Holding

The appellant could not rely on its minority status to avoid the statutory conditions for permission and affiliation, and the appeal was dismissed, with the authorities directed to determine the eligibility of the admitted students for the examination.

Summary

The Andhra Kesari Educational Society was granted permission in 1984 to start a B.Ed. college, subject to several conditions, which were later cancelled after a change of government. The Society claimed minority status to avoid compliance and sought affiliation from Nagarjuna University, which was denied. The High Court, while exceeding its jurisdiction, laid down compliance directions and ordered the college to cease if conditions were not met. The Society admitted 160 students under an interim Supreme Court order, but the State argued the admissions were illegal and exceeded the permitted intake. The Supreme Court held that minority status did not exempt the Society from the statutory conditions, dismissed the appeal, and directed the Director of School Education and the University to decide whether the students who had completed the course could sit for the examination.

Issues considered

The appellant's claim that being a minority institution exempts it from complying with the conditions imposed for permission and affiliation.
Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to issue compliance directions and order the college to cease functioning.
The validity of the cancellation of the original permission and the refusal of affiliation by Nagarjuna University.
Whether students admitted under the Supreme Court's interim order may be permitted to appear for the B.Ed. examination.
Whether the Supreme Court can direct the Director of School Education and the University to allow the students to sit for the examination.

Subjects

minority institutioncollege of educationaffiliationpermissioncompliance conditionsHigh Court jurisdictioninterim orderB.Ed. examinationteacher trainingeducational regulation

Judgment

,, ANDHRA KESARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
A
v.
'' DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & ORS.

NOVEMBER 18, 1988

[B.C. RAY, AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] B

Professional Colleges-College of Education-Affiliation-
Grant of-Nagarjuna University-Guidelines laid by High Court-
Necessity for compliance-Essentiality of teachers-Role-Importance
stressed Rigorous training-Necessity for.

In August, 1984 the State Government granted permission to c
various private bodies and individuals for starting colleges of education
(B.Ed.) courses, with several conditions required to be complied with
within a period of six months. The appellant was one ,among these
beneficiaries. When a change of the Government ensued in September
1984, the permissions granted were suspended or cancelled. The appel- D
lant and other institutions aggrieved by the cancellation moved the High
Court for relief under Article 226. The High Cou,rt while disposing of all
the writ petitions by a common order was of the opinion that the cancel-
lation was as arbitrary as the grant of permission. Since the parties had
invested large sums money for establishing the colleges ,a via media was
taken. The High Court laid down certain conditions and issued direc- E
tions for compliance for granting permission and recognition to the
colleges.

The District Educational Officer inspected the appellant's college
and made a report stating. that there was non-compliance with the
directions of the High Court. Accepting that report; Director of School F
Education made an order declaring that the College of the appellant
shall cease to exist with effect from the last working day of the academic
year 1985-86.
Challenging the validity of that declaration, the appellant again
moved the High Court by filing a writ petition. He filed two more writ
petitions for a direction to the Nagarjuna University to grant affiliation G
to the appellant's college and for a declaration that the resolution of the
Nagarjuna University refusing to grant affiliation to the college of the
appellant was arbitrary and illegal. The students of the college also filed
a writ petition for a direction to declare the results of their B.Ed.
examination held in 1985. The High Court by a common order disposed H
of all the four writ petitions.
893
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
·({'
A The appellant filed an appeal to this Court only against the order
dismissing writ petition No. 1645 of 1987, on· the ground that the appel-
lant has not complied with the conditions laid down by the High Court.
Before the High Court the appellant did not contend that it had
complied with all the conditions laid down for recognition. However, it
was contended that the college is a minority institution and, therefore, it
B need not comply with all those requirements. The High Court did not
accept this contention. Before this Court he relied solely on the ground
that the conditions laid down hy the High Court have been substantially
·complied with. On behalf of the respondent State it was contended that
the appellant has been a law breaker from the very beginning and no
concession should be extended to perpetuate the illegality by permitting
the students to appear in the examination and in any event, more than
c 100 students should not be permitted.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
•
HELD: 1. While considering the validity of the earlier cancella-
0 lion of the permission, the High Court had laid down certain guidelines
and issued some directions for obedience. The High Court made that
order In the interest of the institution and the students, though strictly
speaking it was beyond the power of the High Court. The High .Court
did make It clear that if those conditions were not complied with within
the prescribed period, the institution shall cease to function. The record
E reveals that there were many deficiencies in the institution. The reports
of the District Educational Officer and Inspection Commission of
Nagarjuna University indicated that the appellant did not satisfy all the
requirements for granting permission or affiliation. [900D-l!:J

