Vinodkumar Hematram Dave vs Janseva Education Foundation and Others

S.B. Majmudar, J.—Rules in Special Civil Applications Nos. 236 and 339 of 1987. Mr. Trivcdi appears for respondents Nos. I to 3 and

waives service of the rules. Mr. R.N, Shah appears for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and waives service of the rules.

In this group of five petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, a short question has surfaced for consideration of this Court. It pertains to

the fate of students who have joined unrecognised primary teachers training college which are being run by the college authorities who have not got

any recognition for their colleges under the provisions of the Gujarat Educational Institutions Regulations Act, 1984 and under the rules framed

thereunder being Gujarat Educational Institutions (Preprimary and Primary Teachers Training College) Rules, 1984. Out of these five petitions, the

first four petitions pertain to one such unrecognised institution styled as Stri Adhyapan Mandir at Sabarmati run by Janseva Education Foundation,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad; while the last petition is moved by students who are similarly situated as the students in the other petitions but who have

joined an another unrecognised institution viz. Mishra Adhyapan Mandir at Village Kumbera in Meghraj Taluka of Sabarkantha District.

In order to appreciate the grievance of the students studying in these two unrecognised Institutions, a few relevant facts may be noted. The State

of Gujarat has been enjoined with the duty of granting recognition to institutions which have to impart training to students who will be ultimately

given certificates known as Primary Teachers'' Certificate (PTC). On receipt of such certificate, after fulfilling requisite requirements for the course,

the concerned certificate holders can be primary school teachers and who in their turn can also train other teachers. These PTC trained teachers

will have to work as primary school teachers and will be training primary school students. Thus, these colleges are training colleges for equipping

future teachers of primary schools. Many lady students join such course so that on getting PTC training, they can eke out their livelihood as primary

teachers in the State. It is the case of the respondent-State of Gujarat that under the Act and the Rules, a detailed procedure has been laid down

for recognition of PTC training institutions and only those institutions can impart training to the students who want to obtain PTC certificates. It is

obvious that students who receive training in recognised institutions can legitimately expect to be examined for PTC certificate examination which is

conducted annually by the State of Gujarat through the State Examination Board. This PTC course is two years'' course. During both these years,

the concerned students have to give practical lessons in recognised institutions to get equipped in the art of teaching. After two years'' course is

over, which would consist of practical training as well as listening to the lectures of professors, examination is being conducted by the Examination

Board and if the students pass such examination, they get PTC certificates. At the end of the first year, there is internal examination by the college

concerned and only after the student completes two years'' training course from the college, he becomes entitled to appear at the final examination

conducted by the Examination Board.

It is obvious that as the recognised institutions are limited in number and there are number of students seeking admission at these colleges,

admissions get restricted as numbers of seats in all the colleges would be limited. Those students who have passed Std. X Examination which is

known as New S.S.C. Examination conducted by the Secondary Education Board, seek in large numbers admissions to the PTC training course

conducted by recognised institutions. As seats are limited, admissions get closed every year and those students who have not secured higher

number of marks get weeded out. When admissions to the PTC course in recognised institutions get closed, the students who are left out or

students who see no chance to get admissions in recognised institutions would fall prey to the machination of unrecognised institutions who lure

them by all sorts of advertisements and pursue them to join these unrecognised institutions where they would be given training. Such unrecognised

institutions on collecting fees allow these students to study and ultimately when two years are over, these students are met with an impossible

situation that the State Government and the State Examination Board under the Education Department thereof would not permit such students who

have studied at unrecognised institutions to appear at the PTC examination conducted by the Examination Board. That would naturally create lot of

heart-burning to these students who have studied at the unrecognised institutions. This phenomenon is an ever recurring phenomenon which occurs

every year and many petitions are filed in the Court year after year by different batches of students who might have studied at unrecognised

institutions and who might be ripe for being examined on completion of two years'' training at unrecognised institutions. It is in the background of

the aforesaid fact situation that the grievance of the present petitioners will have to be examined.

