Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VIKAS SAHEBRAO ROUNDALE AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1992
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 1926 1992 SCR (3) 792
1992 SCC (4) 435 JT 1992 (5) 175
1992 SCALE (2)163
ACT:
Article 226-III equipped under staffed unrecognised
educational institutions-Students admitted to D.Ed. course
in unrecognised institution-Held High Court committed
manifest error in exercising prerogative power to permit
appearance for examination.
HEADNOTE:
In the instant case the respondents were admitted to
D.Ed. Course by an unrecognised Vidhyalaya, when the
examinations were to commence from April 18th 1991, the
management finding it difficult to have them sit for the
examination encouraged the respondents to tap the doors of
the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench to seek directions
to permit them to appear in the examination to be held on
18th April, 1991. The Division Bench directed the appellant
i.e., the State of Maharashtra to permit the respondents to
sit in the examination for the first year commencing from
April 18, 1991 and after their passing the examination, the
passed candidates should be allocated seats in a recognised
institution to prosecute their further courses. Assailing
the legality thereof this appeal has been filed in this
court.
Granting Special leave, the Court
HELD: That this court has judicially noticed mushroom
growth of ill equipped and under staffed unrecognised
institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and
Maharashtra States inparticular, though other states too are
of no exception. Obviously the field of education is found
to be fertile, perennial and profitable business venture
with least capital outlay and the instant case is one such
from the State of Maharashtra. [794F-G]
That the appellants have rightly contested that the
directions issued by the High Court runs counter to the
statute and in virtue directing the authorities to disobey
the law which is impermissible. [796 B]
Considering the cases decided by this Court regarding
private in-
793
stitutions unauthorisedly established and the request for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
the permission to appear in examinations or accommodate them
elsewhere to enable them to prosecute further studies had
been negatived by this court in the under mentioned cases:-
[796C]
N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.,
[1986] Suppl. S.C.C. 166 = A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1188; A.P.
Christians Medical Educational Society, etc. v. Government
of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., [1986] 2 S.C.C. 667 = A.I.R. 1986
S.C. 1490; All Bihar Christian Schools Association & Anr.
v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 49; State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute &
Anr., J.T. [1991) 2 S.C. 343 and Students of Dattatraya
Adhyapak Vidhyalaya v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (S.L.P.
(C) No. 2067 of 1991 decided on 19.2.91).
This Court has held that the courts giving directions
to relieve harships of the students has resulted in total
indiscipline in the field of regulation. While in the case
of Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School
Education & Ors., [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 893 on which the
respondents have relied upon, this Court issued directions
in special circumstances and therefore cannot be taken as a
precedent in particular in the light of the law laid down by
this court in its various judgments. [797A-D]
Further even Article 51A enjoins every citizen by
clause (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism, the
spirit of enquiry and reform; clause (i) enjoins as
fundamental duty to strive towards excellence in all spheres
of individual and collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises higher and higher. Thus clause (a) 8 (f)
intend to value and preserve rich heritage of our composite
culture are some of the basic values which the budding
students need to be inculcated and imbibed in their
formative periods to take deep roots at maturity. Even the
teacher needs not only the training at the inception but
also periodical orientations in this behalf so that the
children would reap the rich benefit thereof. So the ill
equipped and ill housed institutions with substandard staff
therein are counter productive and detrimental to
inculcating spirit of enquiry and excellence to the
students. To disregard statutory compliance would amount to
letting loose of innocent and unwary children. Even in the
proceeding of a recent seminar held in Delhi it is clearly
demonstrated as an admission by teachers that they are not
properly trained to meet the growing needs of the society.
The qualitative training in the training Colleges or School
794
would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit
of the students. For equipping such training all facilities
and equipments in training colleges or schools are
absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no
place to exist nor entitled to recognition. Thus the
compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon.
Any slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the
mode of education and examining system are detrimental to
the efficient management of the education. Thus directions
to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the
rule of Law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding
source for indiscipline. The High Court therefore,
committed manifest error in law, in exercising the
prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the
students to appear in the examination.
[797E-798F]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2932 of
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.1991 of the
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2450 of 1990.
S.K. Dholakia S.M. Jadhav and A.S. Bhasme for the
Appellant.
R.B. Masodkar and K.L. Taneja for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. RAMASWAMY, J. Special leave granted.
This court judicially noticed mushroom growth of ill
equipped and under-staffed unrecognised educational
institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamilnadu and
Maharashtra States and other states too are no exceptions.
Obviously the field of education is found to be fertile,
perennial and profitable business venture with least capital
outlay. This case is one such from the State of Maharashtra.
It would appear that individuals or societies without
complying with the statutory requirements, establish
educational or training institutions ill equipped to impart
education and have the students admitted, in some instances
despite warnings by the State Govt. and in some instances
without knowledge of the concerned State Govt, but with
connivance at lower levels.
795
In this case the respondents in all 129, were admitted
to D.Ed. course by unrecognised Yashomati Adhyapak
Vidhyalaya, Warthi, District Bhandara. When the
examinations were to commence from April 18, 1991, the
management finding it difficult to have them sit for the
examination, obviously encouraged the respondents to tap the
doors of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench who sought
direction to permit them to appear in the examination to be
held on that day. The Division Bench allowed the Writ
Petition No. 2450 of 1990 by order dated April 8,1991 and
directed the appellant to permit the respondents to sit in
the examination for the first year commencing from April 18,
1991 and after their passing the examination, the passed
candidates should be allocated in a recognised institution
to prosecute their further courses. Assailing the legality
thereof this appeal has been filed.