2. The permission to start the college by the appellant was cancel-
F led twice by the authorities for want of requirements. On that ground,
the University also has refused to grant affiliation to the college. The
order of the High Court affirming the decision of the University Is not
under appeal before this Court. In spite of It, the appellant's sought an
Interim order from this Court and admitted 160 students. If the
Government order had been delayed, the appellant ought to have asked
G the Convenor, B.Ed. C_ommon Entrance test to allot the students for
admission to the college. That was one of the conditions laid down by
-the High Court also. Even that was
not compiled w1tli: [903B-D]

_3. Th~y are the students who were_admltted on the strengtl!__o~
the Interim order made by this Court. It may not be proper to drive
H them to street If they have under-gone the pr_escribed course with the
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL [SHETTY, J.] 895

necessary syllabi and other matters relating thereto. But it would be for A
the Director of School Education and the Registrar, Nagarjuna Uni·
versity to consider and satisfy themselves and not for this Court at once
to permit them to appear in the examination. [903E-F]

4. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of
teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher B
alone could bring out the skills and intelle.ctual capabilities of students.
He is 'engine' of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in
awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and
energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected
of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into
action the benefitter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing C
conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way.
He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infusenobler
and national ideas In younger minds. His involvement in national lnteg·
ration is more important, indeed lndispenslble. It is, therefore, needless
to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with
scrutiny for efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. D
The ill trained or sub-standard teachers would he detrimental to our
educational system; If not a punishment on our chiidren. The Govern·
ment and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inade·
quacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous
consideration. [903H; 904A·Dl
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 293
of 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.1987 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 1645 of 1987.
F
M.C. Bhandare, M. Qamaruddin and Mrs. M. Qamaruddin for
the Appellant.
f
'
P.A. Choudhary, A.V. Rangam and T.V.S.N. Chari for the
Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by leave is directed
against the judgment and order dated April 24, 1987 of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the writ peti·
tion No. 1645of1987. ·· H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

Briefly stated, the facts are·these:
A
In the month of August 1984 a Ministry headed. by Sri
N. Bhaskara Rao suddenly came into powedn A.P. The said Ministry
just lasted for about a month and had to go out of office for want of
vote of confidence by the State Legislative Assembly. During that
B short term, the Government granted a number of permissions to
various private bodies and individuals for starting colleges of educa-
tion .(B.Ed.) courses. The appellant was one among those benefi-
ciaries. The permission was granted with several conditions. Those
conditions were required to be complied with within a period of six
months. In the middle of September 1984 Bhaskara Rao's Ministry
went out of office and the Government headed by Sri N. T. Rama Rao
came back to power. Soon thereafter the permissions granted were
suspencled or cancelled. The appellant and other institutions aggrieved
by the cancellation moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for relief
under Article 226. The appellant filed writ petition No. 812 of 1986.
The State contended that the parties did not comply with the condi-
tions of the grant of permission. All those writ petitions were disposed
of by common order dated March 7, 1986. The High Court was of
opinion that the cancellation was as arbitrary as the grant of permis-
sion. So a via media was taken since the parties have invested large
sums of money for establishing the colleges. The High Court laid down
certain conditions and issued directions for compliance for granting
E permission and recognition to the colleges. Some of those directions
are as follows:
'
"( 1) The petitioners shall comply with the require-
ment of the deposit of Rs.4,50,000 within one month from
this date. If the Director of School Education does not
F cooperate with the petitioners in opening a joint account
the deposit shall be made in a fixed deposit account in the
name of the college in any nationalised or scheduled bank. r
(It shall be open to the petitioner to pursue his application
for exemption meanwhile but the time limit prescribed he-
rein remains or applies to this petition as well).
G
(2) The petitioners shall comply with the require-
ments relating to the appointment of qualified staff and the
laboratory, library and audio-visual equipment within
three months from today. For the purpose of recruitment
of the teaching staff, the petitioners shall issue Notifica-
H tions in two dailies with wide circulation in this State Cal-
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL [SHETfY, J.] 897

lins for aIJplications from the qualified teachers on receipt of
A
applications selections shall be made by the Selection Com-
mittee if one is already constituted by the Government or
the University and if no Selection Committee is consti-
tuted, it shall be constituted consisting of a member of the
Management, the Director of School Education or his
nominee, not below the rank of a Joint Director and in his B
absence by D.E.O and an Expert to be nominated by the
University ..The petitioners shall send communications to
the Director of School Education and the University as
soon as applications are received for the purpose of con-
stituting the Selection Committee and the said officers shall
take the necessary steps in this behalf.
c
(3) If the qualified staff do not respond to the Notifi-
cation issued by the petitioners and consequently the
petitioners find difficulty in appoiitting qualified staff the
petitioners shall made a representation to the Director of
School Education seeking his help in the recruitment and j)
appointment of qualified teaching staff.