The students who are concerned in this group of petitions have studied in unrecognised institutions admittedly. They all belong to 1985 batch,

meaning thereby, they had joined such institutions for getting training for the course of primary teachers'' certificate somewhere in 1985 in the

concerned unrecognised institutions. They took training at these institutions. They gave lessons in other recognised institutions and schools as

trainees. They completed the first year of the course at the end of 1985-86. They appeared at the internal examination conducted by these

institutions. They paid large amount of fees including hostel fees to these institutions. Thereafter, they resumed their studies in the second year

1986-87 and it is during the currency of their second year of study in unrecognised institutions for 1986-87 that they were informed by the State

authorities that institutions in which they studied are unrecognised institutions and will not entitle them to appear at 1987 PTC exam. Relevant

advertisement issued by the second respondent through the Director of Primary Education, Gandhinagar is dated 23-10-1986. A copy of that

advertisement is of annexure ''C'' to Special Civil Application No. 6560 of 1986. It is not in dispute that unrecognised institutions which have

trained the students in the present group of petitions were listed as such in the advertisement for the first time. The advertisement shows that there

are 12 such institutions in the State of Gujarat. Stri Adhyapan Mandir, Jawahar Chowk, Sabarmati is at Serial No. 2 while Mishra Adhyapan

Mandir run by Dinbandhu Seva Mandal whose students have filed Special Civil Application No. 339 of 1987 is at Serial No. 8. It may be pointed

out at this stage that at Serial No. 1 is mentioned Shri Shikshan Sadhna Stri Adhyapan Mandir, Ahmedabad, which is shown to be an

unrecognised institution but which institution has already filed a petition in this Court and the question regarding its unrecognition is subjudice before

this Court. However, the fact remains that so far as the students of the present two institutions with which we are concerned in this group of

petitions go, they were informed for the first time in October 1986 by the aforesaid advertisement that they are studying at unrecognised institutions

and that the State of Gujarat will not permit them to appear at the final PTC examination as they had studied at the above unrecognised institutions.

It is on the basis of this fact situation that it is vehemently contended by the learned advocate for the concerned students as well as by Mr. Dave

who has appeared for 184 girl-students who belong to 1985 batch and who have studied at Stri Adhyapan Mandir which is an unrecognised

institution that these students for no fault of theirs will be penalised. They never knew that their institutions were unrecognised till the advertisement

of 23-10-1986 saw the light of the day. In the meantime, they had already completed one previous year of their life as students. They had taken

lessons. They had also passed the internal examination conducted by the college and they were already studying as second-year students for

couple of months since June/July 1986 when they were told by the advertisement referred to above that they will be liable to be turned off the

gates when they seek admission for 1987 PTC examination. They, therefore, submitted that on the ground of estoppel and promissory estoppel, it

is not open to the State authorities to refuse to permit these students to appear at the examination. If at all, these students are victims of trickeries

played by these unrecognised institutions whose managements have pocketed large amount from them by way of tuition fees as well as hostel

charges. Mr. Dave, party-in-person in Special Civil Application No. 6321 of 1986 pointed out to me that all the aforesaid students are lady

students. They come from different parts of the State and they belong to poor strata of the society. They hoped that they will get equipped with

PTC training certificate so that they can eke out their livelihood as trained primary school teachers and with that hope, they had joined these

institutions which ultimately are found to be unrecognised. It is not their fault. It is the fault of the managements which seem to have duped them. It

pointed out to me that in recognised institutions, girl-students are trained free of charge while these unrecognised institutions charge large amount of

tuition fees. Thus, the students are the real victims of fraud committed by these unrecognised institutions and they should not be permitted to suffer

for the sins of these institutions-managements.

Mr. Trivedi for the respondents submitted that these unrecognised institutions are carrying on their illegal business on a large scale in different

parts of the State and it is not as if that students do not know that they are playing with fire when they are joining unrecognised institutions.

Sufficient advertisements are given from time to time that PTC course are conducted only by recognised institutions. That procedure for admission

to PTC course has been laid down, admission forms will be available from the Government offices indicated in the advertisement on payment of

proper fees and in the admission forms themselves, it is mentioned that there are only limited number of recognised institutions names whereof are

printed in the admission forms. All the students definitely know which are the recognised institutions in the State and only because recognised

institutions are limited in number and seats are limited that those students who have not secured sufficient number of marks to get admitted in the

order of merits and those who are weeded out and who have no chance of admission; seek admissions in such unrecognised institutions which

welcome them and which charge handsome fee from them and exploit them. It is, therefore, submitted that it is not as if that the students are totally

ignorant or their guardians are totally oblivious of the real situation. Calculated risk is taken by the guardians and students so that those students

who otherwise would have no chance to get admitted to recognised institutions may, by back door entry, get that chance through such

unrecognised institutions who have no limit for admitting such students in their classes. It is, therefore, submitted that neither on the ground of

estoppel nor on the ground promissory estoppel, these students of unrecognised institutions should be permitted to appear at the forthcoming PTC

examination of March/April 1987.

