S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) RULES in Special Civil Applications Nos. 236 and 339 of 1987. Mr. Trivedi appears for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and waives service of the rules. Mr. R. N. Shah appears for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and waives service of the rules. ( 2 ) IN this group of five petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution a short question has surfaced for consideration of this Court. It pertains to the fate of students who have joined unrecognised primary teachers training college which are being run by the college authorities who have not got any recognition for their colleges under the provisions of the Gujarat Educational Institutions Regulations Act 1984 and under the rules framed thereunder being Gujarat Educational Institutions (Preprimary and Primary Teachers Training College) Rules 1984 Out of these five petitions the first four petitions pertain to one such unrecognised institution styled as Shri Adhyapan Mandir at Sabarmati run by Janseva Education Foundation Sabarmati Abmedabad; while the last petition is moved by students who are similarly situated as the students in the other petitions but who have joined an another unrecognised institution viz. Mishra Adhyapan Mandir at Village Kumbera in Meghraj Taluka of Sabarkantha District. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the students studying in these two unrecognised Institutions a few relevant facts may be noted. The State of Gujarat has been enjoined with the duty of granting recognition to institutions which have to impart training to students who will be ultimately given certificates known as Primary Teachers Certificate (PTC ). On receipt of such certificate after fulfilling requisite requirements for the course the concerned certificate holders can be primary school teachers and who in their turn can also train other teachers. These PTC trained teachers will have to work as primary school teachers and will be training primary school students. Thus these colleges are training colleges for equipping future teachers of primary schools. Many lady students join such course so that on getting PTC training they can eke out their livelihood as primary teachers in the State. It is the case of the respondent State of Gujarat that under the Act and the Rules a detailed procedure has been laid down for recognition of PTC training institutions and only those institutions can impart training to the students who want to obtain PTC certificates. It is the case of the respondent State of Gujarat that under the Act and the Rules a detailed procedure has been laid down for recognition of PTC training institutions and only those institutions can impart training to the students who want to obtain PTC certificates. It is obvious that students who receive training in recognised institutions can legitimately expect to be examined for PTC certificate examination which is conducted annually by the State of Gujarat through the State Examination Board. This PTC course is two years course. During both these years the concerned students have to give practical lessons in recognised institutions to get equipped in the art of teaching. After two years course is overt which would consist of practical training as well as listening to the lectures of professors examination is being conducted by the Examination Board and if the students pass such examination they get PTC certificates. At the end of the first year there is internal examination by the college concerned and only after the student completes two years training course from the college he becomes entitled to appear at the final examination conducted by the Examination Board. ( 4 ) IT is obvious that as the recognised institutions are limited in number and there are number of students seeking admission at these colleges admissions get restricted as numbers of seats in all the colleges would be limited. Those students who have passed Std. X Examination which is known as New S. S. C. Examination conducted by the Secondary Education Board seek in large numbers admissions to the PTC training course conducted by recognised institutions. As seats are limited admissions get closed every year and those students who have not secured higher number of marks get weeded out. When admissions to the PTC course in recognised institutions get closed the students who are left out or students who see no chance to get admissions in recognised institutions would fall prey to the machination of unrecognised institutions who lure them by all sorts of advertisements and pursue them to join these unrecognised institutions where they would be given training. When admissions to the PTC course in recognised institutions get closed the students who are left out or students who see no chance to get admissions in recognised institutions would fall prey to the machination of unrecognised institutions who lure them by all sorts of advertisements and pursue them to join these unrecognised institutions where they would be given training. Such unrecognised institutions on collecting fees allow these students to study and ultimately when two years are over these students are met with an impossible situation that the State Government and the State Examination Board under the Education Department thereof would not permit such students who have studied at unrecognised institutions to appear at the PTC examination conducted by the Examination Board. That would naturally create lot of heart-burning to these students who have studied at the unrecognised institutions. This phenomenon is an ever recurring phenomenon which occurs every year and many petitions are filed in the Court year after year by different batches of students who might have studied at unrecognised institutions and who might be ripe for being examined on completion of two years training at unrecognised institutions. It is in the background of the aforesaid fact situation that the grievance of the present petitioners will have to be examined. ( 5 ) THE students who are concerned in this group of petitions have studied in unrecognised institutions admittedly. They all belong to 1985 batch meaning thereby they had joined such