Appeals Nos 722 and 723 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 131192 of the Allahabad High Court in WP Nos
688  1246 of 1992
WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS
386 and 387 of 1993 From the Judgment and Order dated 131192 of the Allahabad High Court in W P Nos 8 19 and 888 of 1992
Rajiv Dhawan PK Dey and Rakesh Gosian Ms Rani Jethmalani NP for the Appellants in CA Nos
722 2393
RP Saxena for the Appellants in CA Nos 386 8793
Yogeshwar Prasad and Ms Rachna Gupta for the Respondent
J The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos
722  723 of 1993 had been appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal to appear in different criminal cases on behalf of the State in different Courts in the District of Moradabad
They filed the connected Writ Applications before the High Court against the decision of the State Government refusing to extend their term for a farther period of three years which were dismissed by the High Court
It appears that the appellants
except appellant No 3 Gopal Sharma had been appointed by Government Order dated 25291
as Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal in the District of Moradabad in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code and the Legal Remembrancer Manual hereinafter referred to as the Manual against the substantive vacancies
Appellant No 3 however had been appointed on 13121990
The last date of the tenure of the appellants other than appellant No 3 as mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order dated 25
21991 was 3112199 1
The tenure of appellant No 3 was up to 1312199 1
It is not in dispute that before the expiry of the term aforesaid the District Judge Moradabad by his letter dated 27121991 recommended the names of appellants for extension of their terms
The District Judge prepared two lists ie A  and B 
List A  contained the name of those lawyers whose work and conduct has been approved for their extension as Government Counsel whereas List B  contained the names of the remaining Government Counsel who in the opinion of the District Judge were average lawyers
The names of the appellants are in List A  The District Judge requested the District Magistrate
Moradabad
to send his recommendation to the State Government for extension of the term of tile Government Counsel mentioned in List A 
The District Magistrate
after receipt of the recommendation of the District Judge aforesaid by a communication dated 2192 did not recommended the names of the appellants for extension of their terms saying that on the inquiry at his level reputation professional work behaviour and conduct of the above mentioned Government Counsel was not found in accordance with public interest
It may be mentioned that on 28129 1 tile State Government had extended the terms of the appellants till further orders
Ultimately without assigning any reason the extension recommended by the District Judge was rejected by the State Government which decision is the subject matter of the controversy in the present appeals
In the State of UP the Manual is an authoritative compilation of the government orders and instructions for the conduct of legal affairs of the State Government
Para 100 of Chapter VII gives the details of the Law Officers of the Government which includes the Government Counsel Civil Revenue Criminal 975 along with many others like Judicial Secretary and Legislative Secretary
The Chapter VII of the contains the procedure in respect of appointment and conditions of engagements of District Government Counsel
The District Officer is required it consider all the applications received
in consultation with the District Judge and to submit in order of preference the names of  the legal practitioners along with the opinion of the District Judge on tile suitability and merit of each candidate to the State Government giving due wightage to the claim of the existing incumbents if any
After the receipt of such recommendations the Legal Remembrancer is required is required to submit the said recommendations with his own opinion for the orders of the State Government
In Para 706 of the Manual the procedure regarding the appointment and renewal has been prescribed 706
Appointment and renewal 1 The legal practitioner finally selected by the Government may be appointed District Government Counsel for one year from the date of his taking over charge
2At the end of the aforesaid periodic the District Officer after consulting the District Judge shall submit a report on his work and conduct to the legal Rememberancer together with the statement of work done in Form No 9
Should his work or conduct be found to he unsatisfactory the matter shall be reported to the Government for orders
If the report in respect of his work and conduct is satisfac tory he may be furnished with a deed of engagement in Form No 1 for a term not exceeding three years
On his first engagement a copy of Form No2 shall he supplied to him and lie shall complete and return it to the legal Remembrancer for record
3The appointment of any legal practitioner as a District Government Counsel is only professional engagement terminable at will on either side and is not appointment to a post under the government
Accordingly the government reserves the power to terminate the appointment of any District Government Counsel at any time without assigning any cause
 Para 708 contains the procedure for renewal after expiry of the original term 708
Renewal of term 1 At least three months before the expiry 976 of the term of a District Government Counsel the District Officer shall after consulting tile District Judge and considering his past record of work conduct and age report to the Legal Remembrancer together with the statement of work done by him in Form No9 whether in his opinion the term of appointment of such counsel should be renewed or not
