The State Government has declined to recognise these institutes on lie ground that they have failed to satisfy the companyditions for grant of recognition as provided under the Tamil Nadu Minor ity Schools Recognition and Payment of Grants Rules, 1977 as amended by the Government Order No.
536 dated May 17, 1989 and Government Order No.
Recognition Rules The appellants challenged, before the Madras High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the Recognition Rules.
861 dated June 12, 1991.
inter alia, on the ,rounds that the said Rules are violative of Articles 30 1 and 14 of the Constitution of India.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1993 and 29 3 93 of the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos 15081/91, 8002/92 and 16068/91.
The case law on the subject has been dealt with in detail and the companyclusions culled out succinctly.
The High Court judgment has been of utmost assistance to us.
These appeals via special leave are by the Teachers Training Institutes against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Recognition Rules provide for instructions and teaching practice to be followed, minimum qualifications for teaching and number teaching staff and the following additional Conditions to be satisfied by a teachers training institute to quality for grant of recognition The Teachers Training Institute should have at least 10 acres of suitable land of its own to he used for companystruction of Building for Institution and Administration and for Hoste accommodation and staff quarters and also for Play Ground purposes, The Institution Building must companysist of suitable rooms to provide for class rooms with roughly 60 sq.
Laboratory and Special Rooms.
feet of carpet area per inmate one Auditorium cum projection hall with an area of about 2000 Sq.
Shanti Bhushan, K.K. Venugopal, Soli J. Sorabjee, N. Santosh Hegde, Shivasubramaniam.
Library Staff rooms separately for Men and Women staff, Principals Room, Off ice Room, Store Room for Craft and Physical Education articles.
As far as bath rooms and toilets are companycerned arrangements should he made at the rate of one for ten inmates.
K. Parasaran, P. Chidambaram, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Kailash Vasdev, Pawan Kumar, B. Rabu Manohar, Dr. A. Francis Julian For M s. Arputham, Aruna and Co. , P. Chandrasekhran, Aruneshwar Gupta, A. Chandrasekar, Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Ramajagadesan, V. Balachandran, V. Krishnamurthy, K.V. Vijaya Kumar, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Selvar thenave, Martin, K.V. Mohan, R. Mohan, R. Nedumaran, and P.D. Dinakaran for the Appellants.
Toilet facili ties separately for men and women and womens Common Room Bath rooms and toilets should be provided.
5469 of 1993 which were heard together.
3674 of 1992 and Writ Petition No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
They claim to be the minority educational institutions in terms of Article 30 1 of the Constitution of India.
7375, 8009 11, 8108, 7416, 7560 62 OF 1993.
if the Institution is meant for both sexes separate Such facilities should be provided for men and women teaching staff number teaching staff and men and women candidates.
number to insist on additional 3 acres of land in case of company 1001 educational institutes in case these institutes are having 10 acres/5 acres of area as provided under the Recognition Rules.
R. Seetharaman for the Respondents.
The High Court also directed in some cases to publish the results of the students who wrote the examination in April 1992 All these situations were brought to the numberice of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
The High Court observed as under Based on the above orders, learned companynsel for the petitioner companytends that the students of the petitioner Institution have validly written the examination when the order of recognition was in force and the results of the examination have already been published, pursuant to the orders of this Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH,J.These bunch appeals are by the Teachers Training Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu.
2914 16 of 1993 etc.
The High Court refused to grant relief to the students who had written the examination or who had passed the examination and were being denied the certificates.
WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
