Rohini Education Society vs National Council For Teachers ...
1997 Latest Caselaw 473 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present judgment will dispose of two writ petitions C.W.P.No.4538/96 (Rohini Education Society vs. national Council for Teachers Education & C.W.P. No. 1949/96 (Seema Mathur and others v. National Council for Teachers Education and others). The first petition was filed inter alia for the relief that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated June 14, 1996 passed by respondent No. 2 refusing recognition for Elementary Teachers Education Course (for short ETE) as well as for quashing the Order dated 20th September, 1996 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner society. The impugned orders are filed as Annexure P-44 and P-46 respectively.

(2) The second petition C.W.No.1949/96 was filed earlier in point of time by the students who have been enrolled with the Rohini Education Society (hereinafter referred to as `the society') for quashing the action of the respondents in denying them permission to appear in the second semester examination of Ete Course (Academic year 1995-96) and for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit them to appear in the above said course. Notice was issued in this writ petition but interim relief was declined by an order passed by this Court on May 14, 1996 which may be reproduced as under: @SUBPARA = "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have prayed that they may be allowed to appear in the Second Semester Examination of Elementary Teachers Education Course (Academic Year 1995-96) starting from 15th May, 1996 provisionally till disposal of the petition. The Institute, Rohini Educational Society where the petitioners are studying is not yet recognised and the matter is pending for consideration before respondent No. 1. The said respondent has issued show cause on 11 May, 1996 (Annexure P-12 to the petition). The said Institution (Rohini Educational Society) had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4512/95 which was disposed of by this Court by a detailed judgment rendered on February 6, 1996. The learned Judge even at that stage had directed that it was only after the recognition was accorded to the Institute that the students would be allowed to appear in the examination. The recognition is yet to be granted by the respondents and in view of the settled law, as reported in the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 166 and St. John's Teacher Training Institute (for women), etc, etc, v. The State of Tamil Nadu & others etc, etc. , no interim relief can be granted to the petitioners and they cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. The application is accordingly dismissed."

Subsequently, the passing of the order on May 14, 1996 respondent No. 2 considered the pleas of the petitioners for recognition of their society for conducting the course as referred to above and rejected the prayer by an order made on June 14, 1996 for the following reasons:

"(I)The Institution does not possess any land.

(II)Teaching has been done without the use of the teaching learning materials which is against the principles of good teaching.

(III)The Institution has utterly inadequate number of regular staff-three teachers and no principal for 100 pupils admitted-resulting in a very high teacher pupil ratio of 1:33 instead of 1:12, as per the prescribed norms and thereby adversely affecting.

(IV)The Institution has admitted students in the Ett Course (1995-96) in violation of procedure, eligibility criteria and total strength in the first year, prescribed by the Govt. of Nct, Delhi and in the norms laid down by the NCTE. The Institution admitted 100 pupils in the first year course against the prescribed 50 pupils, admitted eight students who secured less than 50% marks in 10+2 examination in did not hold any selection test for admission.

Besides, Institution is paying salary to the staff in cash and not through cheques. The Institution which was apprised of this deficiency as contained in the report of the visiting team did not furnish any reply. Thus even the functioning of this institution does not inspire confidence.

Nowtherefore, it is hereby ordered that recognition to Geeta Rattan Jindal Elementary Teacher Training Institute, New Delhi be refused.

ALSO ordered that a copy of this order be published in the Official Gazette."

(3) THE Society filed the statutory appeal under Section 18(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The said appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority and the refusal of recognition was upheld. The following reasons were given in support of the rejection:

"I)The Appellant claims that the Government of Nct, Delhi having satisfied that there was separate accommodation exit and entrance and these being the only condition imposed by that government for the Ntt, granted permission for running Ett course; the application form, other guidelines and instructions circulated by the Ncte did not mention that the Etti should have separate land of its own and the inspection team was satisfied that sufficient and suitable accommodation was available to the ETTI. The actual position is that the Ett course is being run in the Senior Secondary School building, the land for which apparently (the Appellant not having a copy of the letter allocating the land at the time of his appearance for representation) was allotted by the concerned authorities for a specific institution. The Ncte norms and form prescribed by it mentioned about the requirement of possession of land by the concerned institute at several places leaving no doubt about its implication and importance. The inspection team has come to an unequivocal conclusion that the institution does not possess any land of its own. In the standard norms of recognition enclosed to the letter No. ZXIII/839 dated the 23rd June, 1995 from the Deputy Director of Education, Govt. of Nct of Delhi addressed to the Appellant, wherein Essentiality Certificate to establish an Ete Institute was granted, the first requirement is adequate land. It is, therefore, established that the institute does not possess any land, a requirement for the grant of recognition.

