Holding

Students of unrecognised institutions cannot be permitted to appear in public examinations; courts cannot grant relief that violates statutory requirements even on humanitarian grounds.

Summary

The State of Tamil Nadu had several teacher‑training institutions that applied for recognition from the Education Department but none were granted it. The institutions filed writ petitions seeking statutory recognition and a direction that their students be allowed to sit the public examinations. The Madras High Court Full Bench held that without recognition the students could not appear, yet on humanitarian grounds ordered a supplementary examination; the Division Bench affirmed this. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that students of unrecognised institutions have no legal right to appear in public exams and that courts cannot grant relief contrary to law, even on humanitarian grounds. It further clarified that while Article 30 guarantees minorities the right to establish institutions, it does not compel the State to permit exam participation without recognition and compliance with prescribed conditions. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court orders set aside and the writ petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether students of unrecognised educational institutions can be permitted to appear in public examinations.
Whether courts may grant relief on humanitarian grounds that contravenes statutory provisions.
Whether Article 30 of the Constitution confers a right on minority institutions to have their students sit public examinations without state recognition.
Whether the High Court’s directions for a supplementary examination were legally valid.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Education Acts. 9

Subjects

Article 30minority rightsrecognition of educational institutionspublic examinationshumanitarian reliefrule of lawteachers training instituteeducation law

Judgment

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. A
v.
ST. JOSEPH .TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE
ANO ANR. ETC. .

APRIL 8, 1991
B
[K.N. SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 30--Minority Community~
Establishing and administering educational institution-Fundamental
right of-Conditions prescribed for recognition-Necessary for main-
taining educational standard-Not complying with the same-No right to C
insist upon State to allow its students to appear in public examination.

Practice and Procedure: Courts-Relief on humanitarian grounds
-Grant of-Not to be contrary to law.

In the appellant State, there were number of educational institu- D
tions running teachers training courses. Recognition was not accorded to
some institutions 11s they did not fulitl the conditions. In other cases, the
recognition was under consideration. Admittedly, none· of the res-
pondent-institutions was accorded recognition.

Since the Education Department did not permit their students to E
appear at the Public Examination, the respondent-institutions filed a
Writ Petition before the Jligh Court praying for direction to the
appellant-State to recognise the institutions and also for a direction
permitting their students to appear at the Public Examination.

Following the decision of the Full-Bench in similar cases, the Divi- F
sion Bench directed the appellant-State to arrange for supplementary
examination in respect of the students of the respondent-institutions.

Against the said Judgment the State has preferred these appeals,
by special leave.
G
Allowing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1.1. In the absence of recognition from the Education
Department the students pursuing their studies in such Institution could
not appear at the public examination held by the Education Department.
The Full Bench rightly held that students of unrecognised educational H

231
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A institntions 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. The Full Bench's directions permitting
the students to appear at the examination and directing the appellant
authorities to make a special provision for supplementary examination
were unauthorised and wholly unjustified. [234E-G]
B
1.2. The Court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey
the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. Courts cannot
grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since
the Division Bench issued the said orders following the Judgment of the
Full Bench, the orders are not sustainable in law.
c Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1986[ (Suppl.) SCC
166 and A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh & Anr., [1986] 2 SCC 667, relied on.

2.1. Under Article 30 of the Constitution minorities based on
D religion or language, have fundamental freedom to establish educational
institutions of their own choice, but the State has the 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
E recognition and in that event the minority institution has to follow the
prescribed syllabus for examination, courses of study and other allied
matters. These conditions are necessary to be followed to ensure effi-
ciency and educational standard in minority institutions. [235C-F]

2.2 Even if a minority community has fundamental right to
F establish and administer educational institution, it has no right to insist
upon the State to allow its students to appear at the public examination
without recognition or without complying with the conditions prescribed
for such recognition. [236A-B]

All Bihar Christian Schools Association & Anr. v. State of Bihar &
G Ors., [1988] 1SCC206, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1761-62 of 1991

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.90 of the Madras High
H Court in C.M.P. Nos. 10274 and 10275 of 90.
STATE OF TAMILNADU v. TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE 233

WITH
A
C.A. Nos. 1763-18of 1991.

V. Krishnamurthy for the Appellants.

Mrs. N. Chidambaram, K. Parasaran, M.N. Krishnamani, G.
B
Srinivasan, B. Rabu Manohar G. Vi jay Anand, V. Balachandran and
Ajit K. Sinha for the Respondents.

°"I
The following Order of the Court was delivered:

Leave granted.
c
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 gther 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
D
--(
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 Institu- E
tions 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 F
referred the matter to Full Bench.

~ The Full Bench considered the question: "Whether the students
of unrecognised Educational Institutions can be permitted to write the
r public examinations held by the Government." The Full Bench on an
G
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
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

petitioners" issued directions to the State Government and the Educa-
A tion Department on humanitarian grounds directing them to hold sup-
plementary examination for enabling the students of the concerned -l
unrecognised Institutions to appear at the examination with a condition
that the declaration of their result will be subject to the ultimate settle-
ment of the question of recognition. With these directions the Full
B Bench disposed of the writ petitions before it by its order dated
24.7.1990.

The writ petitions out of which the present appeals have arisen
were filed by the unrecognised Educational Institutions. These peti-
tions were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench following the decision of the Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 2712
c of 1990 and other connected matters (Fathima Secondary Grade
Teachers Training Institute v. Commissioner and Secretary to Govern-
ment, Education Department), issued similar directions permitting the
students to appear at the examination and ditecting the State Govern-
ment to arrange for supplementary examination to enable the students
D to appear at that examination. These appeals are directed against the
order of the Division Bench.

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
E 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
F 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
G authorities to inake a special provision for supplementary examination.
These directions in our opinion were unauthorised and wholly
unjustified. ·

The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational
Institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to
H appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court.
STATE OF TAMILNADU v. TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE 235

In Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [ 1986] Suppl. SCC 166
A
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 anauthorised
institutions. The Court declared that the. Jurisdiction of this Court
~~ under Article 32 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Cons ti tu-
ti on should not be frittered away for such of purpose. In A. P. Christians B
Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.,
[ 1986] 2 sec 667 a similar request made on behalf of the institution
t\· and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even
~ though affiliation had not been granted, wa.s rejected by this Court. The
t v
'• 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 elem· transgression of the provision c
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 can not
__, grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since D
the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to
-{ appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the
.. J 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 E
judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in
law.
-~-- Smt. Nalini Chidambaram contended that under Section 9 of the
Tamil Nadu Act a minority community is entitled to establish an educa-
tional institution without obtaining permission from the Government F
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 funda-
mental 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 recogni- G
tion 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
'i'> 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 neces-
sary to be followed to ensure efficiency and educational standard in H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 2 S.C.R.

A minority institutions. See: All Bihar Christian Schools Association &
Anr. v. StateofBihar& Ors., [1988] lS.C.C. 206. Weare, 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 pres-
,,..,
!'''
8 . cribed for such recognition.

We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the order of the
High Court and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the responents. There
will be no order as to costs ..

G.N. Appeals allowed.

•