AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—The Petitioner is a non-minority institution which was functioning from 1955 to 1977. It was closed as per the orders of the authorities. The Petitioner was applying for permission to reopen the institute and by letter No. 1319 dated 18.9.1990, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Director of School Education and permitted the reopening of the institute with effect from 1990-91, subject to certain conditions. Following that, the Joint Director of School Education passed an order in R.C. No. 150013/M1/90 dated 20.9.1990 granting permission u/s 4 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 to reopen the institute with effect from the academic year 1990-91, subject to four conditions set out therein. The first condition is that the management should fulfill the conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 535, Education, dated 17.5.1989 within a period of one year from that date and provide the facilities required exclusively for the teacher training institute. A copy of the G.O. was also enclosed. The last paragraph of the order reads that the management is directed to send the application for recognition in the prescribed form in complete shape for consideration by the competent authority.
The Petitioner sent an application which was not in proper form and a communication was sent to the Petitioner that the application must be in the prescribed form. Accordingly, on 1.7.1991 the Petitioner sent an application in the proper form with all the details.
Thereafter, the government issued a Public Notification dated 8.11.1991 in which it had stated that there were number of unrecognized institutes exploiting the students and parents. The Government declared its policy that it would not permit any new Teacher Training Institute. Public was cautioned against such institutes and the attention of the students and parents was drawn to the said fact so as to guard against such recognized institutes.
By proceedings No. 18335/A4/91 dated 7.12.1991, the District Educational Officer called upon the Petitioner to explain as to how the institution was admitting students for the First year for the period 1991-92 without prior permission therefore. The Petitioner sent a reply thereto on 14.12.1991. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 23.12.1991 praying for the quashing of the Government Notification dated 8.12.1991 and the proceedings of the District Educational Officer dated 7.12.1991. The Petitioner has also prayed for direction to the Joint Director of School Education to grant permanent recognition after inspecting and verifying the infrastructural facilities of the Petitioner''s institute.
Pending the writ petition, the Petitioner filed W.M.P. No. 27275 of 1991 and a single Judge of this Court gave an interim direction to the Respondent to grant temporary recognition to the Petitioner as prayed for pending further orders. Pursuant thereto, the Government passed an order of recognition in favour of the Petitioner institute.
In W.P. No. 13357 of 1989 etc., batch, Stephenson Rooba Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 Writ L.R. 544 : 1993 I.L.W. 100 S.N. by order dated 22.3.1993, we have upheld the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 536 dated 17.5.1989 which prescribes conditions similar to those found in G.O. Ms. No. 535 dated 17.5.1989. While G.O. Ms. No. 536 relates to minority institutions, G.O. Ms. No. 535 relates to non-minority institutions. In W.P. No. 9494 of 1992 St. Mary''s Teacher Training Institute (Men and Women) v. State of Tamil Nadu Education Department and Ors. See P.K. Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 Writ L.R. 604 filed by an individual, we quashed, by our order dated 27.4.1993, several orders of recognition passed by the Government with reference to various teacher training institutes, both minority and non-minority, on the ground that such orders were passed on extraneous considerations in spite of the fact that such institutes had not fulfilled the requirements of the relevant G. Os. There were Annexures to our order. Annexures. V and VI referred to the institutions relating to which we quashed orders of recognition. Annexure III to our order sets out the institutes for which the Government granted recognition pursuant to interim orders of this Court. Many of the writ petitions in which interim orders have been passed by this Court were disposed of by us, when we considered the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 536. While disposing of the writ petitions we had clearly pointed out that the orders of recognition passed on the interim orders of court were not valid as the institutions had not fulfilled the requirements of the G. Os.
Our judgments in both the cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. There is now a categorical direction by the Supreme Court that Courts should not give any interim orders directing recognition or permitting the students to write examinations when the institute remains unrecognized. In the present case, by virtue of interim order, temporary recognition has been granted in favor of the Petitioner institute. It goes without saying that the said order of temporary recognition is invalid and it will not confer any rights on the Petitioner or its students.
Coming to the merits of the case, the Petitioner is right in contending that permission had been granted for reopening the institute and that in so far as the proceedings dated 7.12.1991 by the District Educational Officer calling upon him to explain as to how the students were admitted for 1991-92 without getting prior permission is not sustainable. No doubt the order granting permission refers to the year 1990-91. But, it clearly states that the institute could be reopened with effect from 1990-91. Hence, the opening of the institute and admission of students for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 cannot be said to be without permission.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that even when permission is granted to open the institution, the authorities are taking care to see whether the conditions prescribed by the relevant G.O. are fulfilled and being after fully satisfied, the permission is granted. According to Learned Counsel, grant of recognition should follow the grant of permission. We do not agree. The Act contemplates grant of permission for opening of any institution by a non-minority and grant of recognition thereafter for such institution on certain conditions. While, non-minority should have permission before opening institution, while such permission is not necessary for minority. In this case, what all has been done by the Government is the grant of permission to the Petitioner to reopen the institute. That will not enable the Petitioner to get recognition automatically. Moreover, the order granting permission is very clear inasmuch as it is made subject to the conditions set out: there in. The first condition, as we have already stated, refers to the requirement of the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 535 dated 17.5.1989. The Petitioner contends that the requirements have been fulfilled and an application in the proper form has been made. That application is still pending and it is yet to be considered by the Government. In view of the interim order of this Court, the applications have not so far been considered by the authorities.
The Respondents shall consider the application of the Petitioner dated 1.7.1991 for grant of recognition and pass appropriate orders there on in accordance with law. It is not necessary for the Petitioner to apply afresh for permission to open the institute as such permission has been granted already by the Joint Director of School Education in his proceedings R.C. No. 150013/M3/90 dated 20.9.1990.
The next contention of Learned Counsel is that the Government Notification dated 8.12.1991 is invalid and it should be quashed. There is no merit whatever in this contention. It is a public Notification intended to warn the pubic as against unrecognized institutes. In fact, we have noted in our judgments referred to earlier that there was mushroom growth of unrecognized in statutes and the public were cheated by the managements of such institutions. It is only to prevent the unlawful act withies of such institutions, the public Notification was made by the Government. No exception can be taken either to the contents of the Public Notification or the policy of the Government not to grant any permission to open new teacher training institutes. The Notification as such does not affect the Petitioner in any manner is the permission to reopen the institute has already been given to the Petitioner on 20.9.1990. Its not necessary also to quash the proceedings dated 7.12.1991 of the District Educational Officer as we have already made it clear that it is not necessary for the Petitioner to obtain a fresh permission once again to open the institute.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in so far as the prayers for quashing the Government Notification and the Proceedings of the District Educational Officer dated 712.1991 re concerned; instead a direction is issued to the Respondents to consider the application of the Petitioner dated 1.7.1991 for grant of recognition and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. The orders shall be passed on or before 6.8.1993 and communicated to the Petitioner. No costs.