(II)The Appellant claims that since special care was taken in the maintenance of teaching-learning equipment it looks fresh and unused giving a wrong impression. It is noted that besides the observations of the inspection team about non-utilisation of the equipment procured, the inspection team of Delhi Scert, which visited the institute on the 31st October 1995 (copy of the observations of the team having been enclosed to the appeal) also did not specifically make any reference to the use of any equipment in teaching the classes. What is important is not procurement of equipment as such, but its actual utilisation and use in the class room on which the inspection team gave its view after an the spot inspection of the institute. This deficiency is therefore established.

(III)The Appellant's claim that they have eight teachers in position exclusively for Etti on the basis of copies of appointment letters enclosed to the appeal and payment of salaries register shown in the course of personal representation seems correct. However, the deficiency relating to the absence of an exclusive principal for the Etti still persists. A principal for the Etti is a requirement in accordance with the NCTE's Norms for recognition. @SUBPARA = (iv) The Appellant's claim that the admission of 100 students in the academic session 1995-96 and holding of admission test was in the full knowledge of the Govt. of Nct, Delhi, who did not raise any objection seems to be correct. However, the appellant has violated its own prescribed norm of admitting students with a minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate in Senior Secondary (10+2) examination. The applicability of an order of the Delhi High Court regarding the powers of the Director of Education in matters of admission to the Nursery Teachers' Training Course, to the present case raised by the Appellant does not therefore arise. The Appellant had admitted as many as 8 students in Etti course who secured less than 50% marks in 10+2 examination in violation of its own prescribed norms. This is also in violation of NCTE's norms.

TAKING an overview of the matters, even though possession and fulfilllment of norms is an important and essential preliminary to the granting of recognition, these cannot by themselves constitute the sole criteria for grant of recognition. It is not a matter of right for an institution to claim recognition because it has fulfillled all the physical norms. In the context of the statutory mandate given to the Ncte for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education system and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system, one of the important steps in the process of recognition is an on the spot visit of an expert team to see not only the fulfilllment of physical requirements but also the academic and pedagogical attainment and environment that the institute provides."

(4) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends as follows:

(A)The society has been issued `Essentiality Certificate' under Rule 44 of the lhi School Education Rules, 1973 for opening a Institute vide order dated June 23, 1995. The reading of the order will indicate that the permission was granted to run the Institute for a period of three years with effect from the date of issuance of this certificate i.e. June 23, 1995. The students were admitted on that assurance, therefore, the Institute as established by the Society could not be wound up prior to the expiry of the period of three years as it will be violative of the provisions of Section 14(5) of the Act as every Institution which is subsequently refused recognition shall only discontinue the course from the end of academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition. This interpretation of the provision is reasonable, logical and will save the careers of students who have already since been admitted for the course on the basis of the communication dated June 23, 1995. There are large number of candidates which have been admitted and cited at pages 92 to 96 (Annexure P.28 to the writ petition). The list has been approved and signed by the Education Officer, Department of Education, Delhi Administration.

(B)The impugned orders refusing recognition are based on malafide, extraneous and illegal grounds and cannot be sustained. For example, there is no requirement of law that the petitioner Society must own land which is one of the considerations for not according recognition. The Act does not provide any such condition.

(5) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents had vehemently argued that the norms for recognition in respect of Elementary Teachers Education (ETE) course have been carefully framed and examined by the concerned body and it will not be open for this Court to reconsider and reappraise the whole issue on facts to arrive at a decision contrary to the one as approved by an Expert Body. In any case, following flaws have been pointed out with regard to the factors which have culminated in the passing of the impugned order:

(A)The possession of land by the Institution is a policy decision which will only imply that there is sufficient space to conduct classes and for involving the students in extra-curricular activities. The only land which is available with the petitioner is one which is being already used for running its Senior Secondary School. In view of this, the petitioner society has applied to Delhi Development Authority for allotment of land which will indicate that sufficient land is not in possession of the petitioner for continuance of the course.

(B)The Institution has admitted students in Ett course 1995-96 in violation of the recognised procedure and eligibility criteria. There was no written test and 100 candidates were admitted in the first year against the prescribed 50 candidates and 8 students were admitted who secured less than 50 per cent marks in 10+2 examination.

