ANDHRA KESARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY versus DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 18-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,, 
' ' 
ANDHRA KESARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 
v. 
DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 18, 1988 
A 
[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 
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-
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-
tions for compliance for granting permission and recognition to the 
colleges. 
c 
D 
E 
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 
B 
c 
was contended that the college is a minority institution and, therefore, it 
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 
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. I

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.