Some of the petitioners the institutions in this batch of writ petitions are either coveting recognition for their initial functioning or for the functioning of certain classes which they have taken in, subsequent to their obtaining recognition for their initial functioning, obviously to get at the attendant benefits thereto. Some of the institutions pray for directions to the authorities to permit their students to take the examination or examinations, pending decision on the question of recognition. There is a complaint in some cases that permission to take the examinations was accorded earlier, but that has not been adhered to now. In one case W.P. 2176 of 1988 it is claimed that the students of the institution have taken their examinations and there is a request for publication of their results. In W.P. 1983 of 1988, the question of recognition is pending and the prayer is to direct the authorities to permit the 1986-87 and 1987-88 batch of students of the institution to have teaching training in the recognised institutes.


2. There is no dispute that for the students, who undergo any course in these institutions, to take particular examination or examinations, recognition is a condition precedent. These institutions ought not to have commenced functioning either initially or commenced functioning the classes taken subsequently without first obtaining the required recognition, the very such functioning in my view, is infirm. If, with temerity, these institutions have started functioning without obtaining recognition, what they have done is grossly wrong. The delay that may be occurring on the question of recognition on account of laches, if any, on the part of the authorities concerned, may be reprehensible and, of course, may not merit any tolerance. But that is not a ground to be taken note of to encourage a situation which the institutions themselves have brought about. They have no business to start functioning inducting students in the courses which have no sanctity in the eye of law, without recognition. It could be complained legitimately that those institutions are only commercial minded and they have exploited the students, may be by making declarations or giving assurances that recognition is automatic and could be secured as a matter of course. This Court cannot give its seal of approval to this conduct on the part of the institutions, As already, noted, undue delay on the part of the authorities in considering the question of recognition is not to be commended. But on, that account, this court cannot straightway direct the authorities to permit the students, who have undergone the courses, without the sanction of recognition, to go through the examinations which would be a futile process. Equally, so, it would not be proper for this Court to direct the authorities to publish the results of the examinations, which those students have been permitted to take, whatever be the circumstances under which the permission was obtained. So also, the institutions cannot be permitted to adopt functioning on the same lines as those having recognition. So far as these institutions covet recognition, this Court can issue the appropriate directions to the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the question of recognition at whatever stage it may be in respect of each of the institutions as asked for by them, with expedition.


3. Learned counsel appearing for the institutions cited the following authorities in support of their submissions that this Court could issue appropriate directions, pending decision on the question of recognition by the authorities - (1) Malankara Syrian Catholic Arch Diocess of Trivandrum v. Joint Director of School Education (Secondary), (1987) 100 Mad LW 976, (2) The Society of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Jalayamkottai rep by its President and Superior General Rev Bro A. Arul Prakaam v. Director of School Education, Madras, W.P. 2022 of 1982 order dt. 23-01-1985 and (3) the order of the Supreme Court of India in St. Pauls Teachers Training Institute v. Director of School Education etc. C.A. 1914 to 1926 of 1987 dt. 15-09-1987. But, I find that each of these cases has been dealt with on its own facts, and I cannot draw any inspiration for a general rule or a proposition from these pronouncements relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the institutions, for a decision on the present questions.


4. On the other hand, the principles have been discussed and set out succinctly in the following pronouncements relied on by Mr. J. Kanakaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the authorities. In Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 (1) Scale 1198, 1986 AIR(SC) 1188, 1986 (S) SCC 166, 1986 SSCC 166, 1986 Supp(SCC) 166 , the question has been dealt with in the following manner (at pp. 1190-91) -


"One of the writ petitions before us (W.P. 12697/85) was filed by a student claiming to have undergone training in one of privately managed institutes. It was argued that the students of the institute in which she had undergone training were permitted in previous years to appear at the Government examinations and as in previous years she may be allowed to appear at the examination this year. A similar request was made by Sri Garg that the students who have undergone training for the one year course in these private institutions may be allowed to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that permission might not be accorded to them. We are unable to accede to these requests. 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 we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court under Art.32 of the Constitution or Art.226 should be frittered away for such a purpose." *


