CoramThe Honourable Mr v. The Regional Director

2.The Regional Director,National Council for Teacher Education,HMT Post, Jalahalli,Bangalore - 560 031.3.The Director of Teacher Education Research & Training,College Road,Chennai - 600 006.4.The Principal,District Institute of Educational and Training,Tirumurthy Nagar,Coimbatore....RespondentsThis Writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent, against the order dated 16.12.2006 made in W.P.No.27148 of2006.W.P.No.624 of 2007Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute,rep.by its Correspondent S.Jayaparvathy,No.9/67, Vanjipuram, Kaniyur Post,Madathukulam, Udumalaipet Taluk,Coimbatore District....PetitionerVs.1.The Regional Director,National Council for Teacher Education,HMT Post, Jalahalli,Bangalore - 560 031.2.The Director of Teacher Education,Research and Training,College Road, Chennai - 6....RespondentsThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitutionof India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in code:APSO 1103F.SRO/NCTE/2006-07 dated 4.12.2006 and quash the same andfurther direct the first respondent to approve the shifting of thepetitioner Teacher Training Institute from Thippampatty, PollachiTaluk, Coimbatore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.14729 of 2007Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute,rep.by its Correspondent S.Jayaparvathy,No.9/67, Vanjipuram, Kaniyur Post,Madathukulam, Udumalaipet Taluk,Coimbatore District....PetitionerVs.1.The Director of Teacher Education Research & Training,College Road,Chennai - 600 006.2.The Principal,District Institute of Educational and Training,Tirumurthy Nagar,Coimbatore....RespondentsThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitutionof India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directingthe respondents to depute the 2005-2006 batch students of thePetitioner Institute for Teaching Practice and Commission Work andpublish the first year result of the examination held on18.12.2006 so as to enable them to complete the second yearexaminations.W.P.No.18967 of 2007Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute,rep.by its Correspondent S.Jayaparvathy,No.9/67, Vanjipuram, Kaniyur Post,Madathukulam, Udumalaipet Taluk,Coimbatore District....PetitionerVs.1.The Director of Teacher Education Research & Training,College Road,Chennai - 600 006.2.The Principal,District Institute of Educational and Training,Tirumurthy Nagar,Coimbatore....Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitutionof India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directingthe respondents to include the petitioner institute viz. EvvaMemorial Teacher Training Institute, Vanjipuram, Kaniyur Post,Udumalaipet Taluk, Coimbatore District in the list of recognisedTeacher Training Institute.For Appellant in WA.82, 83/2007,:Mr.Vijay Narayan,Petitioner in WP.624, 14729 &Senior Counsel18967/2007 & R-1 in WA.234/2007for Mr.S.KamadevanMr.T.V.BadrinarayanFor Appellant in WA.234/2007 :Mr.K.SridharFor NCTE/R1 in WA.82/2007, :Mr.P.R.GopinathWP.624/2007 and R2 in WA.83/2007For DTE/R1 in WA.83/2007,WP.14729/07:Ms.Dakshayani Reddy,WP.18967/2007; R2 in WA.82/2007 &Government AdvocateWP.624/2007; R3 in WA.234/2007COMMON JUDGMENTN. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.W.A.Nos.82, 83 and 234 of 2007 arise from the common ordermade in W.P.Nos.27148, 46406 and 27148 of 2006 respectively.W.A.Nos.82 and 83 of 2007 are filed by one S.Jayaparvathi,claiming herself as correspondent of Evaa Memorial TeacherTraining Institute. W.A.No234 of 2007 is preferred by one K.Ravi,who is the Agreement Holder of Evaa Memorial Teachers TrainingInstitute.2.W.P.No.624 of 2007 is filed by the S.Jayaparvathi,claiming herself as Correspondent of Evva Memorial TeacherTraining Institute, wherein the order of the Regional DirectorSouthern Regional committee, NCTE, dated 4.12.2006 in which therequest for shifting the location of Teachers Training Institutewas rejected with a consequential direction to approve theshifting of the Teacher Training Institute from Thippampatti,Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District to Annai Sathya Nagar,Madathukulam, Udumalapet Taluk, Coimbatore District.3.W.P.No.14729 of 2007 is also filed by the saidS.Jayaparvathi for issuing a writ of mandamus directing theDirector of Teacher Education Research and Training and thePrincipal, DIET, Tirumurthi Nagar, Coimbatore, to depute 2005-2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ batch of students of her Institute for teaching practice andcommission work and publish the first year results of theexaminations held from 18.12.2006, so as to enable them tocomplete the second year examination.4.W.P.No.18967 of 2007 is filed by the saidS.Jayaparvathi, for issuing a writ of mandamus directing theDirector of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai-6,and the Principal, DIET , Tirumurthi Nagar, Coimbatore to includeher institute in the list of recognised Teacher TrainingInstitute.5.The issue involved in all the writ appeals and the writpetitions are one and the same and hence all the cases aredisposed of by this common Judgment.6.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writappeals and the writ petitions are as follows:(a)A Teacher Training Institution was said to have beenestablished by an Educational Trust called Evva MemorialEducational Trust and the same is said to have been registeredunder the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, in the year 1992.The said Institute obtained recognition from the competentauthority of the State of Tamil Nadu in August, 1992. The saidrecognition was cancelled along with the recognition granted toseveral other similar Teacher Training Institutes, pursuant to theorder passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the year 1994in W.P.No.9494 of 1994. (b)The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993,came into force from August, 1994, pursuant to which the EvvaMemorial Teacher Training Institute having its office at SathyaNagar, Madathukulam, Udumalapet Taluk, Coimbatore District,applied for No Objection Certificate from the State Governmentfor submitting application for recognition before the SouthernRegional Committee of the NCTE under Section 14 of the NCTE Act.The State Government by order dated 13.9.2004 granted NOC forestablishing Teacher Training Institute (Elementary) to the saidTrust on certain conditions.(c)Condition No.6 states that the Institution will bepermanently located at Thungavai Village and the NOC was grantedon the ground of having land measuring five acres shown atS.No.351/1 and 351/B, Udumalapet Taluk. Condition No.9 statesthat the Institution should be located temporarily in a rentedbuilding and should be shifted to its own building in its ownland, within three years from the grant of recognition by theNCTE.