(4) All other requirements, including the Model
SchOol, subject to which permissions were initially granted
to the petitioners shall be complied with by the petitioners
not latetthan 31st July, 1986. E

(5) The petitioners shall send a compliance report to
the Director of School Education as soon as the require-
ment regarding deposit of Rs.4,50,0QO within the permitted
time is complied with duly endorsing a copy of the comp-
liance report to the Government. Similarly, the petitioners F
shall send a compliance report to the birector of School
Education regarding the appointment within the permitted
time of the required qualified teaching staff and aiso the
provision of library laboratory and audio-visual equipment
endorsing a copy of the compliance shall send a report to
the Director of School Education endorsing a copy thereof G
to the Government regarding the compliance of all other
requirements as directed above by 31st July, 1986."

The Director of School Education was asked to make such en-
quiry as he thinks fit to satisfy himself about compliance of the above
requirements. If there was no satisfactory compliance within the pre- 11
.:··-··

898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

Scribed period, the High Court said that the concerned institution shall '
A cease to function at the end of the academic year 1985-86. ,~
;.
In accordance with directions issued by the High Court, the Dis-
trict Educational Officer inspected the appellant's college. He made a
report dated June 25, 1986 stating that there was non-compliance with c
B the directions of the High Court. Accepting that report, the Director
made an order dated September 20, 1986 declaring that the college \c
;:\
shall cease to exist with effect from the last working day of the
academic year 1985-86. Challenging the validity of that declaration,
the appellant moved the High Court with writ petition No. 1645 of
~--
1987. The appellant also filed three more writ petitions. Writ petition
c
No. 11087 of 1985 was filed for a direction to the Nagarjuna Uni-
versity, Gun tu~ to grant affiiiation to the appellant's college. Writ
.
petition No. 9417 of 1986 was filed for a declaration that the resolution
of the Nagarjuna University refusing to grant affiliation to the college
was arbitrary·and illeg3!. Writ petition No. 17725 of 1986 was filed by
the students of the college for a direction to declare the results of their
D B.Ed. examination held on October 7, 1985.

All the four writ petitions were disposed of bv the High court by
a common order which is now under appeal betore us. The writ peti-
tion No. 1645 of 1987 was dismissed on the ground. that the appellant
has not complied with the conditions laid down by the High Court.
B Consequently, Writ Petition Nos. 11087 of 1985 and 9417 of 1986
which were filed against the Nagarjuna University were also dismis-
sed. The High Court, however, made some observations regarding the
manner in which the syndicate of the University has to dispose of the
application for affiliation. The High Court observed that denial of
affiliation affects the very life and existence of institution. 1'1terefore,
F it would be fair and proper that the syndicate or other competent
authority of the University which deals with.the question of affiliation,
must give reasons for refusal to grant affiliation. However, there are
no appeals before this court against the dismissal of those two writ
petitions. The present appeal is only against the order of dismissing
writ petition No. 1645 of 1987.
G
At the outset, it may be stated that before the High Court the
appellant did not contend that it had complied with all the conditions
laid down for recognition. The contention, however, was that the col-
lege is a minority institution and therefore, it need not comply with all
those requirements. The High Court did not accept that contention ,.
H and in our opinion very rightly. It was observed that since the appel-
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL ISHETIY, J.] 899

!ant has deliberately refused to comply with the conditions by taking a
A
new and untenable stand that it is a minority institution, it is not
entitled to any relief. The High Court also noted the inadequacy in the
recruitment of lecturers. As against seven lecturers, only five lecturers
were appointed by the appellant. The posts of lecturer in Mathematics
and Physical Science were left unfilled. The Pfincipal was not qualified
to hold the post. The lecturer in social studies was also not qualified. B
The High Court further referred to the deficiencies pointed out by the
Inspection Commission ofNagarjuna University and finally said:

