NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. - (1.) The question which has been referred for, our answer by the learned single Judge and which has brought us together to constitute the Full Bench to decide the same runs as follows : "Whether students of unrecognised educational institutions can be permitted to write the public examinations held by the Government'?" The Institutions concerned in these writ petitions are yet to get the recognition. These writ petitions have been filed seeking direction for the students to sit for the examinations. There are pronouncements even at the level of the highest court in the land and they have countenanced the general proposition that there should not be taking of examinations conducted by the Government, by the students without the Institutions in which they have undergone the educational courses getting recognition. In Nageshwaramma v. state of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1188, the Supreme Court discountenanced the plea put forth on behalf of the students, who have undergone training in private institutions, which are yet to get the recognition, to appear for examinations and it was observed as follows : "'If by a fiat of the Court, we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination; we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should he frittered away for such a purpose."
(2.) In A. P. C. M. E. Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1490 dealing with a similar situation, the Supreme Court rejected the request of the students to be permitted to appear at the examinations even though affiliations have not been granted to the institutions. The following passages in the pronouncement clearly bring out the view of the Supreme Court : "Shri K. K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the students who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this institution; pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance the students of the Medical College established by the Darusalam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University. Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any, direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws."
(3.) In Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Lalit Narain Mithila University, AIR 1987 Patna 259, a Full Bench of the High Court of Patna, while dealing with the request to issue a writ of mandamus to permit students of unrecognised and unaffiliated institutions in technical fields including the teachers training institutes, to sit in the University examinations, observed as follows (Paras 13 and 20 of AIR): "In the light of the above, there would remain little doubt that the law has now imposed a complete ban on an unrecognised and unaffiliated institution in technical fields including the teachers training institutes. The necessary corollary thereof is that the purported students of these unauthorised institutions are not entitled to sit in the University examinations. Indeed, they cannot do so either by the dubious medium of recognised institution or even as private students. Once that is so, would it be possible to issue a mandamus in favour of a person in direct infraction and contravention of such law. The answer has to be rendered in a categoric negative both on principle and in view of the binding precedent in AIR 1986 SC l188 (supra), Nageshvaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh." ... . . . . plainly enough, no mandamus can be issued to perpetuate a mistake. If the law places a total ban on the students of unrecognised and unaffiliated institutions to take the examination of Bachelor or Education then it is not for this Court to override the same and of all things through the medium of a mandamus contrary to law.";