Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing the State to permit the respondents to appear for the examination, as the direction contravened statutory law and is impermissible.

Summary

The respondents were admitted to a D.Ed. course in an unrecognised institution and sought a writ directing the State of Maharashtra to allow them to sit for the public examination. The Bombay High Court ordered the State to permit the students to appear and, after passing, to allocate them seats in a recognised institution. The State appealed, arguing that the direction contravened statutory provisions governing recognition of educational institutions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a manifest error in law by directing the State to disobey the University Act and related regulations, emphasizing that courts cannot grant relief that encourages unrecognised institutions. Citing earlier decisions, the Court reaffirmed that students of unauthorised institutions have no statutory right to sit for examinations and that such judicial interference undermines the rule of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a court can issue a direction permitting students admitted to an unrecognised educational institution to appear for a statutory examination.
Whether such a direction violates the provisions of the University Act and related regulations.
Whether the respondents have a right to mandamus or other relief to compel the State to allow their examination participation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 51A
University Act

Subjects

unrecognised educational institutionD.Ed. courseexamination eligibilitystatutory complianceArticle 226mandamuseducation lawrecognition of institutions

Judgment

_)-

A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
VIKAS SAHEBRAO ROUNDALE AND ORS.

AUGUST 11, 1992

B (N.M. KASLIWAL, K. RAMASWAMY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.]

Atticle 226-11/ equipped under staffed unrecognised educational institu-
~-
tions-Students admitted to D.Ed. course in unrecognised institution-Held
High Coutt committed manifest e"or in exercising prerogative power to permit
c appearance for examination.

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
D 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 can-
didates should be allocated seats in a recognised institution to prosecute
E their further courses. Assailing the legality thereof this appeal has been
filed in this court.

F
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, Ribar, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra States inparticular,
-though other states too are of no exception. Obviously the field of educa- ""<
tion 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
G Maharashtra. [794F-G]
t--
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]

H Considering the cases decided by this Court regarding private i,_.
792
STATE v. VIKAS ROUNDALE 793

stitutions unauthorisedly established and the request for the pennisstud A
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.1.R. 1986 S.C. 1188; A.P. Christians Medical Educa- B
tional Society, etc. v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh & Anr., (1986) 2 S.C.C.
=
'167 A.l.R. 1986 S.C. 1490; All Bihar Christian Schools Association & Anr.
I
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., C
- (S.L.P. (C) No. 2067 of 1991 decided on 19.2.91).

This Court has held that the courts giving directions to relieve' bar·
ships of the students has resulted in total indiscipline in the filed of regula·
,,J. tion. While in the case of Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Direc~or of
School Education & Ors., (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 893 on which the respon· D
dents have relied upon, this Court i~sued directions in special circumstan·
ces 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 SIA enjoins every citizen by clause (h) to E
develop the scientific temper, humanism, the spirit of enquiry and reform;
clause (j) enjoins as fundamental duty to strive towards excellence in all
1

spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly
-.. rises higher and higher. Thus clause (a) & (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 F
periods to take deep roots at maturity. Eveia the teacher needs not only
the training at the inception but also pen~ 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 ~nd detrimental to inculcating spirit of enquiry and excellence G
to the _students. To disregard statutory compliance would amount I
to
letting loose of innocent and unwary children. Even in the proceetJing of
·' --""(
a receDl ~lnar held in Delhi it is clearly demonstrated as an a~ssion
· by teachm that they are not properly trained to meet the growing needs
of the society. The qualitative training in the training Colleges or School H
)·-

794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A would inspire and motivate them into actfon 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
B and judicial fiat to contr('! the mode of education and examining system
are detrimental to the efficient management of .the education. Thus direc-
tions to the appellants to disobey the lawis 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
C prerogative power confered under Article 226 of the Constitution, direct-
ing the appellants to permit the students to appear in the examination.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2932 of
[797E-798F] -
1992.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated · ~,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.

E R.B. Masodkar and K.L. Taneja for the Respondents.

The Judgment of tJie Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. Special leave granted.