A copy of the opinion of the District Judge should also he sent along with the recommendations of the District Officer
2Where recommendation for the extension of the term of a District Government Counsel is made for a specified period only the reasons therefore shall also he stated by the District Officer
3 While forwarding his recommendation for renewal of the term District Government Counsel i the District Judge shall give an estimate of the quality of the Counsel s work from the judicial standpoint keeping in view the different aspects of a lawyers capacity as
it is manifested before him in conducting State cases and specially his professional conduct
ii the District Officer shall give his report about the suitability of the District Government Counsel from the administrative point of view his public reputation in general his character
integrity and professional conduct
4 If the Government agrees with the recommendations of the District Officer for the renewal of the term of the Government Counsel it may pass orders for re appointing him for a period not exceeding three years
5 If the government decides not to re appoint a Government Counsel the Legal Remembrancer may call upon the District Office r to forward fresh recommendations in the manner laid down in para 703
6 The procedure prescribed in this para shall be followed on the expiry of every successive period of renewed appointment of a 977 Dist Government Counsel
Note  The renewal beyond 60 years of age shall depend upon continuous good work sound integarity and physical fitness of the Counsel
It was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that any legal practitioner finally selected by the Government may be appointed as District Government Counsel for one year from the date of his taking over charge but in view of Para 706 of the Manual at the end of the aforesaid period the District Magistrate after consulting the District Judge has to submit a report on his work and conduct to the Legal Remembrancer in the form prescribed
If the report in respect of his workand conduct is satisfactory then such Counsel shall be furnished with a deed of engagement in form No 1 for a term not exceeding three years
Para 708 of the Manual contains the procedure for renewal of the term of the District Government Counsel after the expiry of original term
It requires the District Officer at least three months before the expity of the term of a District Government Counsel to report to the Legal Rmembrancer after consulting the District Judge and considering the past record of work conduct and age of such District Government Counsel
If the Government agrees with the recommendation it may pass an Order re appointing him for a period not exceeding three years
The stand of the appellants is that in view of Para 7062 the appointment of any legal practitioner as a District Governemnt Counsel does not automatically come to an end rather it indicates and element of continuity and that is why Para 7062 requires the District Officer at the end of period of one year to submit a report after consulting the District Judge concerned in respect of the work and conduct of such District Government Counsel to the Legal Remembrancer in a form prescribed
If the report in respect of work and conduct is satisfactory then such District Government Counsel shall be furnished with a deed of engagement in a form prescribed for a term not exceeding three years
As such after the period of one year if the engagement for a further period upto three years is not given it amounts to a stigma
On behalf of the appellants attention of this Court was drawn to a letter addressed to the District Magistrate by Dr Nepal Singh M LC the District President of the party then in power recommending the names of other Government Counsel for renewalextension of their term
It was pointed out that in respect of all those persons
The District Magistrate has recommended for extension
There is however no material before us to show that the District 978 Magistrate was influenced by the said letter in any manner
A part form that the persons so resommended by the District Magistrate were not impleded as respondents to the Writ applications
As such we are not inclined to go into this aspect
The different paragraphs of the Manual aforesaid were examined in detail in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs State of U P  in connection with an order dated February 6 1990 issued by the State of U P terminating the appointments of all Government Counlsel  Civil Criminal and Revenue in all the districts of the State of UP with effect from February 28 1990 and directing the preparation of fresh panels for making appointments in places of the existing incumbents
while quashing such general order it was said Viewed in any manner the impugned circular dated February 6 1990 is arbitrary
It terminates all the appointments of Government Counsel in the districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh by an omnibus order even though these appointments were all individual
No common reason applicable to all of them justifying their termination in one stroke on a reasonable ground has been shown
The submission on behalf of the State of UttarPradesh at the hearing that many of them were likely to be re appointed is by itself ample proof of the fact that there was total non application of mind to the individual cases before issuing the general order terminating all the appointments