Sri Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the
appellants, contended that the respondents having had
admission in an unauthorised college, have no right to seek
writ of mandamus or direction from the court to permit them
to sit for the examination or to accommodate them in the
recognised institutions to pursue a further study. It is
also contended that the direction issued by the High Court
runs counter to the statute and in virtue directing the
authorities to disobey the law which is impermissible. We
find force in the contention.
In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Anr., [1986] (Supp) SCC 166 = AIR 1986 SC 1188 this court
held that the private institutions unauthorisedly
established were invariably ill housed, ill staffed and ill
equipped. If the Govt. is directed to permit the students
admitted into those institutions, to appear in 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 Art. 32 or Art. 226 of the Constitution should
be frittered away for such a purpose. So the request to
permit the students who had training in unrecognised schools
was deprecated by this court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society, etc. v.
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., [1986] 2 SCC 667 = AIR 1986
SC 1490 when fervent request with all persuasion by the
Senior counsel, Sri K.K. Venugopal, to permit the students
admitted in unrecognised and unauthorised institution to
pursue balance course was made, this court noted thus:
796
"We do not think that we can possibly accede to the
request made on behalf of the students any
direction of the nature sought for 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."
The request to permit the students to appear in the
examination and to accommodate them elsewhere to enable them
to prosecute further study was negatived by this court.
In all Bihar Christian Schools Association & Anr. v.
State of Bihar & Ors., [1988] 2 SCR 49, this court, when the
ill equipped and mismanaged schools were taken over by an
Act whose validity was challenged on the anvil of Art. 30 of
the constitution, held that even the minority institutions
are subject to statutory regulations and establishment and
maintenance of such an educational institution should be in
conformity with the statute and the state is entitled to
regulate the establishment of the educational institutions
and the admission of the students in those educational
institutions. It was held that the educational institutions
of the minorities have no right to mal-administration. Any
rule or direction issued by the Govt. to prevent mal-
administration would be valid.
In State to Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers
Training Institute & Anr., JT (1991) 2 S.C. 343 the High
Court of Madras while dismissing the writ petitions filed by
unauthorised educational institution, gave direction to
admit the students for the examination. This court held
that the direction of admitting students of unauthorised
educational institutions and thus seeking direction for
permitting the students to appear at the examination has
been looked with disfavour by this court. It was held that
since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally
not entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the
education department of the Govt., the High Court acted in
violation of law in granting permission to such students for
appearing at the public examination. Accordingly the appeal
was allowed and the direction issued was set aside.
In Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidhyalaya v. State
of Maharashtra & Ors., S.L.P. (C) No. 2067 of 1991 decided
on 19.2.91 this
797
court held thus:
"We are coming across cases of this type very often
where allegations are made that innocent students
are admitted into unrecognised schools and are made
to suffer. Some Courts out of compassion
occasionally interfere to relieve the harships. We
find that the result of this situation is total
indiscipline in the field of regulation."
In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of
School Education & Ors., [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 893 relied upon
by the counsel for the respondents, no doubt this court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
directed the Govt. to consider whether the students in the
appellant’s college have undergone the necessary B. Ed.
course and has permitted them to appear in the ensuing
examination and publish their results. In that case there
was a long drawn history of the recognition of the institute
and that the direction was issued by this court in the
special circumstances therein. Therefore, it cannot be
taken as a precedent, in particular, in the light of the law
laid down by this court as stated supra.
Article 51A enjoins every citizen by clause (h) to
develop the scientific temper, humanism, the spirit of
inquiry and reform and clause (j) enjoins as the fundamental
duty to strive towards excellence in all spheres of
individual and collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and
achievement; (a) respect of national flag and national
anthem; (e) to promote harmony and spirit of common
brotherhood amongst all the Indian people transcending
religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities
to renounce practice derogatory to the dignity of woman; (f)
to value and preserve rich heritage of our composite
culture, etc. are some of the basic duties with which the
budding students need to be inculcated and imbibed. They
should be sowed in the receptive minds in their formative
periods so that they take deep roots at maturity. The
teacher needs, not only the training at the inception, but
also periodical orientations in this behalf so that the
children would reap the rich benefit thereof. The ill
equipped and ill housed institutions and sub-standard staff
therein are counter productive and detrimental to
inculcating spirit of enquiry and excellence to the
students. The disregard to statutory compliance would
amount to letting loose of innocence and unwary children.
The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi, as
798
published by the Times of India dated 4th August, 1992,
would demonstrate the admission by the teachers that they
are not properly trained to cope up with the growing needs
of the society and are unsuited to the duties they have to
shoulder in imparting teaching to the children. 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 equipping 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 skill and
intellectual capabilities to 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 requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the
standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
and examining system are detrimental to the efficient
management of the education. The directions to the
appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of
law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for
indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest
error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred
under Art 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants
to permit the students to appear for the examination etc.
It is now conceded across the Bar that pursuant to the
impugned direction, out of 129 students that appeared for
examination, only one student had passed which tells a sad
story of the quality of the training given to them and the
passed student was accommodated in another recognised
institution. His admission would remain undisturbed. It is
also contended by the State that the findings of the High
Court that the eligibility of the respondents was in
compliance with G.R. dated October
799
26, 1990 and the letter of the Dy. Officer, Jila Parishad,
Bhandara dated Feb. 25, 1991 are contrary to the facts and
are not properly appreciated by the High Court. There is
force in the contention, but on the facts in this case, it
is not necessary to decide the same and it is for the High
Court in a proper case to consider the same properly and
deal with the matter in accordance with law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the
circumstances with no order as to costs.
S.B. Appeal allowed.
800