institutions for getting training for the course of primary teachers certificate somewhere in 1985 in the concerned unrecognised institutions. They took training at these institutions. They 8ave lessons in other recognised institutions and schools as trainees. They completed the first year of the course at the end of 1985-86. They appeared at the internal examination conducted by these institutions. They paid large amount of fees including hostel fees to these institutions. Thereafter they resumed their studies in the second year 1986-87 and it is during the currency of their second year of study in unrecognised institutions for 1986-87 that they were informed by the State authorities that institutions in which they studied are unrecognised institutions and will not entitle them to appear at 1987 PTC exam. Thereafter they resumed their studies in the second year 1986-87 and it is during the currency of their second year of study in unrecognised institutions for 1986-87 that they were informed by the State authorities that institutions in which they studied are unrecognised institutions and will not entitle them to appear at 1987 PTC exam. Relevant advertisement issued by the second respondent through the Director of Primary Education Gandhinagar is dated 23 A copy of that advertisement is of annexure C to Special Civil Application No. 6560 of 1986. It is not in dispute that unrecognised institutions which have trained the students in the present group of petitions were listed as such in the advertisement for the first time. The advertisement shows that there are 12 such institutions in the State of Gujarat. Shri Adhyapan Mandir Jawahar Chowk Sabarmati is at Serial No. 2 while Mishra Adhyapan Mandir run by Dinbandhu Seva Mandal whose students have filed Special Civil Application No. 339 of 1987 is at Serial No. 8. It may be pointed out at this stage that at Serial No. 1 is mentioned Shri Shikshan Sadhna Shri Adhyapan Mandir Ahmedabad which is shown to be an unrecognised institution but which institution has already filed a petition in this Court and the question regarding its unrecognition is sub judice before this Court. However the fact remains that so far as the students of the present two institutions with which we are concerned in this group of petitions go they were informed for the first time in October 1986 by the aforesaid advertisement that they are studying at unrecognised institutions and that the State of Gujarat will not permit them to appear at the final PTC examination as they had studied at the above unrecognised institutions. ( 6 ) IT is on the basis of this fact situation that it is vehemently contended by the learned advocate for the concerned students as well as by Mr. Dave who has appeared for 184 girl students who belong to 1985 batch and who have studied at Shri Adhyapan Mandir which is an unrecognised institution that these students for no fault of theirs will be penalised. They never knew that their institutions were unrecognised till the advertisement of 23-10-1986 saw the light of the day. In the meantime they had already completed one precious year of their life as students. They had taken lessons. They never knew that their institutions were unrecognised till the advertisement of 23-10-1986 saw the light of the day. In the meantime they had already completed one precious year of their life as students. They had taken lessons. They had also passed the internal examination conducted by the college and they were already studying as second year students for couple of months since June/july 1986 when they were told by the advertisement referred to above that they will be liable to be turned off the gates when they seek admission for 1987 PTC examination. They therefore submitted that on the ground of estoppel and promissory estoppel it is not open to the State authorities to refuse to permit these students to appear at the examination. If at all these students are victims of trickeries played by these unrecognised institutions whose managements have pocketed large amount from them by way of tuition fees as well as hostel charges. Mr. Dave party-in-person in Special Civil Application No. 6321 of 1986 pointed out to me that all the aforesaid students are lady students. They come from different parts of the State and they belong to poor strata of the society. They hoped that they will get quipped with PTC training certificate so that they can eke out their livelihood as trained primary school teachers and with that hope they had joined these institutions which ultimately are found to be unrecognised. It is not their fault. It is the fault of the managements which seem to have duped them. It pointed out to me that in recognised institutions girl-students are trained free of charge while these unrecognised institutions chargelarge amount of tuition fees. Thus the students are the real victims of fraud; committed by these unrecognised institutions and they should not be permitted to suffer for the sins of these institutions-managements. ( 7 ) MR. TRIVEDI for the respondents submitted that these unrecognised institutions are carrying on their illegal business on a large scale in different parts of the State and it is not as if that students do not know that they are playing with fire when they are joining unrecognised institutions Sufficient advertisements are given from time to time had PTC course are conducted only by recognised institutions. That procedure for admission to PTC course has been laid down admission forms will be available from the Government offices indicated in the advertisement on payment of proper fees and in the admission forms themselves it is mentioned that there are only limited number of recognised institutions names whereof are printed in the admission forms. All the students definitely know which are the recognised institutions in the State and only because recognised institutions are limited in number and seats are limited that those students who have not secured sufficient number of marks to get admitted in the order of merits and those who are weeded out and who have no chance of admission seek admissions in such unrecognised institutions which welcome them and which charge handsome fee from them and exploit them. It is therefore submitted that it is not as if that the students are totally ignorant or that guardians are totally oblivious of the real situation. Calculated risk is takers by the guardians and students so that those students who otherwise would have no chance to get admitted to recognised institutions may by back door entry get that chance through such unrecognised institutions who have no limit for admitting such students in their classes. It is therefore submitted that neither on the ground of estoppel nor- on the ground promissory estoppel these students of unrecognised institutions should be permitted to appear at the forthcoming PTC examination of March/april 1987. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the legal right of these concerned students it would be necessary to look at certain Supreme Court decisions on the point. The first judgment is reported in the case of Smita Johnbhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1981 SC 1633 . In that case the Supreme Court bench consisting of D. A. Desai and A. Varadarajan JJ. (as they then were) was concerned with a converse case though of course the question of admission to PTC training course was very much on the anvil In that case certain students were admitted by orders of the State of Gujarat in recognised PTC institutions. But it was found later on that those students were not legally entitled to get admitted. Their admissions were therefore cancelled by the State Government. But it was found later on that those students were not legally entitled to get admitted. Their admissions were therefore cancelled by the State Government. The students preferred a writ petition in this Court challenging the action of the State in withdrawing and cancelling the orders under which they had secured admission to the PTC institutions which were recognised institutions. Their petition failed before this Court Letters Patent Appeal also failed and thereafter they landed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court to the effect that the petitioners were not entitled to get admitted and their admissions were rightly cancelled by the State authorities. However it was submitted on behalf of the students before the Supreme Court that they had already spent their one year of precious life and they had got training at the institutions which were recognised institutions and that their training should not be lost even if their admissions are found to be improper or illegal and that on the ground of equity and fairness some relief should be given to these students The Supreme Court in that conjunction observed as under:there are with a view to mitigating the harshness of law blended by the fairness of equity we direct that all those who secured admissions under the aforementioned five orders of the Director of Education and have completed first year course and have also appeared at the examination held at the end of first academic year should be treated as admitted for the limited period of first year. Their results should be declared. However it is made distinctly clear that on this account they could not be entitled to claim even in they have passed the examination admission in the second year course. They will have to seek admission in the second year course in case they are declared successful in the first year examination on merit and at the discretion of the management of the institutions. Subject to these directions petitions were disposed of. It becomes at once clear that the aforesaid decision cannot be of any assistance to the students who have come up in the present proceedings. As noted earlier the petitioners before the Supreme Court were admitted to PTC training course at recognised institutions. They had already put up one years training course and had appeared at the internal examination also. It becomes at once clear that the aforesaid decision cannot be of any assistance to the students who have come up in the present proceedings. As noted earlier the petitioners before the Supreme Court were admitted to PTC training course at recognised institutions. They had already put up one years training course and had appeared at the internal examination also. On these facts the Supreme Court did not nullify one years training which they were imparted at the recognised institutions. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned admittedly the students have studied in unrecognised institutions from the inception i. e. from 1985 onwards. The question is whether they should be permitted to appear at the examination of March/april 1987 when they do not belong to recognised institutions. Such a question was not before the Supreme Court in the case of Smita (supra) and hence that decision cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners. ( 9 ) THE second decision which may be noted is a decision rendered in the case of Nageshwaramma v. State of A. P. AIR 1986 SC 1188 . A Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of O. Chinnappa Reddy and K. N. Singh JJ. was concerned with almost an identical question which has been posed for my consideration in the present case. In that case the students had undergone training in private teacher training institutes established without permission and the question was whether they can be permitted to appear at the examinations which were being conducted by the authorities which were charged with duty to examine the students who had taken training at recognised institutions. O. Chinnappa Reddy J. speaking for the Supreme Court in terms held that such students were not entitled to be examined and they can have no reliefs either under Art. 226 or Art. 32 of the Constitution. In this connection the following pertinent observations are very useful:the students who have undergone training in private teacher training institutes established without permission cannot be permitted to appear at the examinations under Art. 32 or 226 of the Constitution. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the Court the Government is directed to permit them to appear at the examination court will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Art. 32 of the Constitution or Art. 