This was done in spite of the clear provisions in the L R manual lying down detailed procedure for appointment termination and renewal of tenure and the requirement to first consider the existiong incumbent for renewal of his tenure and to take steps for a fresh appointment in his place only if the existing incumbent is notfound suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of renewal
In the case of existing appointees a decision has to be first reached about their non suitability for renewal before deciding to take steps for making fresh appointments to replace them
None of these steps were taken and no materialhas been produced to show that any existing incumbent was found unsuitable for the office on objective assessment before the decision to replace all by fresh appointees was taken
The prescribed procedure laid down in the LR Manual which has to regulate exercise of this power was tatally igonered
In the present case it appears to be an admitted position that appointments of the appellants as assistant District Government Counsel Criminal is governed 978 979 LM0 by Section 24 of the Code as well different paragraphs of Chapter VII of the Manual
It was not disputed on behalf of the State that appellants shall be deemed to be Additional Public Prosecutors within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code although in the order of appointment they have been designated as Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal
The procedure prescribed in the Manual can be observed and followed as supplemental to the provisions of Section 24 of the Code
Needless to say that if there is any conflict then Section 24 of the Code being statutory in nature will override the procedure prescribed in the Manual
The relevant part of Section 24 is as such 24
Public Prosecutors 1 For every High Court the Central Government of the State shall after consultation with the High Court appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for conducting in such Court any prosecutionappeal or other proceedings on behalf of the Central Government or State Government as the case may be
2    3 For every district the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may he appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor as the case may be for another district
4The District Magistrate shall in consultation with the Sessions Judge prepare a panel of names of persons who are
in his opinion fit to he appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district
5 No Person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub section 4
 The Code prescribes the procedure for appointment of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor for the High Court and the District Courts by the State Government
The framers of the Code were conscious of the fact that the Public Prosecutor and the Additional Public Prosecutor have an important role 980 while prosecuting on behalf of the State accused persons who are alleged to have committed one or the other offence
Because of that provisions have been made for their selection in the Code
It is for the Sessions Judge to assessee the merit and professional conduct of the persons recommended for such appointments and the District Magistrate to express his opinion on the suitability of persons so recommended from the administrative point of view
Sub section 5 of Section 24 provides that no person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub section 4
The aforesaid section requires an effective and real consultation between the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate about the merit and suitability of person it he appointed as Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor
That is why it requires a panel of names of persons to be prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge
The same is the position so far the Manual is concerned
It enumerates in detail how for purpose of initial appointment extension or renewal the District Judge who is also the Session Judge is to give his estimate of the quality of the work of the Counsel from the judicial Standpoint and the District Officer ie the District Magistrate is to report about the suitability of such person from administrative point of view
On behalf of the State our attention was drawn to the expression in his opinion occurring in sub section 4 of Section 24 of the Code
It was urged that as the Code vests power in the District Magistrate to consider the suitability of the person concerned for appointment according to his opinion there is not much scope of judicial review by Courts unless a clear case of malice on the part of the District Magistrate is made out
In view of the series of judgments of this Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd vs Company Law Board   State of Assam Bhatrai Kala Bhandar Ltd
AIR  Rohtas Industries Ltd vs SD Agarwal   The Purtapur Company Ltd vs Cane Commissioner of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 1896 and MA Rasheed vs The State of Kerala   it is almost settled that although power has been vested in a particular authority in subjective term still judicial review is permissible
In the present case the District  Session Judge strongly recommended extension for the appellants saying that so far their work and conduct were concerned the same had been approved
But the District Magistrate simply said that on the inquiry at his level reputation professional work behaviour and conductor the appellants as government counsel was not found in accordance with the public interest
The quality of the Counsel  work has to be judged and assessed 981 by the District  Sessions Judge