In order to appreciate the legal right of these concerned students, it would be necessary to look at certain Supreme Court decisions on the

point. The first judgment is reported in the case of Smita Johnbhai Master and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, . In that case, the Supreme

Court bench consisting of D.A. Dasai and A. Varadarajan, JJ. (as they then were) was concerned with a converse case though of course, the

question of admission to PTC training course was very much on the anvil, in that case, certain students were admitted by orders of the State of

Gujarat in recognised. PTC institutions. But it was found later on that those students were not legally entitled to get admitted. Their admissions

were, therefore, canceled by the State Government. The students preferred a writ petition in this Court challenging the action of the State in

withdrawing and cancelling the orders under which they had secured admission to the PTC institutions which were recognised institutions. Their

petition failed before this Court. Letters Patent Appeal also failed and thereafter, they landed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld

the decision of this Court to the effect that the petitioners were not entitled to get admitted and their admissions were rightly cancelled by the State

authorities. However, it was submitted on behalf of the students before the Supreme Court that they had already spent their one year of previous

life and they had got training at the institutions which were recognised institutions and that their training should not be lost even if their admissions

are found to be improper or illegal and that on the ground of equity and fairness, some relief should be given to these students. The Supreme Court

in that connection observed as under:

There are, with a view to mitigating the harshness of law blended by the fairness of equity, we direct that all those who secured admissions under

the aforementioned five orders of the Director of Education and have completed first year course and have also appeared at the examination held

at the end of first academic year should be treated as admitted for the limited period of first year. Their results should be declared. However, it is

made distinctly clear that on this account they could not be entitled to claim even if they have passed the examination, admission in the second year

course. They will have to seek admission in the second year course in case they are declared successful in the first year examination on merits and

at the discretion of the management of the institutions.

Subject to these directions, petitions were disposed of. It becomes at once clear that the aforesaid decision cannot be of any assistance to the

students who have come up in the present proceedings. As noted earlier, the petitioners before the Supreme Court were admitted to PTC training

course at recognised institutions. They had already put up one year''s training course and had appeared at the internal examination also. On these

facts, the Supreme Court did not nullify one year''s training which they were imparted at the recognised institutions. So far as the facts of the

preseat case are concerned, admittedly, the students have studied in unrecognised institutions from the inception i.e. from 1985 onwards. The

question is whether they should be permitted to appear at the examination of March/April 1987 when they do not belong to recognised institutions.

Such a question was not before the Supreme Court in the case of Smita. (supra) and hence that decision cannot be of any assistance to the

petitioners.

The second decision which may be noted is a decision rendered in the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

and Another, . A Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of O. Chinnappa Reddy and K.N. Singh, JJ., was concerned with almost an

identical question which has been posed for my consideration in the present case. In that case, the students had undergone training in private

teacher training institutes established without permission and the question was whether they can be permitted to appear at the examinations which

were being conducted by the authorities which were charged with duty to examine the students who had taken training at recognised institutions.

O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Supreme Court in terms held that such students were not entitled to be examined and they can have no

reliefs either under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. In this connection, the following pertinent observations are very useful:

The students who have undergone training in private teacher training institutes established without permission cannot be permitted to appear at the

examinations under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution. 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 the Government is directed to permit them to appear at the

examination court 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 Court 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 organised and equipped training institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched.

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the point, it must be held that the present petitioners have no legs to

stand upon for insisting that even though they had taken admission and training in unrecognised institutions, they must be permitted to appear at the

final examination to be conducted this year, by the Examination Board.

9-A. However, I may refer to a later decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. That

is in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, A Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of P.N.

Bhagwati, C.J. and R.S. Pathak, J. (as they then were) was concerned with the question about the eligibility of students for getting admission to

B.E. Degree course of Karnataka University for the academic year 1981-82 and subsequent years. Eligibility criterion was that a student seeking

admission should have passed the two year Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore or an examination held

by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it. Students who had got admission to this course had passed higher secondary

examination held by Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan. It was found that this examination was not equivalent examination as recognised by

the competent authority and consequently, those students who had passed the higher secondary examination held by the Secondary Education

Board, Rajasthan were held clearly ineligible for admission to B.E. Degree course. However, they were admitted illegally by the college authorities.