(d)The said Trust applied for recognition before the NCTEfor the grant of recognition under section 14 of the NCTE Act,1993. The Southern Regional Committee of NCTE having not taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any steps to consider the application for recognition, theInstitute filed writ petition before this Court and obtained anorder on 4.8.2004 for a direction to the NCTE to consider theapplication and pass orders on merits. When the application forrecognition was pending before the NCTE, the Institute enteredinto an unregistered lease agreement on 29.11.2004 with oneK.Ravi, who is the appellant in W.A.No.234 of 2007 for takingportion of the building owned by him at Thippampatti, where he isalready running a Matriculation school.(e)The NCTE granted recognition to the Institute by orderdated 27.1.2005 for offering two year teacher Training Course(Elementary) from the academic session 2004-2005. The recognitionorder states that the recognition is granted to Evva MemorialTeacher Training Institute, Vanchipuram, Kaniyur, CoimbatoreDistrict and it was communicated to the Thippampatti address,where the building was taken on lease from the said K.Ravi on29.11.2004. The said order of recognition further states that theInstitute will ensure that permanent building is constructedwithin a period of three years on acquiring of land with a furthercondition to get approval of staff list from the Director ofTeacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai. The Directorof Teacher Education Research and Training by order dated19.8.2005, granted the staff approval. (f)Before the grant of staff approval, the Correspondentand the other representatives of the Institute entered into anunregistered agreement on 12.4.2005 with the said K.Ravi bystating that recognition granted to Evva Memorial Teacher TrainingInstitute by the NCTE on 27.1.2005 and the No ObjectionCertificate granted by the State of Tamil Nadu is agreed to betransferred in the name of the said K.Ravi for a sum of Rs.15lakhs and the parties agreed that from the date of agreement thesaid K.Ravi viz., the Agreement Holder shall administer theinstitution and no other person is entitled to administer the sameand claim any right. It was further agreed that three seats inthe Institute for 2005-2006 shall be filled up by the candidatessuggested by the promoters.(g)The Correspondent/promoters received a cheque for Rs.9lakhs from the Agreement Holder viz., K.Ravi and the same wasencashed. They also received two post-dated cheques, each for asum of Rs.3.00 lakhs. However, one of the post-dated cheque gotdishonoured on the ground that the promoters did not come forwardto sign necessary applications for effecting the transfer.(h)The promoters contend that as per the agreement, if anyof the conditions of the agreement is contravened, the entireagreement will be treated as cancelled. On the basis of the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agreement, the promoters as well as the Agreement Holder startedadmitting the students for Teacher Training Education Course andthe results of the examinations written by the students were notdeclared. 48 students joined together and filed W.P.No.18967 of2006 and prayed for direction to publish their results. In thesaid writ petition both the promoters as well as the AgreementHolder got themselves impleaded as owners of the Institution. Byorder dated 25.7.2006 this Court gave a direction to publish theresults of the said students, leaving the dispute relating to thetransfer of the institution undecided.(i)The promoters of the Institute applied to the DTERT forpermission to shift the Institution to Annai Sathya Nagar,Madathukulam, Udumalapet Taluk. However, they were directed toget approval from the NCTE for shifting. The promoters filedW.P.No.25244 of 2006 claiming that they have applied before theNCTE on 29.10.2005 for permission to shift, in which the NCTE tooka stand that for changing the site, prior approval is necessaryand the application must accompany a demand draft for Rs.40,000/-.The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10.5.2006 byallowing the promoters to apply to the NCTE for approval in theprescribed form along with necessary documents, with furtherdirection to the NCTE to inspect the site and pass ordersaccording to law.(j)On 14.8.2006, the promoters submitted an application tothe NCTE along with demand draft for Rs.40,000/-. On 9.8.2006,DTERT passed an order prohibiting admission of students by thepromoters for the academic year 2006-2007 until the rival claimsof the ownership of the Institute is lawfully resolved. The saidorder of the DTERT dated 9.8.2006 was challenged by the promotersin W.P.No.27148 of 2006 and while admitting the writ petition,interim stay of the order was granted and a further interimdirection was issued directing the NCTE to inspect the premises atAnnai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam and pass orders within threeweeks. In the said writ petition, the Agreement Holder viz.,K.Ravi got himself impleaded. The NCTE Inspected the premises ofAnnai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam on 11.10.2006 and rejected therequest for shifting the institution by order dated 4.12.2006,which is challenged in W.P.No.624 of 2007.(k)On 19.1.2006 the promoters submitted a list of studentsto the DTERT for approval and the same having not been processed,the promoters filed W.P.No.46403 of 2006 and prayed for directionto approve the students list submitted by them for the academicyear 2005-2006 and permit them to sit for examination scheduled tocommence from 18.12.2006. The said K.Ravi, who is the AgreementHolder also filed W.P.No.47860 of 2006 for issuing writ ofmandamus directing the Director of Government Examinations to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issue Hall Tickets to 48 students admitted by him in the rentedpremises to appear for examinations scheduled to commence from18.12.2006.(l)The said writ petition 27148, 46403 and 47860 of 2006were heard by the learned Single Judge and by a Common Orderdated 16.12.2006 held that the certificate of recognition is soldby the promoters as a tradable commodity to the Agreement Holderviz., K.Ravi and the same is impermissible as it is in violationof section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The agreementdated 12.4.2005 is void since both the parties are guilty ofviolating the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993. The learnedsingle Judge also held that the right to establish and administerEducational Institution, even though guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has madeit clear that Education cannot be treated as a trade or business,but should be treated only as an occupation, as per the Judgmentof the Supreme Court made in TMA Pai Foundations and others Vs.State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 461 and P.A.Inamdar and othersVs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537.