The District Magistrate is required to consider the suitability of such person from the administrative point of view
According to us in view of the strong recommendation about the quality of the appellants  professional work the District Magistrate should have applied his mind in consultation with the Sessions Judge
in respect of each individual case
instead of making a general and identical comment against all the appellants
Apart from that the mandate of sub section 4 of Section 24 is that the District Magistrate shall in constitution with the Session Judge prepare a panel of names of persons
Sub section 5 of Section 24 prescribes a statutory bar that no person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub section 4
When sub section 4 and sub section 5 of Section 24 of the Code speak about preparation of a panel out of which appointments against the posts of Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor have to he made
then the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate are required to consult and discuss the names of the persons fit to be included in the panel and to include such names in the panel
The expressions panel of names of persons do not mean that some names are to be suggested by the Sessions Judge and some comments are to be made in respect of those names by the District Magistrate without proper consultation and discussion over such names
The statutory mandate ought to have been complied with by the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in its true spirit
In the facts of the present case no such panel appears to have been prepared by the District Magistrate in terms of sub section 4 of Section 24
As Section 24 of the Code does not speak about extension or renewal of the term of the person so appointed the same procedure as provided under sub section 4 of Section 24 of the Code has to be followed
In the present case the District Magistrate instead of having an effective and real consultation with the District  Sessions Judge simply made some vague and general comments against the appellants which cannot be held to he the compliance of the requirement of subsection 4 of Section 24
In the case of Kumari Shrilankha Vidyarthi supra this Court was not concerned with the question regarding the extensionrenewal of the terms of the Government Counsel
The primary question which was examined by this Court in that case was as to whether it was open to the State Government by the impugned circular dated February 6 1990
to terminate appointments of all the Government Counsel in the different districts of the State by an omnibus order even though those appointments were all individual
It was held that any such exercise of power by the State Government cannot satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution 982 and as such was unreasonable and arbitrary
In that connection reference was made to the Manual aforesaid and it was pointed out that the said Manual has laid down detailed procedure for appointment termination and renewal of the tenure of the District Government Counsel
It was pointed out that different paragraphs of the Manual require first to consider the existing incumbents for extension and renewal of their tenure and to take steps for fresh appointment in their place if the existing incumbents were not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of the renewal
As already mentioned above
Section 24 of the Code does not speak about the extension or renewal of the term if the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor
But after the expiry of the term of the appointment of persons concerned
it requires the same statutory exercise in which either new persons are appointed or those who have been working as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor
are again appointed by the State Government for a fresh term
The procedure prescribed in the Manual to the extant it is not in conflict with the provisions of Section 24
shall he deemed to be supplementing the statutory provisions
But merely because there is a provision for extension or renewal of the term the same cannot he claimed as a matter of right
It is true that none of the appellants can claim as a matter of right that their terms should have been extended or that they should be appointed against the existing vacancies but certainly they can make a grievance that either they have not received the Pair treatment by the appointing authority or that the procedure prescribed in the Code and in the Manual aforesaid
have not been followed
While exercising the power of judicial review even in respect of appointment of members of the legal profession as District Government Counsel the Court can examine whether there was any infirmity in the decision making process
 Of course while doing so the Court cannot substitute its own judgment over the final decision taken in respect of selection of persons for those posts
It was said in the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Plice vs Evans1982  The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according Pair treatment
reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court
 In the facts of the present case the procedure prescribed by Section 24 of the Code have not been followed by the District Magistrate
There is nothing on the 983 records of the case to show that any panel as required by sub section 4 of Section 24 was prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the District  Sessions Judge
The District Magistrate simply made some general comment in respect of the appellants
When the District  Sessions Judge had put them in List A  of his recommendation