"The court allowed the writ petition subject to direc-
tions (a) to (j) contained in paragraph 134 of its judgment.
Direction (b) clearly says that the selections shall be made
by a selection committee comprising of one nominee of the
c
Director of School Education and one nominee of the
University. This w~s so directed notwithstanding the con-
tention urged by the petitioner that it is a minority institu-
tion. Indeed, the Bench was of the opinion that the said
aspect is totally irrelevant in the circumstances of the case. D
The reason is evident. The Division Bench merely directed
the petitioner-institution to comply with the conditions of
grant within a certain extended period and no more. The
petitioner did not question the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 7.3.1986, which means that he has accepted it.
The said judgment has become final so far as the petitioner E
is concerned. Now when the question of compliance with
and implementation of those directions arise, the petitioner
cannot turn round and say that since the petitioner-institu-
tion is a minority institution, it need not comply with the
said directions. Such a contention cannot be countenanced,
and cannot be taken note of in the circumstances of the F
case."

Before us, the question as to the nature of the institution-
whether it is a minority institution or not, has not been canvassed.
Counsel for the appellant said that he will urge that contention in other
appropriate case. He rested this case on one ground that the condi- G
tions laid down by the High Court have been substantially complied
with. Reference was made to the earnest efforts made by the appellant
to recruit the best qualified staff by inviting applications through
successive advertisements in news papers. When there was no res-
ponse to"the advertisements, the appellant, it is said, approached the
department"for recruitment of staff. But the department did not co- H

~--:;
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R,

A operate. It was argued that the appellant in the circumstances could
not be blamed and if at all it should be the department to be found
fault with. In the alternative it was contended that the appellant has
since satisfied all the necessary requirements for grant of permission
and affiliation of the college.

B We do not want to examine the alternate contention urged by the
appellant. That is a matter for the statutory authorities like the District
Educational Officer and the Nagarjuna University to satisfy them-
selves whether the institution should be permitted to carry on the
course of study. Whether it has satisfied the necessary conditions for
grant of permission and affiliation. We express no opinion on that
·c aspect of the matter.

As to the first contention, very little remains in favour of the
appellant. While considering the validity of the earher cancellation of
the permission, the High Court had laid down certain guidelines and
issued some directions for obedience. The High Court made that order
O in· the interest of the institution and the students, though strictly
speaking it was beyond the power of the High Court. The High Court
did make it clear that if those conditions were not complied with within
the prescribed per.iod, the institution shall cease to function. The
record reveals that there were many deficiencies in the institution. The
reports of the District Educational Officer and the Inspection Com-
f. mission of Nagarjuna University indicated that the appellant did not
satisfy all the requirements for granting permission or affiliation. We
find no justification to consider the correctness of those reports. Nor
we could find fault with tile order of the High Court. Indeed we must
a~cept it in the circumstances of the case.

I:' We may however, state that if the appellant has since substan-
tially complied with the necessary conditions after the disposal of the
matter by the High Court, it will be open to it to approach the con-
cerned authorities for permission to start the college again.

This however, is not the end of the matter. There still remains
(}; another question. That question arises out of the interim order made
by this Court. In this Court when the Advocates were on strike, the
appellant appears to have personally moved CMP No. 5153 of 1988 for
permission to admit students for the term 1987-88. That petition came
up before a Bench of this Court on February 23, 1988. Mr. J. Prasad,
petitioner-in-person was present in the Court and Mr. Balasu-
H bramaniam, on behaW of the State Government was present. No
)
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL [SHE1TY, J.] 901

advocate was present. Mr. Balasubramaniam, was an officer of the
A
establishment of the Andhra Pradesh Government Legal Cell at Delhi.
Obviously he was ignorant of, the facts of the case. This Court after
going into the relevant papers made an interim order as follows:

"We have also read the report of 9th February, 1988 made
by the District Educational Officer, Ongole. We direct sub- B
ject to 'compliance of the conditions, petitioners should be
permitted to admit students for the term 1987-88. The
verification should be made within one week from today
and if there have been any shortfall, petitioner has
opportunity to comply the same within one week. The time
granted upto Ist of March, 1988 shall stand extended upto
15th March, 1988. CMP is disposed of."
c
As is obvious from the above interim order that the appellant
was permitted to admit students for the academic year 1987-88 subject
to compliance with the conditions. This Court did not specify the
number of students to be admitted .. On March 9, 1988, the Depart- D
ment sent a Comhlittee of two persons for inspection and report about
the facilities available in the college. The Committee consisted of Shri
R. Durga Prasad of G.G.C.E. Nellore and Shri B. Venkateswara,
District Educational Officer, Ongole. They visited the college and
submitted the report dated March 9, 1988. Several irregularities were
pointed out in that report particularly with regard to accommodation, E
furniture, library, laboratory and games material. With regard to staff
it is stated that the staff appointed are qualified, but it does not state
whether the required numbers in different disciplines have been
recruited or not. That report was forward to the Directorate of School
Education. On March 11, 1988, the Director wrote to the Secretary,
Government Education Department, A.P. to examine the case of the F
appellant in detail and accord permission to run the college till 1987-88
and also permit admissions of students in view of the interim order
made by this Court. The Director also pointed out in his letter that the
appellant is claiming to be a minority institution and seeking admission
of 160 students. On April 4, 1988, the Government made an order
according sanction to run the college till 1987-88 with an intake capa- G
city of 100 students subject to fulfilment, among others, the following
conditions:

