

HELD : 1 Mere passing of public examination in teachers training is
not enough. It must be coupled with proper training in a recognised institute B
in order to get meaningful and purposeful results. Thus, High Court was
justified in holding 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, they were not
entitled for issuance of mark sheets or diplomas. [471-B; 469-G] C
St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for women). Madurai and others
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [1993) 3 SCC 595, relied on.

*P.M Joseph v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1993) WLR 604; D.
Balamurugan and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1998) 1 MLJ D
663 and The Director of School Education v. A. Dennis Lilly Burk Mary and
Ors., (1998) 3 Law Weekly 7 S.N., approved.

Jhansi Rani and Ors. v. The Secretary, The Director of Government
Examinations, Chennai and Ors., (1998) 2 MLJ 281, distinguished.
E
2. Petitioners were not entitled to grant of diplomas/certificates with

- an endorsement that they have undergone training in on-recognised institutes.
The institutes where the petitioners underwent training which were de-
recognised 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 F
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, was rightly rejected by the High Court. [472-D, E]

3. Before teachers are allowed to teach innocent children, they must
receive appropriate and adequate training in a recognised training institute G
satisfying the prescribed norms, otherwise standard of education and career
of children will be jeopardized. In most civilised 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 de-recognised or on-recognised institutes or licensing
them to teach the children of impressionable age, contrary to the norms H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A ·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 e~ucational
institutions also play vital role. In cases like these, interest of individuals
cannot be placed a.hove or preferred to larger public interest. [472-F-H)

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.
17554-55 of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.1999 of the Madras High Court
in W.A. Nos. 1707-08of1999.

c WITH

SLP (C) No. 16421 of2000

WITH

D SLP (C) No. 8284 of2000

WITH

SLP (C) No. 8319 of2000
E
V. Prabhakar, A. Radhakrishnan, Revathy Raghavan, G. Sivabalamurugan,
V.N. Reghupathy, Ms. Aruna Mathur and A. Mariarputham for the appearing
parties. i

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. Since these petitions raise common questions
based on similar set of facts they are being disposed of by this common
judgment.

G 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
H were not awarded. The institutes in which they had undergone training
L. MUTHUKUMAR v. STATE [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 465

course had recognition but the same was withdrawn subsequently. The learned A
single Judge dismissed the writ petitions following the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court in P.M Joseph v. 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 B
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 C
institutions, which had recognition on :the date of public
examination, could not be deprived of their right to obtain mark
sheets aad 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. D
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. E
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 F
Division Bench of the High Court in para 11 has stated thus: -

"I I. 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 G
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 Governl)lent
is representing the State as first respondent and the Director of
-----
1. 1993 WLR 604 H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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,
B who are before us, would not have been bold ~nough to pass such
orders in utter violation of the provisions ofG.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.Ms. Thus, the Government, to say the least,
played havoc in the matter of Teacher Training Education and ruined
c 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."
D As is evident from the paragraph 14 of the same judgment that a contention
similar to the contention No. l, 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
E
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 set out in
F 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
G
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
H dismissed W.M.P. 13729 of 1992 filed by the pet!tioner for injunction
L. MUTHUKUMAR v. STATE [SHIVARAJV. PATIL, J.] 467
restraining the publication of results of the examinations held in May, A
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 12840of1992 restraining
the respondents from issuing certificates to the candidates who wrote
the examinations until further orders while permitting them to declare B
the results of the examinations. Jn 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),
c
Madurai and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others 1 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: -
D
"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 NM Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (1986) E
Supp SCC I 66 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 F
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 G
Educational Society v. Director of School Education & Ors., J.T.
{l 988) 4 S.C. 431 observed as under:

·"Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role

1. (1993) 3 sec 595.
H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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 iii trained or sub- standard teachers
would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a
punishment on our children. The Government and the University
D 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
(l 992) 5 S.C. 175, K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for this Court observed
as under:
E
"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
F 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. l
G 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
-
'
I

needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative
H training in the training colleges or schools wo~ld inspire and
L. MUTHUKUMAR v. STATE [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.) 469

motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For A
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 B
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, C
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 D
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."
E
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 above mentioned, 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 F
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 G
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. II
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. ·3 S.C.R.

A 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 Ors.
v. The Secretary, The Director of Government Examinations, Chennai and
Ors. 1• 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
B 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
Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2 delivered judgment on 19th January,
1998 following the case of P.M Joseph (supra) rejecting the prayer of the
C petitioners to issue mark sheet and diploma.
Yet in the case· of The Director of School Education v. A. Dennis Lilly
Burk Mary and others3 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
D 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
E 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 rootn 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,
F 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.
G
The petitioners can only get at the hands of the Court, direction to
the respondents to publish the results and nothing more. In other

1. 1998 (2) MLJ 281.
2. 1998 (I) MLJ 663
H 3. 1998 (3) LW Weekly 7S.N.
L. MUTHUKUMAR v. STATE [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 471

words, as observed by the Division Bench, it is made clear that the A
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. B
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, C
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 D
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/ E
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 F
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 G
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 H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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."
B
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)
C aforementioned no mark sheet or diploma/certificate can be issued. Further
two special leave petitions filed against the same J.idgment of the High Court
(SLP No. 10110/93 and 9421193) 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
D 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
E training which were de-recognized by virtue ofjudgment 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
F 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
G 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
H preferred to larger public interest. Thus considering all relevant aspects,
L. MUTHUKUMAR v. STATE [SHIVARAJV. PATIL, J.] 473

Petitioners' prayers cannot be granted. Hence we do not find any substance A
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.

S.VKL Petitions dismissed. B