ivil Appeal NO 293 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 2441987 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP
NO1645 Of 1987
MC Bhandare M Qamaruddin and Mrs M Qamaruddin for the Appellant
PA Choudhary AV Rangam and TVSN Chari for the Respondents
JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order dated April 24 1987 Of the Division Bench Of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the writ petition NO1645 Of 1987
PG NO 896 Briefly stated the facts are these In the month of August 1984 a Ministry headed by Sri N Bhaskara Rao suddenly came into power in AP
The said Ministry just lasted for about a month and had to go out of office for want of vote of confidence by the State Legislative Assembly
During that short term the Government granted a number of permissions to various private bodies and individuals for starting colleges of education BEd courses
The appellant was one among those beneficiaries
The permission was granted with several conditions
Those conditions were required to be complied with within a period of six months
In the middle of September 1984 Bhaskara Rao s Ministry went out of office and the Government headed by Sri NT Rama Rao came back to power
Soon thereafter the permissions granted were suspended or cancelled
The appellant and other institutions aggrieved by the cancellation moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for relief under Article 226
he appellant filed writ petition No 812 of 1986
The State contended that the parties did nOt comply with the conditions of the grant of permission
All those writ petitions were disposed of by common order dated March 7 1986
The High Court was of opinion that the cancellation was as arbitrary as the grant of permission
So a via media was taken since the parties have invested large sums of money for establishing the colleges
The High Court laid down certain conditions and issued directions for compliance for granting permission and recognition to the colleges
Some of those directions are as follows 1 The petitioners shall comply with the requirement of the deposit of Rs450000 within one month from this date
If the Director of School Education does not cooperate with the petitioners in opening a joint account the deposit shall be made in a fixed deposit account in the name of the college in any nationalised or scheduled bank
It shall be open to the petitioner to pursue his application for exemption meanwhile but the time limit prescribed herein remains or applies to this petition as well
2 The petitioners shall comply with the requirements relating to the appointment of qualified staff and the laboratory Library and audio visual equipment within three months from today
For the purpose of recruitment of the teaching staff the petitioners shall issue Notifications in two dailies with wide circulation in this State Calling PG NO 897 for applications from the qualified teachers on receipt of applications selections shall be made by the Selection Committee if one is already constituted by the Government or the University and if no Selection Committee is constituted it shall be constituted consisting of a member of the Management the Director of School Education or his nominee not below the rank of a Joint Director and in his absence by DEO and an Expert to be nominated by the University
The petitioners shall send communications to the Director of School Education and the University as soon as applications are received for the purpose of constituting the Selection Committee and the said officers shall take the necessary steps in this behalf
3 If the qualified staff do not respond to the Notification issued by the petitioners and consequently the petitioners find difficulty in appointing qualified staff the petitioners shall made a representation to the Director of School Education seeking his help in the recruitment and appointment of qualified teaching staff
4 All other requirements including the Model School subject to which permissions were initially granted to the petitioners shall be complied with by the petitioners not later than 3st July 1986
5 The petitioners shall send a compliance report to the Director of School Education as soon as the requirement regarding deposit of Rs45000 within the permitted time is complied with duly endorsing a copy of the compliance report to the Government
Similarly the petitioners shall send a compliance report to the Director of School Education regarding the appointment within the permitted time of the required qualified teaching staff and also the provision of library laboratory and audio visual equipment endorsing a copy of the compliance shall send a report to the Director of School Education endorsing a copy thereof to the Government regarding the compliance of all other requirements as directed above by 3 Ist July 1986
 The Director of School Education was asked to make such enquiry as he thinks fit to satisfy himself about compliance of the above requirements
If there was no satisfactory compliance within the prescribed period the High Court said PG NO 898 that the concerned institution shall cease to function at the end of the academic year 1985 86
In accordance with directions issued by the High Court the District Educational Officer inspected the appellant s college
He made a report dated June 25 1986 stating that there was non compliance with the directions of the High Court
Accepting that report the Director made an order dated September 20 1986 declaring that the college 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 moved the High Court with writ petition No 1645 of 1987