F This court judicially no.ticed 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
G 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
y-- .
equipped to impart education and have the students admitted, in some
instances despite warnings by the State Govt. and in some instances without
H knowledge of the concerned State Govt, but with connivance at lower levels.
I

STATE v. VIKAS ROUNDALE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 795

In this case the respondents in all 129, were admitted to D.Ed. co~rse A
by unrecognised Yashomati Adhyapak Vidhyalaya, Warthi, District Bhan-
dara. When the examinations were to commence from April 18, 1991, lthe
management finding it difficult to have them sit for the examination,
obviously encouraged the respondents to tap the doors of the High Cdurt
of Bombay at Nagpur Bench who sought direction to permit them to B
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 examipa-
tion for the first year commencing from April 18, 1991 and after their
passing the examination, the passed candidates should be allocated i1,1 a

- recognised institution to prosecute their further courses. Assailing the C
legality thereof this appeal has been filed.

Sri Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, cqn-
tended that the respondents having had admission in an unauthorised
~-
/
college, have no right to seek writ of mandamus or direction from the cotirt D
to permit them to sit for the examination or to accommodate them in the
recognised institutions to pursue further study. It is also contended that the
direction issued by the High Court runs counter to the statute and in virthe
directing the authorities to disobey the law which is impermissible. We find
force in the contention.
E
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 staff¢d
and ill equipped. If the Govt. is directed to permit the students admitted
info those institutions, to appear in the examination, we will practically ~e F
encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions.
It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the colirt either under Art. ~2
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 unrecognis~d
schools was depreca,ted by this court.
G
I

InA.P. Christians Medical Educational Society, etc. v. Govt. ofAndhta
Pradesh & Anr., (1986] 2 SCC 667 = AIR 1986 'SC 1490 when fervent
request with all persuasion by the Semor counsel, Sri K.K. Venugopal, to
permit the students admitted in unrecognised and unauthorised instituion
to pursue balance course was made, this court noted thus: · H
_J
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A '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
B 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
C 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 A,
D 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 institu-
tions and the admission of the students in those edcational institutions. It
was held that the educational institutions of the minorities have no right to
E mat-administration. Any rule or direction issued by the Govt. to prevent
mat-administration would be valid.

In State of 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
F 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
G 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
H Maharashtra. & Ors., S.L.P. (C) No. '1JKJ7 of 1991 decided on 19.2.91 this
STATE v. VIKAS ROUNDALE (RAMASWAMY, J.) 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 B
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 directed the Govt. to consider whetller C
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 collrt
in the speeial circumstances therein. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a
precedent, in particular, in the light of the law laid down by this court as D
stated supra.

Article 51A enjoins every citizen by clause (h) to develop the scien-
tific temper, humanism, the spirit of inquiry and reform and clause G)
enjoins as the fundamental duty to strive towards excellence in all spherfs E
of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to ·
higher levels of endeavour and achievement; (a) respect for national flag
and national anthem; ( e) to promote harmony and spirit of common

- brotherhood amongst all the Indian people transcending religious, lingui~-
tic and regional or sectional diversities to renounce practice derogatory to
the dignity of woman; (f) to value and preserve rich heritage of our
F
composite culture, etc. are some of the basic duties with whcih 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 th~ G
rich benefit thereof. The ill equipped and ill housed institutions and
sub-standard staff therein are counter productive and detrimental to incul-
cating 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 H
)-

798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 teachnics to the students
on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well equipped teacher could
bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in their
C 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 chidren to perform
that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with
D 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 neces-
sary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to
E recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is
insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode
of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient manage-
ment of the education. T]ie directions to the appellants to disobey the law
is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and
F 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
G 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 thein 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
H eligibility of the respondents was in compliance with G.R. dated October
STATE v. VIKAS ROUNDALE [RAMASWAMY, J.) 799

26, 1990 and the letter of the Dy. Officer, Jila Parishad, Bhandara dated A
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
1
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.
B
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances with no .
order as to costs. I
·--<' S.B. Appeal allowed.

-