(C)The evaluation of the Experts, such as, that the teaching has been done without the use of the teaching learning materials and there are inadequate number of regular staff has been examined on the basis of available material on record and there is no ground to make a contrary assessment.

(6) AT this stage, the relevant provisions of the Act may be reproduced. Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act read as follows:

"14.(1)Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such from and in such manner as may be determined by regulations.

Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.

(2)The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3)On receipt of an application by the regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall-

(A)if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or

(B)if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing: PROVIDED that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall proved a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation.

(4)Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.

(5)Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).

(6)Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),-

(A)grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or

(B)cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.

15(1)Where any recognised institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefor to the Regional committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations.

(2)The fees to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3)On receipt of an application from an institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the recognised institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall,-

(A)if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or

(B)if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing:

PROVIDED that before passing an order refusing permission under sub-class (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written representation.

(4)Every order granting or refusing permission to a recognised institution for a new course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such recognised institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority, the State Government and the Central Government.

16.Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall on or after the appointed day,-

(A)grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or

(B)hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15."

(7) IT is established from reading of the above provisions that an elaborate procedure has been prescribed by the Act to consider the case of recognition which is to be examined by an Expert Committee. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act will indicate that "National Council for Teacher Education" has to be established to examine such matters which has been so established by Notification issued on 17th August, 1995 by the Central Government. The reading of this Notification will show that 43 members have already been nominated who are Experts in the field of education.

(8) THE composition of the Regional Committee in terms of the Notification mentioned above under Section 23 of the Act was made on February 6, 1996 and Office Order in this regard reads as follows:

"NOFF-29-3/95 Ncte National Council For Teacher Education Bharat Scouts Building 16, I.P.ESTATE Ring Road New DELHI-110 002 February 6, 1996

OFFICEORDER

IN pursuance of Notification No.F.8-9/95 Ncte dated 13 December, 1995 and Notification No. F.28-14/95-NCTE dated 22 January, 1996, the National Council for Teacher Education hereby constitutes in terms of section 20(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993, the Northern Regional Committee as under:

1.Composition & Membership Constituency

A)Member to be nominated by the council Name of the member Smt. Sharada Jain Sandhan Research Centre, C-196, Van Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004

B)One representative each of the States & Union Territories of the Region as determined by the Regulation viz., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh Chandigarh and Delhi.

c) Six persons to be nominated as determined by the Regulations.

1.Prof. S.N.Singh 66, Brahmananad Colony, Varanasi : 221 005

2.Prof. R.N.Mehrotra 3/189, Prem Nagar, Agra: 282 003.

3.Prof. M.A.Khader Regional Institute Education, (NCERT), Ajmer.

4.Shri Chatar Singh Mehta, Quarter No.1 Inside Darbar School, Near Gopi Nath Marg, Jaipur.

5.Dr. J.N.Joshi Department of Education, Punjab University, Chandigharh, Punjab

6.Prof. C.L.Kundu Vice Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University, Summer Hills, Shimla

THE meeting of the Committee was held in Jaipur on May 11, 1996. The minutes of the meeting as translated in English may be reproduced as under:

"MINUTESOF IInd Meeting Of NRC/NCTE, Jaipur Dt 11.5.96

S.No.4

TO consider Recognition of Geeta Rattan Jindal Elementary Teachers Training Institute (Rohini Educational Society) Delhi and Lovely Teachers Training Institute, Delhi.

A)The application form for E.T.T. of Geeta Rattan Jindal Elementary Teachers Training Institute, Delhi, report of the inspection team, copies of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and other orders along with Circulars were laid down by the convener before the Committee for observation. The members took the matter seriously and noted:

1.As per norms, for 100 students there should be 1 Principal & 8 teachers. The institute does not have regular Principal & has only three teachers. The institute has shown in the application form the names of teachers, who are appointed for other training institute and cannot be considered as employees of the institute. the names of seven teachers shown as employed teachers in the application form submitted by the institute in Feb. 96 for recognition, were not listed during the inspection. Instead of them 4 teachers appointed in a different institute of the same society were listed and also one teacher on the list was appointed in the same institute on 19th March, 1996. In this way, the teacher pupil ratio becomes 1:33 which is higher than 1:12 mentioned in the norms. (Though the number of teachers mentioned earlier was 3).

2.There is a provision in the norms that the rate of fee charged by the institute should be recommended by the Education Department of the corresponding state. The institute advertised the fee @ Rs. 300.00 P.M. i.e. Rs. 3,600.00 per annum at the time of admission in the admission form, while mentioned the tuition fee of Rs. 12,000.00 per student per annum in the application form, submitted for Recognition.