The appellant also filed three more writ petitions
Writ petition No 11087 of 1985 was filed for a direction to the Nagarjuna University Guntur to grant affiliation to the appellant s college
Writ petition No 9417 of 1986 was filed for a declaration that the resolution of the Nagarjuna University refusing to grant affiliation to the college was arbitrary and illegal
Writ petition No 17725 of 1986 was filed by the students of the college for a direction to declare the results of their BEd
examination held on October 7 1985
All the four writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a common order which is now under appeal before us
The writ petition No 1645 of 1987 was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the conditions laid down by the High Court
Consequently Writ Petition Nos 11087 of 1985 and 9417 of 1986 which were filed against the Nagarjuna University were also dismissed
The High Court however made some observations regarding the manner in which the syndicate of the University has to dispose of the application for affiliation
The High Court observed that denial of affiliation affects the very life and existence of institution
Therefore it would be fair and proper that the syndicate or other competent authority of the University which deals with the question of affiliation must give reasons for refusal to grant affiliation
However there are no appeals before this court against the dismissal of those two writ petitions
The present appeal is only against the order of dismissing writ petition No 1645 of 1987
At the outset
it may be stated that before the High Court the appellant did not contend that it had complied with all the conditions laid down for recognition
The contention
however was that the college is a minority institution and therefore
it need not comply with all those requirements
The High Court did not accept that contentionand in our opinion very rightly
It was observed that since the appellant has deliberately refused to comply PG NO 899 with the conditions by taking a new and untenable stand that it is a minority institution it is not entitled to any relief
The High Court also noted the inadequacy in the recruitment of lecturers
As against seven lecturers only five lecturers were appointed by the appellant
The posts of lecturer in Mathematics and Physical Science were left unfilled
The Principal was not qualified to hold the post
The lecturer in social studies was also not qualified
The High Court further referred to the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Commission of Nagarjuna University and finally said The court allowed the writ petition subject to directions a to j contained in paragraph 134 of its judgment
Direction b clearly says that the selections shall be made by a selection committee comprising of one nominee of the Director of School Education and one nominee of the University
This was so directed notwithstanding the contention urged by the petitioner that it is a minority institution
Indeed the Bench was of the opinion that the said aspect is totally irrelevant in the circumstances of the case
The reason is evident
The Division Bench merely directed the petitioner institution to comply with the conditions of grant within a certain extended period and no more
The petitioner did not question the judgment of the Division Bench dated 731986 which means that he has accepted it
The said judgment has become final so far as the petitioner is concerned
Now when the question of compliance with and implementation of those direction arise the petitioner cannot turn round and say that since the petitioner institution is a minority institution
it need not comply with the said directions
Such a contention cannot be countenanced and cannot be taken note of in the circumstances of the case
 Before us the question as to the nature of the institution whether it is a minority institution or not has not been canvassed
Counsel for the appellant said that he will urge that contention in other appropriate case
He rested this case on one ground that the conditions laid down by the High Court have been substantially complied with
Reference was made to the earnest efforts made by the appellant to recruit the best qualified staff by inviting applications through successive advertisements in news papers
When there was no response to the advertisements the appellant it is said approached the department for recruitment of staff
But the department did not cooperate
PG NO 900 It was argued that the appellant in the circumstances could not be blamed and if at all it should be the department to be found fault with
In the alternative it was contended that the appellant has since satisfied all the necessary requirements for grant of permission and affiliation of the college
We do not want to examine the alternate contention urged by the appellant
That is a matter for the statutory authorities like the District Educational Officer and the Nagarjuna University to satisfy them selves whether the institution should be permitted to carry on the course of study
Whether it has satisfied the necessary conditions for grant of permission and affiliation
We express no opinion on that aspect of the matter
As to the first contention very little remains in favour of the appellant
While considering the validity of the earlier cancellation 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 reveals that there were many deficiencies in the institution
The reports of the District Educational Officer and the Inspection Commission of Nagarjuna University indicated that the appellant did not satisfy all the requirements for granting permission or affiliation
