D. Balamurugan and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

S.S. Subramani, J.—Except in W.P. No. 18931 of 1997, in all the other writ petitions, petitioners were students of Fathima Teacher

Training Institute for Men, Ramanathapuram Educational District during 1988-90. They completed their Teacher Training Course and they wrote

their Examination in 1992. Since the petitioners did not get pass mark in all subjects, they appeared for examination held in 1992 and 1993,

Petitioner in W.P. No. 18812 of 1997 sat for the examination in July, 1993. The grievance of the petitioners is that their results have not been

published and certificates have not been issued.

In W.P. No. 18931 of 1997, petitioners who are six in number were students of Little Flower Teacher Training Institute, Pudukkotai, during

1989-91. Their Registration Numbers have been given in the affidavit. They wrote their Examination in May, 1992, and, for the failed subjects,

they wrote the Examination in July, 1993. Their grievance is that their results have not been published and certificates have not been issued.

In all these cases, learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that at the time when these petitioners got admitted in the Institutes, they were

recognized and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get their results declared, and they are also entitled to get their mark sheet and Diploma.

It is not disputed by learned Counsel that Institute in which they (petitioners) were studying were derecognised by virtue of the decision reported

in P.M. Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 Writ L.R. 604. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court, led by Srinivasan, J., as he then

was, held that the students who had already written the examination will be entitled only to have their results declared and they will not be entitled

to either mark sheet or Diploma certificate. In that case, the Division Bench further found that the recognition obtained by the Institute was not in

accordance with law. A reading of the judgment makes it clear that for some of Institutes recognition was granted even before an application was

made, and the Government was not following the proper procedure in granting recognition in any case.

Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the Judgment in P.M. Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 Writ L.R. 604 is not binding

on them, since petitioners herein were admitted even before the litigation started. The subject matter in all these writ petitions is regarding

recognition from 1991 onwards. I do not think, I should accept this submission of learned Counsel for petitioners in view of the binding precedent

which was brought to my notice by learned Additional Government Pleader (Education). In V. John Rajasekaran and 219 others v. The Director

of Teacher Education and Research Training, College Road, Madras 6 and Ors. W.P. No. 2519 of 1992 order dated 25.9.1997, a Division

Bench of this Court has met this argument. In that case, the students underwent the course in an Institute which as recognised in the year 1988

temporarily and the said recognition continued till 1994. Petitioners therein were not permitted to write the examination in April, 1992, and it was in

those circumstances, they filed the writ petition. The Division Bench met the argument advanced by learned Counsel for petitioners therein, after

taking mote of P.M. Joseph''s case, and held as follows:

... the only relief that can be given to the petitioners is that the respondents shall be directed to publish the results and not more than that. In other

words, the petitioners will not be issued with any certificates or diplomas relating to the Teacher Training Course.

That judgment has become final, in the sense that the same has been fully approved by the Supreme Court of India. In the Division Bench

Judgment, the learned Judges have further said thus:

... We have made a reference to this aspect of the case, while considering the case of two students of the very same school in W.A. No. 261 of

1997. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the students cannot get any better right than what was granted by the Division

Bench in 1993 WL.R. 604...

I also had occasion to consider a similar question in Private Teacher Training Institute Certificate not received. Students Association, etc. v. State

of Tamil Nadu, W.P. Nos. 11064 and 11065 of 1997 Order dated 12.9.1997, I have met the argument advanced by petitioners herein, in

paragraph 5 of my order thus:

The contention that at the time when they were admitted, there was recognition and the subsequent withdrawal of the recognition should not effect

their future, cannot be accepted. When the recognition has been found to be not validly obtained, it means that there is no recognition at all. The

court only declares that there is no recognition. The fact remains that these institutions were not recognised at all and the students also will not get

any benefit.

A reading of judgment in P.M. Joseph''s case shows that even though the subject matter of the writ petition was only recognition in the year 1991,

it shows the sorry state of affairs, and how the Teacher Training Institutes came to be established even without infrastructure, and even without

taking into consideration the guidelines, recognition was being issued as a matter of course. ''Recognition'' means recognition issued in accordance

with law after following the guidelines in respect of the same. The guidelines were thrown to. winds and recognitions were being purchased.

Therefore, I do not think that the argument of learned Counsel for petitioners could be accepted even for a moment.

Consequently, there will be a direction that the respondent shall publish the results of the petitioners within a period of three weeks. That is the

only relief to which petitioners are entitled in these writ petitions. The relief sought for in regard to issuance of mark sheet and diploma are rejected.

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. W.M.P. No. 29818 of 1997 for interim direction is closed.