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and Court cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped training institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the point it must be held that the present petitioners have no legs to stand upon for insisting that even though they had taken admission and training in unrecognised institutions they must be permitted to appear at the final examination to be conducted this year by the Examination Board. 9-A However I may refer to a later decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance vas placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners That is in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University AIR 1986 SC 1448 A division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of P. N. Bhagwati C. J. and R. S. Pathak J. (as they then were) was concerned with the question about the eligibility of students for getting admission to B. E. Degree course of Karnataka University for the academic year 1981-82 and subsequent years. Eligibility criterion was that a student seeking admission should have passed the two year Pre- University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it. Students who had got admission to this course had passed higher secondary examination held by Secondary Education Board Rajasthan. Eligibility criterion was that a student seeking admission should have passed the two year Pre- University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it. Students who had got admission to this course had passed higher secondary examination held by Secondary Education Board Rajasthan. It was found that this examination was not equivalent examination as recognised by the competent authority and consequently students who had passed the higher secondary examination held by the Secondary Education Board Rajasthan were held clearly ineligible for admission to B. E. Degree course. However they were admitted illegally by the college authorities. The question was whether such students can be asked to discontinue study or should be given some benefit even on the basis that they were initially admitted in an illegal manner. The learned single Judge of Karnataka High Court as well as the Division Bench of that Court took the view that students were illegally admitted to degree course and the Supreme Court confirmed that view in para 8 of the report. However the next question as to whether these students should be permitted to continue the study in the respective engineering colleges in which they were illegally admitted was sympathetically considered by the Supreme Court. Bhagwati C. J. speaking for the Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations in this connection in para 8 of the report: We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned Judge and affirmed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. But the question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of the Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective engineering colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the engineering colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the higher secondary-examination of the Secondary Education Board Rajasthan nor the fit year B. Sc. Examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre-University examination of the Pre-Uni- Education Board Bangalore The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation for in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring engineering colleges the Karnataka University should take appropriate action because the managements of these engineering colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the engineering degree course. We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students. ( 10 ) IT is true that in the aforesaid decision a view has been taken that when illegal admissions granted to the students were on account of the fault of the engineering colleges students cannot be penalised and therefore they were permitted to continue their studies in the respective engineering degree colleges in which they were admitted. However this concession was given to the concerned students in the light of the peculiar facts of the case before the Supreme Court. However this concession was given to the concerned students in the light of the peculiar facts of the case before the Supreme Court. In that case it was found that almost four years had elapsed since initial admission of the students in the concerned course. It was also kept in view that the concerned students might not have known that higher secondary examination of secondary Education Board of Rajasthan or first year B. Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University was not recognised as Pre-University examination of the Pre-University Education Board Bangalore and they might have presumed that as they had passed first year B. Sc. examination of Udaipur University or higher secondary examination of Rajasthan University they were eligible for admission. In the light of the peculiar facts of the case the Supreme Court allowed ineligible students to complete their studies. In my view the aforesaid decision cannot be pressed in service by the learned advocates for the petitioners for supporting their contention. This is not a case in which illegal admissions are given by recognised institutions. In Rajendra Prasads case (supra) admissions were given to ineligible students by duly recognised colleges. Therefore the education which they had taken was in recognised institutions. The only question was about their illegal entry four years back. Such long lapse of time between initial entry though illegal and the fullfledged education taken at recognised institutions for a long period time on the other weighed with the Supreme Court in giving benefit of concession to the concerned students. As the facts of the present case are entirely different and as in the present case the concerned students have admitted by unrecognised institutions the concession given to the students by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasads case (supra) cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners in the present case. On the contrary the question which has been posed for my