According to us this shall not amount to either the compliance of sub section 4 of Section 24 of the Code or Para 7062 of the Manual
It appears there has been no effective or real consultation between the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate for preparation of the panel as contemplated
by sub section 4 of Section 24 of the Code
The members of the legal profession are required to maintain high standard of legal ethics and dignity of profession
They are not supposed to solicit work or seek mandamus from courts in matters of professional engagements
We have been persuaded to interfere in these matters to a limited extent as we are satisfied that there is patent infraction of the statutory provisions of the Code
As we are of the view that the District Magistrate has not performed his statutory duty as enjoined by law the appeals of the appellants have to be allowed
In the result the appeals are allowed
We direct the District Magistrate Moradabad to perform his statutory duty afresh
in accordance with the requirement of Section 24 of the Code read with the relevant paragraphs of Chapter VII of the Manual which are not inconsistent with Section 24 of the Code
so far the appellants are concerned if the vacancies are still there
The necessary steps shall be taken preferably within four months from the date of this judgment
the State Government shall thereafter perform its part in accordance with Section 24 and different paragraphs of the Manual which are applicable in the facts and circum stances of the case
We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the appellants to get extension or appointment against the posts of Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal
There will he no order as to costs
CIVIL APPEALS NOS
386  387 OF 1993 So far the appellants of these appeals are concerned their names were put under List B  by the District  Sessions Judge in his recommendation saying that they were average lawyers
Their case stands on a different footing
The District  Sessions Judge
who is required to express his opinion on the merit and the conduct of the persons recommended for appointment or extension of the period 984 as District Government Counsel has expressed the opinion that appellants are average lawyers and has put them in List B
In other words neither the District  Sessions Judge has recommended the case of the appellants of these appeals for extension nor the District Magistrate
Their case cannot be treated at par with the appellants of the other appeals
In such as situation no useful purpose will be served by directing the District Magistrate to perform his statutory duty as required by sub section 4of Section 24 of the Code again even the respect of these appellants
Accordingly these appeals are dismissed
there will be no orders as to costs
VPR CA Nos 722 and 72393 allowed
CA Nos 386 and 38793 dismissed


Summary:
The respondent state in the process of overhauling the methodology of teaching and administration of teachers training institutes in order to achieve qualitative excellence in teacher education  amended the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools Recognition and Payment of Grant Rules 1977 by GO No536 dated 17 5 1989 and No 661 dated 12 6 1991
The Rules besides providing for instructions teaching practice to be followed and minimum qualification for the staff prescribed certain other conditions regarding landbuilding hotel 986 furniture library teaching appliances sports facilities recognised middle school for providing teaching practice to trainees etc
to be satisfies by a teachers training institute to qualify for grant of recognition
The appellantpetitioners are various Teachers Training Institute in the State of Tamil Nadu
claiming to be minority educational institutions in terms of Article 301 of the Constitution of India The State Government declined to recognise these institutions on the ground that they failed to sutisfy the conditions for grant of recognition as provided under the Recognition Rules
The appellantspetitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the Recognition Rules on the ground that the same were violative of Articles 301 and 14 of the Constitution
It was contended that as the minorities have a fundamental right under r Article 301 of the Constitution to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice the conditions provided under the recognitions Rules were wholly arbitrary and were designed to oust the appellants from the educational field and the the provisions were so onerous that it was difficult rather impossible to comply with the same
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions
The appellantspetitioners filed the appeals and the special leave petitions
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Rules could not be made applicable to the institutions already established and given recognition by the State Government under the directions of the Court and that the successful students of these institutions who had taken examinations be given certificates
This Court dismissed the appeals and the special leave petitions by its order dated 25 5 1993 indicating that reasons therefor would follow
Giving reasons for its order dated 25 5 1993 this Court HELD  1
The High Court was right in holding that none of the conditions for grant of recognition to teachers training institutes prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools Recognition and Payment of Grants Rules 1977 infracted Articles 14  301 of the Constitution