(m)The learned single Judge also found that there is noprovision under the NCTE Act enabling the management to transfer aTeacher Training Institute and in the absence of any provisionunder the NCTE Act, the transfer of management could be made undersection 8 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, which only provides transfer of the entiremanagement and not transfer of recognition alone. Hence thelearned Judge held that the order passed by the DTERT prohibitingadmission of students is valid and the students admitted by thepromoters of Institute numbering 48 (admitted in 2005-2006 batch)including 23 students admitted by the Government through singleWindow Selection shall be admitted in a Government TeacherTraining Institute for the second year course. The studentsadmitted by the agreement holder viz. K.Ravi even though is notentitled to get any relief, taking note of the interest of thestudents, a direction was issued to the Special Government Pleader(Education) to find out whether they could be accommodated inother institution for undergoing second year. In paragraph 43,the learned Judge passed the following order,43. Under the above circumstances, allthe three writ petitions are disposed of with thefollowing directions:-(a) The prayer made in W.P.No.27148 of 2006for setting aside the order of the Director dated9.8.2006 is rejected.(b) In so far as the prayer made by thepromoters of the institute in W.P.No.46403 of 2006and the prayer made by the students in W.P.No.47860of 2006 are concerned, the Director of TeacherEducation Research and Training shall permit all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ those students admitted for the academic year 2005-2006 by both parties, to write the examinationsscheduled to be held from 18.12.2006.(c) After the completion of the examinations,the entire batch of students admitted by thepromoters and the agreement holder K.Ravi as wellas those admitted under the Single Window Systemfor the academic year 2005-2006, shall bereallotted by the Director of Teacher EducationResearch and Training to other recognised orGovernment Teacher Training Institutions, forcontinuing the second year of the Diploma Course.(d) The Director of Teacher Education Researchand Training shall also send a proposal to the NCTEfor the approval of the additional intake, to theinstitutions to which these students arereallotted, within a month from the date of receiptor production of a copy of this order.(e) The Southern Regional Committee of NCTEshall consider the request of the Director ofTeacher Education Research and Training forapproval of the additional intake for thoseinstitutions to which these students are reallottedand pass appropriate orders, within one month ofsubmission of the request by the Director ofTeacher Education Research and Training.(f) The students admitted by the promoters forthe year 2006-2007 cannot continue the course,since they could have been admitted only after theinterim stay order granted on 22.8.2006 inW.P.No.27148 of 2006. Therefore, the petitioner inW.P.No.27148 of 2006 shall return to thosestudents, all the original certificates submittedby them, together with the entire amount of feesand other charges collected from those students,within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt or production of a copy of this order.Since these students could have been admitted onlyafter 22.8.2006 and that too by virtue of aninterim order of this Court, to the first year ofthe two year Diploma Course, these students may notbe entitled to the rehabilitation, prescribed underclauses (c) to (e) above, along with the studentsadmitted for the year 2005-2006. Therefore thesestudents admitted for the academic year 2006-2007will have to work out their remedies only againstthe persons who granted admission to them and theycannot seek approval of their admission.(g) The petitioners in W.P.No.27148 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 46403 of 2006 as well as the agreement holderK.Ravi, who is the petitioner in M.P.Nos.3 and 4 of2006 in W.P.No.27148 of 2006, shall deposit withthe Director of Teacher Education Research andTraining, the entire amount of fees and othercharges collected by them from the entire batch of2005-2006 candidates, within two weeks from thedate of receipt or production of a copy of thisorder.(h) The amount so deposited shall be utilisedby the Director for the purpose of making paymentof fees and other charges on behalf of thesestudents, when they are reallotted to otherinstitutions. While making payment, if any shortfall arises, the Director shall be entitled tocollect the same also from the promoters andK.Ravi, in proportion to the number of studentsadmitted by them. If the amount deposited by thepromoters and the agreement holder is in excess ofthe tuition fee and other charges payable by therehabilitated students to the reallottedinstitutions, the same shall be refunded to thestudents proportionately.(i) The National Council for Teacher Educationis directed to initiate action against theinstitute under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, withintwo weeks from the date of receipt or production ofa copy of this order.(j) Henceforth NCTE shall not merely issue theorder of recognition in the name of the proposedinstitute. NCTE shall enclose to every order ofrecognition granted by them, a format ofparticulars containing the details relating to thename and address of the Educational Agency to whichrecognition is granted, (apart from the name of theInstitute) the nature of the Educational Agency asto whether it is a Trust, a Society or a Company,the Registration Number of the Trust, Society orCompany, the address in respect of which theinstitution was granted recognition to locate itsinstitute. The NCTE shall also make it mandatoryfor the institutes to publish both the order ofrecognition as well as the enclosed format ofparticulars with the above details, in theprospectus inviting applications for admission, sothat the students know the actual persons who runrun the Educational Agency and their background andthe students are thereby prevented from being takenfor a ride and also prevented from claiming https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ignorance."As against the said order, both the promoters as well as AgreementHolder filed the above writ appeals.7.Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe appellants in W.A.No.82 and 83 of 2007 filed by the promoters,contended that the promoters have not violated any provisions ofthe law while entering into the agreement to transfer therecognition order as well as No Objection Certificate obtainedfrom the State Government to the said K.Ravi as it is permissibleunder Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, and post approval of transfer ofmanagement is permissible and therefore there is no illegality inentering into the said agreement. He further contended that infact, the agreement holder, only breached the terms contained inthe agreement by not honouring the cheque issued by him for a sumof Rs.3.00 lakhs and as per the terms in the said agreement, theagreement stands terminated due to non-performance of part of theagreement. The promoters having got a right to shift theInstitution, have applied before the NCTE and the same is rejectedon untenable grounds and therefore the writ petition filed inW.P.No.624 of 2007 challenging the order of rejection dated4.2.2006 is to be allowed. The learned Senior Counsel furthersubmitted that this Court, while admitting the writ appealsgranted interim stay and the students admitted in the year 2005-2006 continued their second year course through the Institute ofthe promoters and this Court also granted interim order on4.10.2007 to write the second year examinations to 27 students,scheduled to be held from 8.10.2007 however their results are yetto be published and the practical examination and teachingpractice shall be arranged to them. The learned senior counselfurther submitted that the said K.Ravi, who is the AgreementHolder, who is also appellant in W.A.No.234 of 2007 is no longerrunning Teacher Training Institute and by granting permission toshift the Teacher Training Institute by the NCTE, no prejudicewould be caused to anyone and the claim of the said Ravi can bedecided in the suit filed by him in O.S.No.373 of 2006 before theDistrict Munsif Court, Udumalpet and subject to the result of thesuit, direction can be given for the continuance of theInstitution by admitting students.8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant inW.A.No.234 of 2007 contended that the promoters having enteredinto an agreement on 12.4.2005 are bound to sign and submit theproposal for approving the transfer of management and on refusalto sign the necessary papers one of the cheque issued by theAgreement Holder was not honoured and therefore he has rightlyfiled O.S.No.373 of 2006 before the District Munsif Court,Udumalpet, seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing thedefendants therein to co-operate with the plaintiff in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transferring the suit institution, authorisations and rights inthe name of the plaintiff and for a permanent injunctionrestraining the defendants from in any way interfering,obstructing, objecting the plaintiff's right and day-to-dayaffairs and management in all aspects of the suit institution andthe same is pending. The learned counsel further submitted thatthe administration of the Institute was handed over on the date ofagreement and therefore as the Agreement Holder, he has got everyright to continue the management of the Teacher Training Instituteand also admit students. The learned counsel further submittedthat the promoters have also filed two civil suits in O.S.No.39 of2006 and O.S.230 of 2006 before the District Munsif Court,Udumalapet, as against the agreement holder and the said suits arepending.9.The learned counsel for the NCTE submitted that theagreement entered into between promoters and the Agreement Holderis not valid as no permission or approval is obtained from theNCTE and now by virtue of the agreement, there is a managementdispute and two parallel institutions are being run by twodifferent persons on the strength of one recognition order, whichis impermissible. 10.The learned Government Advocate submitted that in viewof the dispute in the management, the DTERT issued a prohibitoryorder prohibiting admission of students and this Court havingordered to transfer the students of the promoters and they havingnot been transferred, they are not entitled to get their resultsof the examinations declared and they are also not entitled to getpractical examination and teaching practice. The learnedGovernment Advocate further submitted that the promoters haveadmitted the students for this year 2007-2008 in spite of theorder of the learned single Judge and the Government is willing totransfer the first year students to any other Government TeacherTraining Institute. The second year students are to be re-admitted in the second year Course in the recognised TTI/DIET andthey have to undergo the second year course afresh. On the basisof the counter affidavit filed in these writ appeals the learnedGovernment Advocate submitted that the promoters and agreementholder have admitted students and attempted to run parallelinstitution on the basis of single recognition order. 11.In the light of the above submissions, the followingquestions arise for consideration in these cases:(1)Whether the promoters are justified intransferring the recognition granted by the NCTE and NOCissued by the State Government for the establishment ofEvva Memorial Teacher Training Institute, to theAgreement Holder and whether the same is permissible in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law ?(2)Whether a direction can be issued to thestudents admitted in Evva Memorial Teacher TrainingInstitute, to conduct practical examination and forteaching practice and whether their results could beordered to be published ?