"(1) The college building should be constructed expedi-
tiously. The management should procure equipment and
material for the laboratories expending an amount of not H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

less than Rs.20,000 during 1987-88. They should also pro-
A cure audio visual equipment and material at a cost of not
less than Rs.30,000. The management should provide
library facilities and expend a sum of Rs.5,000 towards
purchase of books. They should also provide adequate
furniture.
B
(2) The management should appoint full contingent staff
on prescribed scales of pay.

(3) They should appoint aaequate teaching and non-teach-
ing staff on prescribed scales of pay.
c (4) Admissions into the B.Ed. Course in the College
should be through the Common Entrance Examinations
conducted by the University in view of the High Court
judgment dated 8.10.1987 in W.P. No. 552 of 1986.

D (6) The management should not collect any capitation
fees.

(7) To establish a Model School.

The Director of School Education was requested to
E report the fulfilment of conditions by the management to
the Government within six months from the date of issue of
the order, failing which the permission accorded as liable to
be cancelled without any notice.

This order was made subject to final judgment of the
p Supreme Court oflndia."

It appears even before the aforesaid Government order, the
appellant had admitted 160 students. The students were not allotted by
the Convenor, B.Ed., Common Entrance Test. It is now said that these
160 students have undergone the required nine months training in the
G academic year 1987-88 and therefore, they should be permitted to
appear for the examination.

Counsel for the State submitted that the appellant has been a law
breaker from the very beginning and no concession should therefore
be extended to perpetuate the illegality by permitting the students to
H appear in the examination. In any event, he said that more than 100
students should not be permitted;'
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. DIRE'.CTOR OF SCHOOL !SHETTY, J.J 903

The explanation of the appellant however, in this context is, that A
there is a general circular of the State Government permitting unaided
schools/colleges to admit 160 students for B.Ed. course as economic
viability. The appellant, therefore, had to admit the students before
the due date extended by this Court and could not have waited for the
belated Government order.
B
The explanation of the appellant appears to be far from satis-
factory. The permission to start the college by the appellant was
cancelled twice by the authorities for want of requirements. On the
ground, the university also has refused to grant affiliation to the
college. The order of the High Court affirming the decision of the
university is not under appeal before us. In spite of it, the appellant's
sought an interim order from this Court and admitted 160 students. If C
the Government order had been delayed, the appellant ought to have
asked the Convenor, B.Ed. Common Entrance Test to allot the
students for admission to the college. That was one of the conditions
laid down by the High Court also. Even that was not complied with.
From the sequence of events which were earlier referred to, we cannot D
avoid the conclusion that the appellant was trying to overreach every·
body at every stage.

This is one side of the picture. There is however, another side.
They are the students who were admitted on the strength of the
interim order made by this Court. The students were perhaps led to E
believe that this Court permitted the appellant to admit them. We
consider, therefore, that it may not be proper to drive them to street if
they have undergone the prescribed course with the necessary syllabi
and other matters relating thereto. But it would be for the Director of
School and the Registrar, Nagarjuna University to consider and.satisfy
themselves and not for this Court at once to permit to them to appear F
in the examination.

In the result, we dismiss the writ appeal, but direct respondent 1
and 3 to consider forthwith whether the students in the appellant's
college have undergone the necessary B.Ed. course and if so, permit
them to appear for the ensuing examination and publish their result. G

In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs,

Before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more.
Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of
teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students.
He is the 'engine• of the educational system. He is a principal instru-
ment in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be
endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened
service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire
and motivate into action the benefitter. He must keep himself abreast
B
of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and
unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and
attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His
involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indis-
pensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be
subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has
c greater relevance .to the needs of the day. The ill trained or sub-
standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if
not a punishment on our children. The Government and the Univer-
sity must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of
teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration.
D A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.