We find no justification to consider the correctness of those reports
Nor we could find fault with the order of the High Court
Indeed we must accept it in the circumstances of the case
We may however state that if the appellant has since substantially complied with the necessary conditions after the disposal of the matter by the High Court it will be open to it to approach the concerned authorities for permission to start the college again
This however is not the end of the matter
There still remains another question
That question arises out of the interim order made by this Court
In this Court when the Advocates were on strike the appellant appears to have personally moved CMP No 5153 of i988 for permission to admit students for the term l987 88
That petition came up before a Bench of this Court on February 23 1988
Mr J Prasad petitioner in person was present in the Court and Mr Balasubramaniam on behalf of the State Government was present
No advocate was present
Mr Balasubramaniam was PG NO 901 an officer of the establishment of the Andhra Pradesh Government Legal Cell at Delhi
Obviously he was ignorant of the facts of the case
This Court after going into the relevant papers made an interim order as follows We have also read the report of 9th February 1988 made by the District Educational Officer Ongole
We direct subject to compliance of the conditions petitioners should be permitted to admit students for the term 1987 88
The verification should be made within one week from today and if there have been any shortfall petitioner has opportunity to comply the same within one week
The time granted upto Ist of March 1988 shall stand extended upto 15th March 1988
CMP is disposed of
 As is obvious from the above interim order that the appellant was permitted to admit students for the academic year 1987 88 subject to compliance with the conditions
This Court did not specify the number of students to be admitted
On March 9 1988 the Department sent a Committee of two persons for inspection and report about the facilities available in the college
The Committee consisted of Shri R Durga Prasad of GGCE Nellore and Shri B Venkateswara
District Educational Officer Ongole
They visited the college and submitted the report dated March 9 1988
Several irregularities were pointed out in that report particularly with regard to accommodation furniture library
laboratory and games material
With regard to staff it is stated that the staff appointed are qualified but it does not state whether the required numbers in different disciplines have been recruited or not
That report was forward to the Directorate of School Education
On March 11 1988 the Director wrote to the Secretary
Government Education Department AP to examine the case of the appellant in detail and accord permission to run the college till 1987 88 and also permit admissions of students in view of the interim order made by this Court
The Director also pointed out in his letter that the appellant is claiming to be a minority institution and seeking admission of 160 students
On April 4 1988 the Government made an order according sanction to run the college till 1987 88 with an intake capacity of 100 students subject to fulfilment among others the following conditions 1 The college building should be constructed expeditiouly
The management should procure equipment and material for the laboratories expending an amount of not PG NO 902 less than Rs20000 during 1987 88
They should also procure audio visual equipment and material at a cost of not less than Rs30000
The management should provide library facilities and expend a sum of Rs5000 towards purchase of books
They should also provide adequate furniture
2 The management should appoint full contingent staff on prescribed scales of pay
3 They should appoint edequate teaching and non teaching staff on prescribed scales of pay
4 Admissions into the BEd
Course in the College should be through the Common Entrance Examinations conducted by the University in view of the High Court judgment dated 8101987 in WP No 552 of 1986
6 The management should not collect any capitation fees
7 To establish a Model School The Director of School Education was requested to report the fulfilment of conditions by the management to the Government within six months from the date of issue of the order failing which the permission accorded as liable to be cancelled without any notice
This order was made subject to final judgment of the Supreme Court of India   It appears even before the aforesaid Government order the appellant had admitted 160 students
The students were not allotted by the Convenor BEd Common Entrance Test
It is now said that these 160 students have undergone the required nine months training in the academic year 1987 88 and therefore they should be permitted to appear for the examination
Counsel for the State submitted that the appellant has been a law breaker from the very beginning and no concession should therefore be extended to perpetuate the illegality by permitting the students to appear in the examination
In any event he said that more than 100 students should not be permitted
PG NO 903 The explanation of the appellant however in this context is that there is a general circular of the State Government permitting unaided schoolscolleges to admit 160 students for BEd
course as economic viability
The appellant therefore had to admit the students before the due date extended by this Court and could not have waited for the belated Government order