(3)Whether the students admitted during 2007-2008 in the first year in Evva memorial Teacher TrainingInstitute, by the promoters can continue their coursein the very same Teacher Training Institute, or can beordered to be accommodated in other recognised TTI orGovernment Teacher Training Institute by DTERT ?12.The undisputed facts in these cases are that EvvaMemorial Teacher Training Institute was granted NOC by the StateGovernment by the order of the School Education Department letterNo.29860/U1/2004-1, dated 13.9.2004 for submitting an applicationfor recognition before the NCTE to conduct Diploma course inTeacher Education (Elementary). The NCTE also granted recognitionto conduct DTE course to Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute,Vanjipuram, Kaniyur from the Academic Session 2004-2005 undersection 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 with a condition that theInstitution will ensure that a permanent building will beconstructed within a period of three years in the acquired landand the Institution has to select Principal and five teachers forthe said course and the staff list is to be approved by the DTERT.On 19.8.2005 the Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining, Chennai, approved the staff list of Evva MemorialTeacher Training Institute. Thus there is a valid TeacherTraining Institute, recognised by the NCTE. Therefore, admissionof students by the promoters till the prohibitory order is issuedby DTERT cannot be found fault with.13. (a)The issue as to whether recognition order issued bythe NCTE and the No Objection Certificate issued by the StateGovernment could be sold like a tradable commodity and theagreement holder could be permitted to administer the TeacherTraining Institute without the approval of the competent authorityand whether the same is permissible in view of Section 23 of theIndian Contract Act, 1872 is to be ascertained. Section 23 of theIndian Contract Act clearly states that every agreement, of which,the object or consideration is unlawful, is void. As per Section23, the consideration or object of an agreement, is unlawful, if –(1) It is forbidden by law;(2) Is of such a nature that, if permitted, itwould defeat the provisions of any law;(3) Is fraudulent;(4) Involves or implies injury to the personor property of another; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (5) The Court regards it as immoral;(6) Opposed to public policy.(b)The Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.4.2005 entered intobetween the promoters and the agreement holder namely, K.Ravi isin respect of recognition granted to parties 1,2,3 and 4 (EvvaMemorial Teacher Training Institute) for running the TeacherTraining Institute Tamil Medium under NCTE/2004-05 Code APSO 1103dated 27.1.2005 and Tamil Nadu Government NOC.No.29860/U1/04 dated13.9.2004, is agreed to be transferred to the party of the fifthpart, in his name or in the name of any Trust to which he belongs,in consideration of the payment of a sum of Rs.15 lakhs.From a perusal of the said clause in the agreement it is evidentthat the recognition granted by NCTE and the No ObjectionCertificate issued by the State Government are sold as tradablecommodities. A perusal of the National Council for TeacherEducation Act, 1993 and the Regulations framed thereunder, thereis no provision to transfer the recognition or even the transferof management. However, in the absence of any specific provisionmade in the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, wecould trace the power of the transfer of management from the TamilNadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, which wasgoverning the establishment and administration of the TeacherTraining Institutes prior to the enactment of NCTE Act, 1993. (c) Whether the parties in these writ appeals are entitled toenter into the said agreement in running Teachers TrainingInstitute like a trade or business was considered by the SupremeCourt in the decision reported in (2002) 8 SCC 461 (T.M.A. PAIFOUNDATION AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS), theSupreme Court held as follows:- "Education is per se regarded as an activitythat is charitable in nature (see State of Bombayvs. R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALA (AIR 1957 SC 699).Education has so far not been regarded as a tradeor business where profit is the motive. Even ifthere is any doubt about whether education is aprofession or not, it does appear that educationwill fall within the meaning of the expression"occupation"."Again, the Supreme Court in P.A.INAMDAR AND OTHERS vs. STATE OFMAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ((2005) 6 SCC 537) held as follows:-"89. Education, accepted as a useful activity,whether for charity or for profit, is anoccupation. Nevertheless, it does not cease to be aservice to society. And even though an occupation,it cannot be equated to a trade or a business."(d) Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, which is referredabove clearly states that if any agreement is forbidden by law oris opposed to public policy, the same is void. Whether theagreement is opposed to public policy or forbidden by law is to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered on the facts and circumstances of each case as held bythe Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1986 S.C. 1571(CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRNSPORT CORPORATION LTD. v. BROJO NATH) =1986 (3) S.C.C. 156. In paragraph 92, the Supreme Court heldthus:"92. The Indian Contract Act does notdefine the expression “public policy” or“opposed to public policy”. From the verynature of things, the expressions “publicpolicy”, “opposed to public policy”, or“contrary to public policy” are incapable ofprecise definition. Public policy, however, isnot the policy of a particular government. Itconnotes some matter which concerns the publicgood and the public interest. The concept ofwhat is for the public good or in the publicinterest or what would be injurious or harmfulto the public good or the public interest hasvaried from time to time. As new concepts takethe place of old, transactions which were onceconsidered against public policy are now beingupheld by the courts and similarly where therehas been a well recognized head of publicpolicy, the courts have not shirked fromextending it to new transactions and changedcircumstances and have at times not evenflinched from inventing a new head of publicpolicy. There are two schools of thought— “thenarrow view” school and “the broad view”school. According to the former, courts cannotcreate new heads of public policy whereas thelatter countenances judicial law-making inthis area. The adherents of “the narrow view”school would not invalidate a contract on theground of public policy unless that particularground had been well-established byauthorities. Hardly ever has the voice of thetimorous spoken more clearly and loudly thanin these words of Lord Davey in Janson v.Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. 