The question was whether such students can be asked to discontinue study or should be given some benefit even on the basis that they were

initially admitted in an illegal manner. The learned single Judge of Karnataka High Court as well as the Division Bench of that Court took the view

that students were illegally admitted to degree course and the Supreme Court confirmed that view in para 8 of the report. However, the next

question as to whether these students should be permitted to continue the study in the respective engineering colleges in which they were illegally

admitted was sympathetically considered by the Supreme Court. Bhagwati, C.J. speaking for the Supreme Court made the following pertinent

observations in this connection in para 8 of the report:

We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned Judge and affirmed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. But the question still

remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was

strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of the Court they have

been pursuing their course of study in the respective engineering colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now

thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were not

eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for

their wrongful admission must lie more upon the engineering colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the

appellants did not know that neither the higher secondary examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc.

Examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre-University examination of the Pre-University

Education Board, Bangalore, The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year

B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board,

Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these

engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases

they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering

colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective

engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring engineering colleges the Karnataka University

should take appropriate action because the managements of these engineering colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but

thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the engineering degree course. We also endorse the directions

given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students.

It is true that in the aforesaid decision, a view has been taken that when illegal admissions granted to the students were on account of the fault

of the engineering colleges, students cannot be penalised, and therefore, they were permitted to continue their studies in the respective engineering

degree colleges in which they were admitted. However, this concession was given to the concerned students in the light of the peculiar facts of the

case before the Supreme Court. In that case, it was found that almost four years had elapsed since initial admission of the students in the

concerned course. It was also kept in view that the concerned students might not have known that higher secondary examination of secondary

Education Board of Rajasthan or first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University was not recognised as Pre-University

examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore and they might have presumed that as they had passed first year B. Sc. examination

of Udaipur University or higher secondary examination of Rajasthan University they were eligible for admission. In the light of the peculiar facts of

the case, the Supreme Court allowed ineligible students to complete their studies. In my view, the aforesaid decision cannot be pressed in service

by the learned advocates for the petitioners for supporting their contention. This is not a case in which illegal admissions are given by recognised

institions. In Rajendra Prasad''s case (supra) admissions were given to ineligible students by duly recognised colleges. Therefore, the education

which they had taken was in recognised institutions. The only question was about their illegal entry four years back. Such long lapse of time

between initial entry though illegal and the fullfledged education taken at recognised institutions for a long period time on the other, weighed with the

Supreme Court in giving benefit of concession to the concerned students. As the facts of the present case are entirely different and as in the present

case, the concerned students have admitted by unrecognised institutions, the concession given to the students by the Supreme Court in Rajendra

Prasad''s case (supra) cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners in the present case. On the contrary, the question which has been posed for

my consideration on the facts of this case is clearly answered against the petitioners by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Nageshwaramma (supra). In view of that decision, in fact, the petitioner-students of unrecognised institutions can have no case for getting any relief

under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, as the legal position stands, the petitioner-students of unrecognised institutions must necessarily stand

to lose and in fairness to the learned advocates for the petitioners, they also did not pitch their case that high nor did they submit that despite the

judgment, of the Supreme Court in Nageshwaramma (supra), they should in law be held entitled to any relief. However, they submitted that the

problem posed for my purview is made a humane problem than legal one and this Court should find out some way for helping out the students

whose unfortunate lot has reduced them into a totally helpless position. In view of the peculiar facts of this case viz. that two years back practically

in 1985 June/July when these students of 1985 batch had joined unrecognised institutions, they had no idea that institutions they are walking in are

unrecognised and the knowledge dawned on them when they read the public advertisement in October 1986 as referred to earlier. It must be

stated that if not in law, at least in equity or from the point of view of humanity some way should be found out for them. They had spent, by then, 1

1/2 years of their previous time at their very early age.