5. In A.P.C.M.E. Society v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 AIR(SC) 1490, 1986 (1) Scale 895, 1986 (2) SCC 667, 1986 (2) SCR 749, the specific observations run as follows (Para 10) :-


"Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the students, who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstances that students of the Medical College established by the Darusalam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University. Sri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Sri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Sri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. The case of the medical college started by the Darusalam Trust appears to stand on a different footing as we find from the record placed before us that permission had been granted by the State Government to the Trust to start the medical college and on that account, the University had granted provisional affiliation. We also find that the Medical Council of India took strong and serious exception to the grant of provisional affiliation whereupon the University withdrew the affiliation granted to the college. We are unable to treat what the University did in the case of the Darusalam Medical college as a precedent in the present case to direct the University to do something which it is forbidden from doing by the University Act and the regulations of the University.


6. In Amarendra Pratab Singh v. Lalit Narain Mithila University, 1987 AIR(Pat) 259 (FB) there was a request for a Mandamus for declaration of results of the students of the institutions, which are yet to get recognition and affiliation. This is what was observed by the majority (Para 20) -" *


Plainly enough, no mandamus can be issued to perpetuate a mistake. If the law places a total ban on the students of unrecognised and unaffiliated institutions to take the examination of Bachelor of Education then it is not for the Court to override the same and of all things through the medium of a mandamus contrary to law.

"7. In the State of Tamil Nadu v. S.P. Sree Ragha, W.P. Nos. 1373 and 1374 of 1986 order dt. 03-02-1987 : (reported in 1987 (13) IJ Rep 727) a Bench of this Court consisting of M.N. Chandurkar C.J. and M. Srinivasan J. observed as follows : -" *


An impressin seems to be gaining ground that Courts ultimately will come to the rescue of the students who have got themselves admitted into unrecognised educational institutions. The ultimate beneficiary in such cases is the unscrupulous persons who unauthorisedly start educational institutions more by way of an adventure in business only with the object of making money. The beneficiaries of such Court's order though immediately are the students, unfortunately it is the correspondents of such institutions, who will be emboldened to continue with their activities of starting unauthorised educational institutions, weighing the interest of the individual students and the interest of the community as a whole and also to prevent students from falling into the trap laid by these adventurers in the field of education, it is time we take rather a strong view of the matter and do not interfere by ordering any alternative arrangement in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. If there is neither any right in the petitioners to get an order directing the recognition of an educational institution nor to get themselves admitted to an institution of his choice, it is difficult to see how by way of interim relief any order could be made directing the students to be admitted in any particular institution. In our veiw, having regard to the increased tendency of starting unauthorised educational institutions, there was hardly any scope for making the kind of order which has been made by the learned single Judge."


8. After adverting to the pronouncements relied on both by the learned counsel appearing for the institutions and the learned Additional Government Pleader, I feel obliged to issue the following directions : (1) the authorities concerned are directed to consider and dispose of the question of recognition at whatever stage it may be in respect of each of the institutions with due expedition, and in any event, before the lapse of eight weeks from today. (2) If it is a question of the concerned institution or ins

titutions taking up appeals as against the initial order or orders of rejection of recognition, if not already done, they will do so before the lapse of a week from today, so that the question of recognition can be disposed of, as per Cl.(1) supra. (3) The other requests by these institutions that the students, who have undergone the concerned courses in them, should be permitted to take the examination or examinations, pending the question of recognition or that the results of the examinations already taken by those students should be published or that any ancillary direction pending recognition should be given, cannot be countenanced, and they all stand rejected. (4) If recognition is to be accorded ultimately to all or any of these institutions, the authorities should hold supplemental examination or examinations within a reasonable time and in any event before the lapse of twelve weeks from the ultimate grant of recognition for the students who have undergone the concerned courses subject to their eligibility. (5) Equally so, the publication of the results of those students who have already taken the examinations, shall be done within the above period. These writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. No costs. Order accordingly.