636 :“Public policy is always an unsafe andtreacherous ground for legal decision”. Thatwas in the year 1902. Seventy-eight yearsearlier, Burrough, J., in Richardson v.Mellish 737 described public policy as “a veryunruly horse, and when once you get astride ityou never know where it will carry you”. TheMaster of the Rolls, Lord Denning, however, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was not a man to shy away from unmanageablehorses and in words which conjure up beforeour eyes the picture of the young Alexanderthe Great taming Bucephalus, he said inEnderby Town Football Club Ltd. v. FootballAssn. Ltd. 838 : “With a good man in thesaddle, the unruly horse can be kept incontrol. It can jump over obstacles.” Had thetimorous always held the field, not only thedoctrine of public policy but even the commonlaw or the principles of Equity would neverhave evolved. Sir William Holdsworth in hisHistory of English Law Vol. III, p.55, hassaid: “In fact, a body of law like the common law,which has grown up gradually with the growthof the nation, necessarily acquires some fixedprinciples, and if it is to maintain theseprinciples it must be able, on the ground ofpublic policy or some other like ground, tosuppress practices which, under ever newdisguises, seek to weaken or negative them.” It is thus clear that the principles governingpublic policy must be and are capable, onproper occasion, of expansion or modification.Practices which were considered perfectlynormal at one time have today become obnoxiousand oppressive to public conscience. If thereis no head of public policy which covers acase, then the court must in consonance withpublic conscience and in keeping with publicgood and public interest declare such practiceto be opposed to public policy. Above all, indeciding any case which may not be covered byauthority our courts have before them thebeacon light of the Preamble to theConstitution. Lacking precedent, the court canalways be guided by that light and theprinciples underlying the Fundamental Rightsand the Directive Principles enshrined in ourConstitution."(e)An issue as to whether a mining lease granted in favourof a person, contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals(Regulation and Development Act), 1948, and the Mineral ConcessionRules, 1949, are valid or void was considered by the Supreme Courtin the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 1892 (KUJU COLLIERIES v. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JHARKHAND MINES), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-"The Mineral Concession Rules came into forceon 25.10.1949. As the lease came into force onSeptember 7, 950 and money was paid on that date,the fact that there was an earlier unregisteredcontract does not make any difference to thequestion at issue. Section 4 of the Mines andMinerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948provides "no mining lease shall be granted afterthe commencement of this Act and any mining leasegranted contrary to the provisions of sub-section(1) shall be void and of no effect. Under Rule 45of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 "noprospecting license or mining lease shall begranted except to a person holding a certificateor approval from the Provincial Government havingjurisdiction over the land in respect of which theconcession is required. The plaintiff had nocertificate of approval from the State Government.Under Rule 49 "no grantor of a prospecting licenseor a mining lease shall charge any premium inaddition to or in lieu of the prospecting fee,surface fee, surface rent, dead rent or royaltyspecified in such license or lease". There was astipulation for payment of a premium under thelease deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore,clearly the lease in favour of the plaintiff wascontrary to the provisions of the Mines andMinerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 and as suchvoid."14.On the basis of the above judgments we have to analysewhether the agreement is hit by Section 23 of the Indian ContractAct, particularly whether it is forbidden by law or opposed topublic policy. As stated supra, the Tamil Nadu Recognised PrivateSchools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and Rules, 1974, enables theparties to transfer the Management of the Schools/Teacher TrainingInstitute, but the certificate of recognition and the No ObjectionCertificate alone cannot be transferred.15.(a)The contract/agreement opposed to Public Policy wasdealt with by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2006AIR SCW 5470 (India Financial Association, Seventh Day Adventistsv. M.A.Unneerikutty) in paragraphs 18 to 22, which read thus,"18.Section 23 of the Contract Act laysdown that the object of an agreement becomesunlawful if it was of such a nature that, ifpermitted, it would defeat the provisions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any law.19.The term 'public policy' has anentirely different and more extensive meaningfrom the policy of the law. Winfield definedit as a principle of judicial legislation orinterpretation founded on the current needs ofthe community. It does not remain static inany given community and varies from generationto generation. Judges, as trustedinterpreters of the law, have to interpret it.While doing so precedents will also guide themto a substantial extent.20.The following passage from Maxwell"Interpretation of Statutes", may also bequoted to advantage here:-"Everyone has a right to waive and toagree to waive the advantage of a law or rulemade solely for the benefit and protection ofthe individual in his private capacity whichmay be dispensed with without infringing anypublic right or public policy. Where there isno express prohibition against contracting outof it, it is necessary to consider whether theAct is one which is intended to deal withprivate rights only or whether it is an Actwhich is intended as a matter of public policy..."21.The doctrine of public policy may besummarized thus: Public policy or the policyof the law is an illusive concept: it has beendescribed as "untrustworthy guide", "variablequality", "uncertain one", "unruly house",etc., the primary duty of a Court of a law isto enforce a promise which the parties havemade and to uphold the sanctity of contractwhich form the basis of society, but incertain cases, the Court may relieve them oftheir duty on a rule founded on what is calledthe public policy, but the doctrine isextended not only to harmful cases but also toharmful tendencies. This doctrine of publicpolicy is only a branch of common law, andjust like any other branch of common law it isgoverned by precedents. The principles havebeen crystallized under different heads andthough it is permissible for Courts to expoundand apply them to different situations, itshould only be invoked in clear andincontestable cases of harm to the public. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22.Section 24 provides that if any partof a single consideration for one or moreobjects, or any one or any part of any one ofseveral considerations for a single object, isunlawful, the agreement is void."