So far as Special Civil Application Nos. 6321 of 1986, 6560 of 1986 and 236 of 1987 are concerned, they pertain to students of the same

institution viz. Stri Adhyapan Mandir, Sabarmati. At this institution, 184 girl students whose names are listed at Annexure ''A'' to Special Civil

Application No. 6321 of 1986, have taken training, since more than one and half years. They have stayed in the hostel, pay hostel charges,

messing charges as well as tuition fess to the institution. These girls are coming from rural areas and belonging to poor strata of the society. It has to

be kept in view that as per the rules and regulation for admission to PTC course, students between the age group of 15 and 22 years for general

class and upto 27 years for S.T. and S.C. students, can be admitted. Thus, they are all young girls and when these girls of tender age have spent

this much time while taking education from an unrecognised institution, it becomes clear that some way has to be found out so that these

unfortunate victims may not suffer. In this connection, I have kept in mind a salient fact that so far as at least 1985 batch of students studying in

unrecognised institutions is concerned, they had been in unrecognised institutions for more than one year, without being informed that they had

boarded a sinking ship. Mr. Trivedi for the respondents, however, submitted that various public advertisements were given by the authorities

pointing out the fact that it would be dangerous to take education in unrecognised institutions. He specially invited my attention to a news item at

page 28 of Special Civil Application No. 6560 of 1986. It is a news item dated 3-3-1986 published in Jansatta of that day mentioning that red

signal is being given against getting admissions in unrecognised institutions. Thus, at least from March 1986 onwards, the concerned students got

some news about the type of institutions which are not recognised and where it would be dangerous to get admissions.

In that news item at Serial No. 1 is listed the present unrecognised institution Stri Adhyapan Mandir which is respondent No. 1 in Spl. C.A.

6321 of 1986. However, by that time, 1985 batch of students had already completed one year of study in that institution. In this view of the

matter, it can easily be seen that so far as 1985 batch of students studying in unrecognised institutions is concerned, at least they deserve some

equitable relief if not any legal relief. This may not apply to 1986 batch of students as that batch of students would naturally have started their

studies in the first year course from June 1986 on wards and they would be ripe for admission to final examination only in March7 April 1988

when two years would be over. Thus, 1986 batch of students stand on a different footing. For that batch, there would neither be any legal

consideration nor any equitable consideration as by March 1986, guardians of such children has got sufficient information by being brought to their

notice that there were number of unrecognised institutions imparting PTC training and no student should get admission at such institutions. Mr.

Trivedi for the respondents also submitted that on 30-7-1986 and 31-7-1986, similar advertisements were inserted in Gujarat Samachar and

Jansatta. On 5-7-1986, such advertisement was inserted in Sandesh. However, that would also pertain to 1986 batch of students and Mr. Trivedi

is right when he contends that so far as that batch is concerned, no question of giving any equitable relief to them would ever arise.

However, I pointed out to him that at least 1985 batch of students stand on a different footing and even though they have no legal right to get

any relief from this Court, as ruled by the Supreme Court in Nageshwaramma''s case (supra), the State Government may consider the feasibility on

humanitarian ground of giving some relief to 1985 batch of students who may be the last batch entitled to get equitable relief in view of the peculiar

facts of this case as stated above. I am happy to note that the respondent-State have risen to the occasion and my suggestion has got fructified.

Mr. Trivedi after taking instructions from the concerned authorities made a statement that this year, only on equitable and humanitarian ground,

1985 batch of students who might have studied in unrecognised institutions will be given a single chance to appear at the examination provided their

examination forms are routed through recognised institutions and that this concession is being given by the State of Gujarat at the suggestion of this

Court only on humanitarian ground and that would not be available to any other students of any other batch from 1986 onwards who might have

studied in unrecognised institutions and whose examination may be due in March/ April 1988 onwards. Mr. Trivedi also submitted that this

concession will be given to these concerned students provided the managements of these institutions undertake to this Court to immediately close

down their institutions and only on this undertaking being given, the aforesaid concession will be made available to these students when they had

illegally admitted after collecting fees and to whom they have gone on imparting training for all this period. I am also happy to note that Mr. R.N.

Shah for these institutions which are unrecognised institutions viz. Stri Adhyapan Mandir, Sabarmati and Mishra Adhyapan Mandir, Kumbera,

respondent No. 5 in SpI. C.A. 339 of 1987 has undertaken to this Court to immediately close down these institutions subject of course to

completing the training for 1985 batch of students as for that batch, the State is good enough to give this concession. He also stated that they

would not impart any further training to students of 1986 batch and there will be no question of admitting 1986 students in June 1987 as these

institutions will be forthwith closed down. However, he added a rider that it would be open to these institutions to apply for recognition to the

competent authority and if the recognition is granted, then only they will think of restarting the institutions and in case such recognition is not

granted, whatever legal recourse is available against such refusal of recognition will be available to the concerned institutions. This stand taken by

the managements is taken note of. These managements shall file requisite undertakings incorporating the aforesaid terms within one week from

today in this Court.