THE instituted did not produce any letter consisting the approved rate of fee by Director of the State govt. no details of income and expenditure of the institute was presented before the inspection team.

THEinstitute has not presented any record of income & expenditure for the year 1995-96, therefore, it cannot be decided whether the expenditure of the Primary Teacher Education Institute is in accordance with the norms or not. It is obvious that the institute is being run only for commercial benefits.

3.Before the existence of Ncte, the Government of N.C.T., Delhi issued the essentiality certificate to the institution. According to the decisions of Delhi Govt., 50 students were to be admitted for Ist year but the institute gave admission to 100 students instead of 50. It is to be noted that there is a provision for admitting only 50 students for Ist year course even in DIETs run by the State Govt.

4.There is a provision in the norms of the State Govt. to admit only those students who have secured 50% or more marks in the Senior Secondary Examination and the admission will be given strictly on the basis of merit but the institute violated the norms and gave admissions to the students who were not eligible for admission while neglected the students with merit. Some such examples are given:

A.Ms.Harsh Mehandi Ratta (203)- 42.8%

B.Ms.Seema (233)- 40.5%

C.Ms.Geeta Beniwal (238)- 48%

D.Ms.Rajni (378)- 48%

E.Ms.Pashi (155)- 48%

F.Ms.Kumud Kohli (032)- 44%

G.Ms.Sunita(371)- 47%

H.Ms.Peeta Malik(374)- 43%

5.As far as the question of rooms and building according to the norms is concerned the elementary teachers training institute has no separate building. The rooms for classes have been provided in the Sr. Secondary School building. Remaining playground, library, reading room, laboratory, workshop, assembly hall, staff room, art room etc. are common with the Sr. Secondary School. There is no hostel for teacher education unit. There is no provision for residence of the Principal or the teachers. There is sufficient furniture in the class rooms.

6.As far as the equipments are concerned, the inspection team has written that they are available but does not show any sign of being used as they seem to be new.

THUS it has been decided that-

A.The institute does not fulfill the norms laid down by the Act and regulations for recognition. Therefore, it should be given 15 days time to clarify its position in writing regarding the following deficiencies:

I)It has utterly inadequate number of regular staff, resulting in a very high teacher pupil ratio.

II)Fee- Structure is not approved by the Govt. of Nct, Delhi Tuition fee has been charged exorbitantly, which is even in contravention to the institution's own arrangement of its prospectus.

III)Students have been admitted without following proper procedure as prescribed by the Govt. of Nct Delhi. Eligibility criteria has also not been followed.

IV)Admissions have been made twice the number of the approved seats in the first year.

V)Students have undergone training so far without the help of equipments and other teaching learning materials.

B.The matter shall be placed before the next meeting to be held on 8th June 1996 for further decision in both cases i.e. whether we get a clarification reply or not."

THE ultimate decision was taken on June 8, 1996 when the impugned order was passed.

(9) THE reading of the above will clearly indicate that the petitioner society did not fulfill the relevant criteria for according of recognition and, therefore, its application was rejected. The matter has been examined by an Expert Committee and it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the evidence and material on record to arrive at a contrary view particularly when an adequate opportunity has been granted and no fault can be found in the decision making process. The petitioner society has failed to satisfy the norms as considered necessary for recognition. These matters are to be examined by an Expert Body and this Court is only expected to examine the decision making process and not with reviewing the merits of the decision. The law is well settled in this regard. (Tata Cellular v. Union of India ).

(10) IN Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. Paragraph 29 from this judgment may be reproduced as follows: "FAR from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case."

(11) THE Supreme Court also dealt with the consideration of applications for grant of permission and recognition to Private Teachers Training Institutes in N.M.Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 166 wherein it was held that the Court cannot direct the Government to allow the student who had undergone training for one year course in unauthorised and unrecognised private institutions to appear at the Examination. This case dealt with the powers in this regard. The operative operation of paragraph 3 of the judgment reads as under: "IT was argued that the students of the institute in which she had undergone training were permitted in previous years to appear at the government examination and as in previous years she may be allowed to appear at the examination this year. A similar request was made by Shri Garg that the students who have undergone training for the one year course in these private institutions may be allowed to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that permission might not be accorded to them. We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these Institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the government. If by a fiat of the Court we direct the government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. 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. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs."

