L. MUTHUKUMAR AND ANR. ETC. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 28-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
L. MUTHUKUMAR AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Education. 
Teachers training-Public examination-De-recognition of institutes 
C in which training undertakeii-Results not declared and mark sheets/diplomas 
not issued-Writ petition by candidates-Dismissed by single Judge-On 
appeal, Division Bench of High Court holding that candidates only entitled 
to declaration of results but ·not entitled to get mark sheets/dip/omas-
Validity ·of-Held, mere passing of public examination is not enough and it 
D must be coupled with proper training in a recognised institute-Thus, 
candidates rightly held not entitled to issuance of mark sheets/diplomas. 
Teachers-Standard of-Public interest-Held, must be preferred above 
the interest of individuals-Allowing ill trained teachers from de-recognised 
or un-recognised institutes to teach children would be detrimental to the 
E interest of nation building. 
Petitioners underwent teacher training from different institutes and 
took public examination. But their results were not declared and mark sheets/ 
diplomas were not issued tO them since the institutes in which they underwent 
F training were de-recognised in view of judgment of High Court in P.M Joseph's 
case. Aggrieved, petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court which 
were dismissed by single Judge. On appeal, Division Bench holding that the 
candidates were only entitled to get the results declared but not entitled to 
get mark sheets/diploma~, dismissed the appeals. Hence the present petitions. 
G 
On behalf of petitioners it was contended that since they have undergone 
the training course in the institutions, which had recognition on the date of 
public examination, they .could not be denied mark sheets/diplomas merely 
on the ground that those institutes were de-recognised by virtue of a decision 
rendered by the High Co~rt subseque~f fo the public examination; that the 
treatment of the respondents was unfair and discriminatory since few others 
I-I 
462 
'" 
,-
-
-
L. MUTHUKUMAR v. STATE 
463 
similarly placed, have been given diplomas/certificates although with an A 
endorsement that they have undergone training in on-recognised institutes. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD : 1 Mere passing of public examination in teachers training is 
not enough. It must be coupled with proper training in a recognised institute B 
in order to get meaningful and purposeful results. Thus, High Court was 
justified in holding that the petitioners were entitled only for the declaration 
of the results of the examination and on account of subsequent de-recognition 
of the institutes in which they underwent training courses, they were not 
entitled for issuance of mark sheets or diplomas. [471-B; 469-G] 
C 
St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for women). Madurai and others 
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [1993) 3 SCC 595, relied on. 
*P.M Joseph v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1993) WLR 604; D. 
Balamurugan and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1998) 1 MLJ D 
663 and The Director of School Education v. A. Dennis Lilly Burk Mary and 
Ors., (1998) 3 Law Weekly 7 S.N., approved. 
Jhansi Rani and Ors. v. The Secretary, The Director of Government 
Examinations, Chennai and Ors., (1998) 2 MLJ 281, distinguished. 
2. Petitioners were not entitled to grant of diplomas/certificates with 
E 
an endorsement that they have undergone training in on-recognised institutes. 
The institutes where the petitioners underwent training which were de-
recognised by virtue of judgment in P.M Joseph's *case were covered by the 
said judgment. Hence the petitioners cannot escape but are bound by the said F 
judgment. Their seeking writ of mandamus for issuance of mark sheets and/ 
or diplomas/certificates contrary to the said judgment, that too after a period 
of six years, was rightly rejected by the High Court. [472-D, E] 
3. Before teachers are allowed to teach innocent children, they must 
receive appropriate and adequate training in a recognised training institute G 
satisfying the prescribed norms, otherwise standard of education and career 
of children will be jeopardized. In most civilised and advanced countries, job 
of a teacher in primary school is considered important and crucial one because 
moulding of young minds begins in primary schools. Allowing ill-trained 
teachers coming out of de-recognised or on-recognised instit

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