In view of this happy development at the end of these proceedings, these petitions though legally required to be dismissed will stand practically

allowed by consent of parties as is indicated hereafter.

The consensus which has finally been reached between the parties regarding 1985 batch of students studying in unrecognised institutions is as

follows:

Only on humanitarian ground, the respondent-State has agreed that students of 1985 batch who were admitted and who had studied at

unrecognised institutions will be permitted to appear at the ensuing practical and theory examinations of PTC to be held by the State Examination

Board in March/April 1987. For that purpose, the concerned students of 1985 batch will have to apply on or before 6-3-1987. Examination

forms if not supplied to the students will be supplied by the State through the office of the State Examination Board on or before 27-2-1987. The

examination forms duly filled in by the concerned students of 1985 batch will be submitted through Mahalaxmi Training College, Ahmedabad so far

as Ahmedabad students are concerned and through the Principal, Government Adhyapan Mandir, Idar so far as students of Mishra Adhyapan

Mandir, Kumbera, respondent No. 5 in Spl. C.A. 339 of 1987 are concerned. Mr. Trivedi for the respondents submits that necessary instructions

will be sent to these institutions to accept examination forms onward submission to the concerned authorities.

It is also agreed to between the parties that so far as 1985 batch of students admitted by respondent No. 1 institution in Spl. C.A. 6321 of

1986 is concerned, a complete list of girl students which is at annexure ''A'' will be taken to be the final list. It will be open, however, to the State

authorities to scrutinise this list and to cross check it with the relevant registers maintained by respondent No. 1 from 1985 onwards.

So far as students admitted by Kumbera College in Sabarkantha District are concerned, the respondents will be entitled to cross check the list

of students in the light of the relevant registers maintained by the institution.

It is clarified that the last date for submitting these examination forms by 1985 batch of students for which this package deal is offered will be

6-3-1987 and that date will be taken to be the final date for that purpose.

It is distinctly understood that the concerned students of 1985 batch who might have taken training through unrecognised institutions and who

seek permission to appear at 1987 Examination will have to satisfy all the procedural requirements for being eligible to appear at such examination,

meaning thereby, the following requirements will have to be satisfied by the concerned students:

(a) Age requirement being 15 to 22 years for general category of students and up to 27 years for S.T. and S.C. students.

(b) Requirement of having given necessary lessons in recognised institutions;

(c) Minimum presence required of these students in the classes conducted by these insitutions even though they are unrecognised institutions;

(d) All other requirements as laid down by appendix V of Gujarat Educational Institutions (Preprimary and Primary Teachers Training Colleges)

Rules, 1984.

It is also made clear that those students of 1985 batch who are given concession to appear at the ensuing examination of PTC will not have to

comply with the following two requirements;

(i) minimum mark eligibility;

(ii) being required to be trained at any recognised institution. Save and except these two requirements, rest of the procedural requirements for

eligibility will have to be complied with by those students and if they are found by the authorities to satisfy these remaining requirements, they will

be permitted to appear at the ensuing PTC practical and theoretical examinations to be held in March/April 1987.

It is also distinctly understood and agreed to between the parties that the concerned students of 1985 batch trained at unrecognised institutions

who will be permitted to appear at the 1987 examination as per the present arrangement will get only one chance and if unfortunately any one of

them fails in that examination, he/she will not be entitled to have a fresh chance at the future PTC examination which might be held year after year

by the Examination Board. The only exception to this provision is to the effect that in case, any one of these students of 1985 batch which can be

known in short as ''irregular batch'' for some unforeseen reason, cannot actually appear at 1987 examination and cannot utilise the chance given as

per the present arrangement, he/she will be entitled to appear at the future examination as he/she will not be treated to have exhausted the solitary

chance agreed to be given to them as per the preseat arrangement. Further rider will also be added on this aspect viz. that if any student of the

1985 irregular batch actually appears in some of the papers at the ensuing 1987 examination and if for any unforeseen contingency he/she is not

able to appear at the rest of the papers in the said examination, he/she will naturally be declared to have failed at the examination on that count and

in such circumstances, if he/she applies for a fresh chance for being permitted to appear at the future examination which may be held hereafter, if

the authorities are satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of the concerned student, that on account of any unforeseen circumstances, he/she

could not appear in any of the papers at 1987 Examination, then in that eventuality, the authorities will permit the concerned student to take one

more chance at the future examination. But it will also be a last chance for such left-out student.