(12) THE above view was approved in St.John's Teachers Training Institute (For women) Madurai and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others . The Court in this case also declined even to grant any relief to the students who had already taken examination and were denied issuance of certificates as the Institute which sponsored them was not recognised. The Court categorically decried the practice of Courts to issue interim directions permitting the students to appear in the examination before the Institutes are recognised Paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of this judgment read as follows:

"18.It has come to the notice of this Court that many institutions claiming themselves to be minority institutions within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32 for a writ of mandamus to recognise the institutions in question as minority institutions and pending the final disposal of such applications, an interim direction is sought to allow the students of such institutions to appear at the examinations concerned. In connection with such interim prayer, this Court in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. Said :(SCC p.678, para 10) "SHRIK.K.Venugopal, learned counsel for the students who have been admitted into the Mbbs course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct for folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance that students of the medical college established by the Dat-US-Salam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not be then been granted by the University, Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws."

IN view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court, the High Court should not have passed, interim order directing the respondents to allow the teachers of unrecognised institutions to appear at the examinations in question. Such teachers cannot derive any benefit on basis of such interim orders, when ultimately the main writ applications have been dismissed by the High Court, which order is being affirmed by this Court. The same view has been expressed by this Court, in connection with the minority unrecognised Teachers Training Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu itself, in the case of State of T.N. v. St.Josheph Teachers Training Institute. As such no equity or legal right can be pleaded on behalf of the teachers admitted for training by such minority institutions, for publication of their results, because they were allowed to appear at the examination concerned, during the pendency of the writ applications before the High Court, on the basis of interim orders passed by the High Court; which were in conflict with the view expressed by this Court in the aforesaid cases.

19.We see no ground to differ with the view taken by the High Court. This Court in N.M.Nageshwaramma case had held that training in a properly organized 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.

BEFORE we part, with this judgment, we consider it necessary to strike a note of caution in respect of passing of interim orders by Courts directing the students of unrecognised institutions, to appear at the examinations concerned. In view of the series of judgments of this Court, the Courts should not issue fiat to allow the students of unrecognised institutions to appear at the different examinations pending the disposal of the writ applications. Such interim orders affect the careers of several students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to the authorities who have to comply with such directions of the Court. It is a matter of common knowledge that as a part of strategy, such writ applications for directions to recognise the institutions in question and in the meantime to allow the students to appear at the examinations are filed only when the dates for examinations are notified. Many of such institutions are not only "masked phantoms" but are established as business ventures for admitting substandard students without any competitive tests, on basis of considerations which cannot even the interest of the minority. There is no occasion for the Courts to be liberal or generous, while passing interim orders, when the main writ applications have been filed only when the dates for the examination have been announced. In this process, students without knowing the design of the organisers of such institutions, become victim of their manipulations."

(13) THE facts of the present case may now be examined. The petitioner Society admittedly is not a recognised Institute and its application has since been rejected by respondent No. 1 for the reasons which have been indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. The statutory appeal has also been dismissed. The plea that both the Authorities have not applied their mind and the decision is based on malafide and extraneous consideration cannot be justified from the facts which emerge on the basis of the reading of the impugned orders.

(14) THE question now arises as to whether the Authorities have exceeded their powers, committed an error of law or violated the rules of natural justice or in any manner, abused their powers. The impugned orders of respondent No. 1 as well as of the Appellate Authority do not indicate that the decision is illegal or is arrived at on mala fide and extraneous considerations. The overall assessment of facts will establish that the decision in this case cannot be termed as a decision which no reasonable authority would have reached. There has been proper application of mind and broad facts have been brought to the notice of the petitioners by the Authorities and it is also stated at the Bar by the learned counsel that the petitioners shall be at liberty to satisfy the requirements for recognition and reapply and their application will be considered again in accordance with law and with an open mind. The plea that since the petitioner Society was issued essentiality certificate on June 23, 1995 and the courses at the Institute cannot be discontinued for a period of 3 years as stated in the Communication dated June 23, 1995, is equally without any basis. The provisions of the Act have to be read in a harmonious manner and sub-section (5) of Section 14 does not support the contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The issuance of essentiality certificate under rule 44 of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 for opening an Institute will clearly be a separate issue and it cannot be urged that the course must be permitted to continue till the end of the academic session next following the date of order refusing recognition. The reading of the letter dated June 23, 1995 will clearly show that it merely permitted the society to establish a new Ete Institute and this certificate was limited for a period of 3 years which will imply that during this period the Institute could be established and necessary recognition could be obtained. It conferred no rights on the petitioners as the Institute had not even been considered for recognition on that date. The Supreme Court has even warned the passing of the interim orders to allow the students of unrecognised Institutions to appear in the examination.

(15) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.