It rightly culled out the following principles i The fundamental right declared by Article 301 of the Constitution is absolute in terms but subject to regulatory measures 987 iiThere is no fundamental right under Article 191 gof the Constitution to establish or administer an educational institution if recognition is sought therefore iii The institutions must he educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked phantoms iv There is no fundamental right to recognition and an institution seeking recognition should abide by the regulations prescribed by the State as conditions therefor v The minority institutions must be fully equipped with educational excellence to keep in step with other institutions in the State vi The regulations framed by the State cannot abridge the fundamental right of the minorities and they should be in the interests if the minority institutions themselves and not based on State necessity or general societal necessities 
vii The regulations should be with a view to promoting excellence of educational standards and ensuring security of the services of teachers and other employees of the institutions and in the true interests of efficiency if institutions discipline health sanitation morality public order and the like viii Even unaided institutions are not immune from the operations of general laws of the land such as Contract Law Tax measures Economic Laws and Social Welfare legislations Labour and Industrial Laws and similar other laws which are intended to meet the need of the Society
Kerala education bill1959 SCR 995 Rev Sidhajbai Sabhai section vs State of Bombay and Anr1963 3 SCR 837 section Azeesh Basha vs Union of India   State o Kerala etc
vs Very Rev Mother Provincial etc   Regina vs St Alosius Higher Elementary School and Anr1971 Supp
SCR 6 The Ahmedabad St Xaviers College Society and Anr etc vs State of Gujarat and Anr1975 1 SCR 173 The Gandhi Faiz e am College Shajahanpur
University of Agra and Anr1975 2 SCC 283 Lilly Kurian vs Sr
Lewina and 988 Ors1979 1 SCR 320 All Saints High School Hyderabad etc
vs Government of Andhra Pradesh  Ors
etc   The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission Bihar Ranchi  Ors vs The State of Bihar  Ors   AP Christians Medical Educational Society vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr1986 2 SCC 667 Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs Union of India and Ors 19864 SCC 707 All Bihar Christian Schools Association and Anr
vs State of Bihar and Ors  St Stephon s College vs The University of Delhi JT1991 4 SCC 548 and Unni Krishnan and Anr
vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors
cited
21 The teacher education programme has to he redesigned to bring in a system of education which can prepare the student teacher to shoulder the responsibility of imparting educating with a living dynamism and the traditional pattern of chalk talk and teach method has to be replaced by more vibrant system with improved methods of reaching to achieve qualitative excellence in teacher education
NM Nageshwaramma vs State of Andhra Pradesh  Anr 1986 Supp SCC 166 Andhra Kesari Education Society vs Director of School Education  Ors and State of Maharashtra vs Vikas Sahebrao Roundale  Ors
JT1992 5 SC 175 relied on
22 It is entirely for the State Government and not for this Court to lay down the requirements of a teachers training institute campus
All those institutes which did not have permanent recognition before the issue of the Recognition Rules 1977 are bound to comply with the said conditions before they are entitled to permanent recognition
The High Court was Justified in holding that the institutions which were operating on the basis of temporary recognitions either under the orders of the Courts or otherwise shall have to comply with the recognition rules to enable them to earn recognition
These institutions are neither properly organised nor fully equipped to train the teachers
and have done more harm than good to the cause of education
31 In view of the series of the judgments of this Court the Courts should not issue fiat to allow the students of unrecognised institutions to appear the different examinations pending the disposal of the writ applications
Such interim orders affect the career of several students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to the authorities who have to comply with such directions of the Courts
989 AP Christians Medical Educational Society vs Government of Andhra Pradesh   relied on
32 The High Court should not have passed interim orders directing authorities concerned to allow the teachers of unrecognised institutions to appear at the examinations
It is a matter of common knowledge that many institutions claiming themselves to be minority institutions within the meaning of Article 301 of the Constitution invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32 for a writ of mandamus to recognise the institutions as minority institutions only when the dates for examinations are notified and as a part of strategy seek directions to allow meanwhile the students to appear at the examinations
Many of such institutions are not only masked phantoms but are established as business ventures for admitting sub standard students without any competitive tests on basis of considerations which cannot serve even the interest of the minority
The teachers of such institutions cannot derive any benefit on basis of interim orders when ultimately the main writ applications have been dismissed
As such no equity or legal right can be pleaded on behalf of the students admitted for traning by such minority institutions for publication of their results or award of certificates
AP Christians Medical Educational Society vs Government of Andhra Pradesh   and State of Tamil Nadu and others vs St Joseph Teachers Training Institute and another   relied on