(b)A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in thedecision reported in AIR 1989 Allahabad 214 (Abhai Singh V. SanjaySingh) considered the agreement opposed to Public Policy inhanding over the management of a School to a Society, which wasfound as opposed to public policy on the ground that interest ofstudents and that of their guardian have crept in.(c)The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court inthe decision reported in 1987 (1) ALT 33 (Popuri RamabrahmaNancharayya v. Pidikiti Srirama Murthy and others) considered anagreement of transfer or assignment of licence for exhibiting filmexcept in the licenced premises without prior clearance of theGovernment and held that the said agreement is opposed to publicpolicy. In paragraph 12, the Division Bench held as follows:"12.The conspectus of the provisions ofthe Act in conjunction with rules madethereunder indicating prohibition of thetransaction in the interest of the public atlarge is the criteria for considering whetherthe infraction of the provisions is illegaland opposed to public policy. It is firmlysettled that mere illegality of thetransaction cannot be labelled with taint ofprohibition unless the adherence to theconditions embodied in the provisions of thestatute is visualised for the protection ofthe public. The levy of penalty orvulnerability to commission of offence is astrong indication of the intention of forbidthe contravention and the absence ofpenalising by itself is not a conclusivefactor and the object and essence of theprovisions of the Act constitute the base forattracting Sec.23 of the Contract Act. Publicpolicy is the prime mover for prohibiting orfor prohibiting or forbidding the transactionand the consideration should be whether theprovisions are enacted in furtherance of orconducive to public policy deduced fromscanning the provisions of the statute.Public policy is a reflection of the currentpattern of life and springs from the needs and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aspirations of the society and takes colourfrom the prevailing political, economic andsocial values. Public policy has to be intune with contemporaneous atmosphere andshould not be imprisoned within rigid contomsand archives of by-gone values. Public policyevolved or gain currency at a particular pointof time may not hold good for all the time andit has to be necessarily fashioned to thechanging pattern of life. The films,television and radio have become powerful andswift media for dissemination of knowledge andtransmission of information and alsocontributes to shaping and influencing themental make up of the people. The silverscreen seeks to mirror the social values,political propensities, ethical considerationscurrent customs and superstitutions anddiverse facets of life. It is patent from theprovisions of Cinematograph Act and theconditions of license that the grant oflicense and diverse forms of transfer of thesaid license are brought under the directfocus of the Government. Conditions No.12 ofthe licence unequivocally prohibits transferor assignment of licence and permitting anyother person to exhibit films in the licensedpremises except with the prior clearance ofthe Government. The contravention of theconditions runs the risk of cancellation oflicence coupled with penalising. It isobvious that the provisions of theCinematographic Act and the conditions oflicence are envisioned in the interests of thepublic. The learned counsel for the appellantcontended that there is no total embargo andthe transfer can be effected with priorpermission and the contravention thereofentails cancellation of licence. We areunable to appreciate this contention. Ex.A-1the agreement between plaintiff and defendantenabled the defendants to exhibit the filmsand admittedly there is no permission of theLicensing Authority and therefore theagreement is in teeth of condition No.12 ofthe licence and therefore opposed to publicpolicy." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant that transfer of management ispermissible under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, we are of the view that transfer ofmanagement is permissible under the Tamil Nadu Recognised PrivateSchools (Regulation) Act, 1973, which deals with approval oftransfer of management. Section 2(7) of the Act deals with'Private School', which includes Teacher Training Institute also,which reads as follows:"2(7) "private school" means a pre-primary, primary, middle or high school orhigher secondary school or teacher traininginstitution imparting education or training,whether receiving grant from the Government ornot, established and administered ormaintained by any person or body of persons,and recognised by the competent authorityunder this Act but does not include a schoolor an institution-(a)imparting technical or professionaleducation;(b)established and administered ormaintained by the Central Government or theState Government or any local authority;(c)maintained or approved by, oraffiliated to, any University established bylaw; or(d)giving, providing or impartingreligious instruction alone, but not any otherinstruction"Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, deals with transfer of management ofschools. It reads as follows:"8.Approval of transfer of permission.- (1) (a) Whenever there is any change inthe constitution of the educational agencythat agency shall apply to the competentauthority for approval of such change.(b)Whenever the management of anyprivate school is proposed to be transferred,the educational agency and the person, to whomthe management is proposed to be transferredmay, before such transfer, apply jointly tothe competent authority for approval of thetransfer.(c)On any transfer of the management ofprivate school, without approval having beenobtained for such transfer under clause (b), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the tranferee shall, if he desires to run itas such, apply to the competent authoritywithin three months of the date of thetransfer, for approval of the transfer.(d)An application under clause (a),clause (b) or clause (c) shall be in such formand contain such particulars as may beprescribed.