The concerned institutions referred to in these petitions which are unrecognised institutions have duly undertaken to this Court through their

advocate Mr. R.N. Shah to close down their institutions. The nature of this undertaking which these institutions will have to file in this Court is

already indicated hereinabove. Such undertakings to be filed within one week from today. A copy of such undertaking will be submitted to the

learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for the respondents.

It is also distinctly understood between the parties and made clear to Mr. R.N. Shah for the unrecognised institutions that suitable undertaking

will have to be filed by all the trustees of the institutions which are running the concerned unrecognised colleges and they should undertake to this

Court that they themselves will not float any other institution and will not start any fresh institution in any fresh name without previously obtaining

recognition from the State of Gujarat.

It is distinctly understood between the parties that save and except 1985 batch of students, no other batch of students starting from 1986

onwards, if they have taken training at any unrecognised institu�tions will be permitted to be examined at any future examination to be held by

the respondent-authorities and it is on this distinct understanding that the respondent-authorities have risen to the occasion and have responded to

my suggestion to do justice to 1985 batch of students.

The respondent-authorities will put up a public notice about the present order and will inform the public at large of the recognised institutions

through which only the P.T.C. students can appear at the P.T.C. examination in future and from which institutions only they can get the training

required as per the rules and regulations. The respondent-authorities may also publish another list which may mention the names of unrecognised

institutions which are functioning in the State. However, it must be indicated that these unrecognised institutions which have come to this Court by

way of writ petitions and whose petitions for recognition are pending may not be mentioned in the second list of unrecognised institutions but must

be mentioned in the third list which may be captioned as ''list of unrecognised institutions whose matters before the High Court for recognition are

sub judice''. Under that caption must be listed this third category of institutions. In short, three separate lists as aforesaid must be published

alongwith the contents of the present order.

Mr. Dave, Ex-President of Gujarat Vali Mandal who appears as petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6321 of 1986 has stated before

the Court that his Vali Mandal is recognised by the State of Gujarat and that his Mandal has passed a resolution in the light of which he is

authorised to state as under: He states that on the strength of the above resolution, henceforth, no petition will be filed in this Court or any Court by

guardians of students of 1986 batch who may have studied in unrecognised institutions, requesting the respondents to examine such students in

future examination of P.T.C. and he further states that if any such application is made by any one else, he will certainly oppose the same. This fair

stand taken by Mr. Dave is recorded with appreciation.

It is also agreed between the parties that Managers and Princi�pals of the concerned unrecognised institutions whose students are being

given benefit of this order will produce all necessary information, registers and records in original as required by the committee appointed by the

Government for scrutinising and cross-checking which will be done at the office of the Director of State Examination Board, Delhi Chakla,

Ahmedabad. This scrutiny and cross-checking will be completed by the said committee on or before 9-3-1987 and the concerned students will be

informed accordingly.

It is also made clear that if any form for examination is submitted after 6-3-1987 by the concerned student of 1985 batch before the authority,

the authority will be entitled to reject the same.

It is also made clear that after scrutiny by the committee, if the students are found to be eligible for being sent up for examination, requisite

certificate for having completed practical training will be issued by the committee. Mr. Trivedi for the respondents agrees that such certificate given

by the committee will be sufficient compliance with the rules and regulations for the students of 1985 batch only.

Mr. Trivedi states that he reserves his right notwithstanding the concession given to 1985 batch of irregular students, to take appropriate

criminal action against the Managers, Principals of those unrecognised institutions which are running PTC classes at present or who will run PTC

classes hereafter.

In view of the aforesaid consensus reached between the parties, present group of petitions is disposed of as aforesaid. Rules issued in Special

Civil Applications Nos. 6321 of 1986, 6560 of 1986 and 236 of 1987 and 339 of 1987 will be made absolute to the aforesaid limited extent, by

consent of parties as aforesaid. Special Civil Application No. 293 of 1987 which is taken out by the management of Shri Adhyapan Mandir,

Sabarmati shall stand rejected as it is not pressed by the institution and as the institution has given an undertaking as aforesaid to close down its

activities subject to the rights reserved by the management as indicated hereinabove.

There will be no order as to costs in Special Civil Applications No/ 6321 of 1986, 6560 of 1986, 236 of 1987 and 339 of 1987. So far as

Special Civil Application No. 339 of 1987 is concerned, the petitioner-institution will pay costs of the respondents in separate sets.