The explanation of the appellant appears to be far from satisfactory
The permission to start the college by the appellant was cancelled twice by the authorities for want of requirements
On the 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 us
In spite of it the appellant s sought an interim order from this Court and admitted 160 students
If the Government order had been delayed the appellant ought to have asked the Convenor BEd
Common Entrance Test to allot the students for admission to the college
That was one of the conditions laid down by the High Court also
Even that was not complied with
From the sequence of events which were earlier referred to we cannot avoid the conclusion that the appellant was trying to overreach everybody body at every stage
This is one side of the picture
There is however another side
They are the students who were admitted on the strength of the interim order made by this Court
The student were perhaps led to believe that this Court permitted the appellant to admit them
We consider therefore that it may not be proper to drive them to street if they have undergone the prescribed course with the necessary syllabi and other matters relating thereto
But it would be for the Director of School and the Registrar
Nagarjuna University to consider and satisfy themselves and not for this Court at once to permit to them to appear in the examination
In the result we dismiss the writ appeal
but direct respondent 1 and 3 to consider forthwith whether the students in the appellant s college have undergone the necessary BEd
course and if so permit them to appear for the ensuing examination and publish their result
In the circumstances
however we make no order as to costs
Before parting with the case we should like to add a word more
Though teaching is the last choice in the job market the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education
The teacher alone could bring out the PG NO 904 skills and intellectual capabilities of students
He is the engine  of the educational system
He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values
He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him
His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefitter
He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions
He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way
He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds
His involvement in national integration is more important indeed indispensable
It is therefore needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency
It has greater relevance to the needs of the day
The ill trained or substandard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system if not a punishment on our children
The Government and the University must therefore take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration
APJ Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Kerala State Government after completion of preliminary steps published a declaration on 1811984 concerning the acquisition of petitioner s land for a public purpose
On 2491984 the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984 came into force whereby section 11 A was introduced into the Land Acquisition Act 1894
Section 11 A provided that the Collector shall make an award under section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and in the case where the said declaration had been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984 within two years from such commencement
The Collector made the award on 2391986
The notice of the award was served on the petitioner on 3091986
The petitioner challenged the award before the High Court of Kerala on the grounds 1 that the notice of the award having been served on 3091986 the award was not made within the prescribed period of two years and ii that there was inordinate delay in making the award
Both the writ petition and the writ appeal were dismissed by the High Court
Dismissing the special leave petition it was HELD 1 In section 11 A the words the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration mean that the Collector is empowered to make an award till the expiry of the last date of the period of two years irrespective of he date on which the notice of the award is served upon the persons interested in the land
To make an award  in this section PG NO 648 PG NO 649 means sign the award 
That is the ordinary meaning to be ascribed to the words to make an award 
655C D 2 It is well known that the meaning to be assigned to the words in a statute depends upon the context in which they are found and the purpose behind them
3 The object of and the reason for prescribing the period of limitation under section 11 A are different from the object of and the reason for prescribing the period of limitation under section 18 of the Act and the consequences that would flow from the violation of the rule of limitation in the two cases are also different
There is no analogy between section 11 A and section 18 of the Act insofar as the above question is concerned
654C D 655E 4 It would be safer in such cases to rely upon the statute for guidance as regards the maximum time that can be taken to make an award instead of proceeding to strike down acquisition proceedings on the ground of delay in making the award by applying varying standards to different cases even though the maximum time of two years has not been exceeded
The time taken by the Land Acquisition Officer in this case to make the award cannot be considered to be fatal to the acquisition proceeding
656B C Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer 1962 1 SCR 676 distinguished