(2)On receipt of an application undersub-section (1), the competent authorityshall-(a) if it is satisfied, after making suchinquiry as it deems fit, that the educationalagency will continue to maintain and manageor, as the case may be, that the transfereewill maintain and manage, the private school,in accordance with the provisions of this Actand the rules made thereunder, approve thechange or, as the case may be, the transfer,subject to such conditions as it may impose;and(b) communicate its decision to theapplicant within a period of three months fromthe date of such receipt."In Rule 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Rules, 1974, it is stated that application forapproval of transfer of management of any Private School or forapproval of such transfer where the transfer was made withoutapproval having been obtained for such transfer, shall be in Form-IV. Form-IV clearly deals with transfer of management withteachers, liability for non-payment of salary and a declaration isto be furnished by the transferor and transferee, for handing overthe school, etc.17. (a)Thus, it is beyond doubt that certificate ofrecognition and No Objection Certificate alone could not betransferred as in the present case. The intention of thepromoters is also clear from the agreement that the promoters aretransferring the recognition and No Objection Certificate for aconsideration of Rs.15 lakhs in respect of expenses incurred bythe promoters and the promoters reserved their right to admitthree students for the academic year 2005-2006. Hence thetransfer of recognition and No Objection Certificate by thepromoters for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs of which Rs.12 lakhs wasretained towards the expenses met for the grant of recognition andNo Objection Certificate, is not sustainable.(b) The said agreement entered for selling the recognitionand No Objection Certificate by the promoters to the agreement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ holder is to be treated as opposed to public policy as theEducational Institution is granted recognition for the benefit ofthe public. The right conferred to run an institution by way ofcertificate of recognition and no objection if sold like atradable commodity, and authorising the agreement holder to runthe institution from the date of the agreement without theapproval of the competent authority is definitely an act opposedto public policy. Further, by admitting students by bothpromoters and agreement holder, establishes the dispute over theinstitute and the welfare of the innocent students and theirparents are also involved.18.The promoters having parted with the right ofrecognition and admittedly having received Rs.12,00,000/- out ofRs.15,00,000/- as sale price fixed, and the lis between thepromoters and agreement holder being pending in three suits, noone is entitled to admit any student. It is not the case of thepromoters that the amount received is repaid and the agreementstands terminated and the dispute still subsists and admittedlypending before the Civil Court, the promoters are not entitled toadmit students or conduct Teacher Training course based on therecognition granted by the NCTE. Similarly the agreement holder isnot entitled to admit students as no approval is granted by thecompetent authority for the transfer of management. The disputeis admittedly pending and both parties having admitted students bystating one reason or the other, the rights of the students arevery much affected. Hence the DTERT was justified in issuing aprohibitory order by not permitting both parties in admittingstudents. The said order will be in force till the dispute issettled. The interim order obtained by the promoters from thecivil court is without reference to the order passed by thisCourt. Since the prohibitory order passed by DTERT is upheld, thepromoters are not entitled to admit students. 19.As the promoters have no right to conduct TeacherTraining course as of now, the permission sought for to shift theinstitution from Vanjipuram, Kaniyur, Coimbatore District to AnnaiSathya Nagar, Madathukulam, Udumalaipet Taluk, CoimbatoreDistrict, is not entitled to be granted by the NCTE. Hencerejection of request by the NCTE though on different reasons,requires no interference by us. The promoters can apply for theapproval of shifting after the dispute between the promoters andthe agreement holder is over and if the same is sought for theNCTE is bound to consider the same on merits and in accordancewith law.20.Insofar as the continuance of second year students bythe promoters are concerned, this Court granted interim stay ofthe learned single Judge's order, pursuant to which the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ students were not transferred to other recognised Teacher TrainingInstitute or to Government Teacher Training Institute. The stafflist submitted by the promoters having been approved by the DTERTas stated supra and the classes having been conducted by thepromoters, the students are entitled to get their results declaredand they are also entitled to undergo practical examinations andTeaching practice through the Government Teacher TrainingInstitute/DIET.21.It is informed by the learned Senior Counsel for theappellant in W.A.No.82 and 83 of 2007 that for the year 2006-2007also students are admitted in the Teacher Training Institute bythe promoters. Since the said admissions are made during pendencyof the writ appeals and writ petitions, we are of the view thatthe said first year students shall also be accommodated in anearby Government Teacher Training Institute within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order andnecessary proposal is directed to be submitted by the DTERT toNCTE for the increase of strength to that extend.22.The Director of Government Examinations, Chennai-6, isdirected to arrange for the conduct of Practical examinations tothe students of the promoters Institution, who had written theGovernment examinations and the DTERT is directed to conductteaching practice through the DIET, Coimbatore and afterconducting the same publish their results. The said practicalexaminations and Teaching Practice shall be conducted and theirresults shall be published within eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order.23.W.A.No.82 of 2007, W.A.No.83 of 2007 and W.P.No.624 of2007, W.P.No.14929 of 2007 are disposed of with the abovedirections. The order of the learned single Judge stands modifiedto the above extend. W.A.No.234 of 2007 and W.P.No.18967 of 2007are dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Nocosts.vrSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Regional Director,National Council for Teacher Education,Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building,HMT Post, Bangalore - 560 031.2.The Director of Teacher Education,Research and Training, College Road, Chennai -6.3.The Director of Government Examinations,College Road, Chennai - 6.4.The Principal,District Institute of Education and Training,Thirumurthy Nagar,Coimbatore.+ 1 cc to M/s. K. Sridar , Advocate, SR No.2786+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Kamadevan, Advocate, SR No.2964+ 1 cc to Mr. P. R. Gopinathan, Advocate, SR No.3021+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.2959Common Judgment in W.A.No.82 & 83 and 234/2007& W.P.Nos.624, 14729& 18967/2007 RSV(CO)SR/30.1.2008