consideration on the facts of this case is clearly answered against the petitioners by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nageshwaramma (supra ). In view of that decision in fact the petitioner-students of unrecognised institutions can have no case for getting any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In view of that decision in fact the petitioner-students of unrecognised institutions can have no case for getting any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Thus as the legal position stands the petitioner-students of unrecognised institutions must necessarily stand to lose and in fairness to the learned advocates for the petitioners they also did not pitch their case that high nor did they submit that despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nageshwaramma (supra) they should in law be held entitled to any relief. However they submitted that the problem posed for my purview is made a humane problem than legal one and this Court should field out some way for helping out the students whose unfortunate lot has reduced them into a totally helpless position. In view of the peculiar facts of this case viz. that two years back practically in 1985 June/july when these students of 1985 batch had joined unrecognised institutions they had no idea that institutions they are walking in are unrecognised and the knowledge dawned on them when they read the public advertisement in October 1986 as referred to earlier. It must be stated that if not in law at least in equity or from the point of view of humanity some way should be found out for them. They had spent by then 12 years of their precious time at their very early age. ( 11 ) SO far as Special Civil Application Nos. 6321 of 1986 6560 of 1986 and 236 of 1987 are concerned they pertain to students of the same institution viz. Stri Adhyapan Mandir Sabarmati. At this institution 184 students whose names are listed at Annexure A to Special Civil Application No. 6321 of 1986 have taken training since more than one and half years. They have stayed in the hostel pay hostel charges messing charges as well as tuition fess to the institution. These girls are coming From rural areas and belonging to poor strata of the society. It has to be kept in view that as per the rules and regulation for admission to PTC course students between the age group of 15 and 22 years for general class and upto 27 years for S. T. and S. C. students can be admitted. It has to be kept in view that as per the rules and regulation for admission to PTC course students between the age group of 15 and 22 years for general class and upto 27 years for S. T. and S. C. students can be admitted. Thus they are all young girls and when these girls of tender age have spent this much time while taking education from an unrecognised institution it becomes clear that some way has to be found out so that these unfortunate victims may not suffer. In this connection I have kept in mind a salient fact that so far as at least 1985 batch of students studying in unrecognised institutions is concerned they had been in unrecognised institutions for more than one year without being informed that they had boarded a sinking ship. Mr. Trivedi for the respondents however submitted that various public advertisements were given by the authorities pointing out the fact that it would be dangerous to take education in unrecognised institutions. He specially invited my attention to a news item at page 28 of Special Civil Application No. 6560 of 1986 It is a news item dated 3-3-1986 published in Jansatta of that day mentioning that red signal is being given against getting admissions in unrecognised institutions. Thus at least; from March 1986 onwards the concerned students got some news about the type of institutions which are not recognised and where it would be dangerous to get admissions. ( 12 ) IN that news item at Serial No. 1 is listed the present unrecognised institution Stri Adhyapan Mandir which is respondent No: 1 in Spl. C. A. 6321 of 1986. However by that time 1985 batch of students had already completed one year of study in that institution. In this view of the matter it can easily be seen that so far as 1985 batch of students studying in unrecognised institutions is concerned at least they deserve some equitable relief if not any legal relief. This may not apply to 1986 batch of students as that batch of students would naturally have started their studies in the first year course from June 1986 on: wards and they would be ripe for admission to final examination only in March/april 1988 when two years would be over. Thus 1986 batch of students stand on a different footing. This may not apply to 1986 batch of students as that batch of students would naturally have started their studies in the first year course from June 1986 on: wards and they would be ripe for admission to final examination only in March/april 1988 when two years would be over. Thus 1986 batch of students stand on a different footing. For that batch there would neither be any legal consideration nor any equitable consideration as by March 1986 guardians of such children has got sufficient information by being brought to their notice that there were number of unrecognised institutions imparting PTC training and no student should get admission at such institutions. Mr. Trivedi for the respondents also submitted that on 30-7-1986 and 31-7-1986 similar advertisements were inserted in Gujarat Samachar and Jansatta. On 5-7-1986 such advertisement was inserted in Sandesh. However that would also pertain to 1986 batch of students and Mr. Trivedi is right when he contends that so far as that batch is concerned no question of giving any equitable relief to them would ever arise. ( 13 ) HOWEVER I pointed out to him that at least 1985 batch of students stand on a different footing and even though they have no legal right to get any relief from this Court as ruled by the Supreme Court in Nageshwarammas case (supra) the State Government may consider the feasibility on humanitarian ground of giving some relief to 1985 batch of students who may be the last batch entitled to get equitable relief in view of the peculiar facts of this case as stated above. I am happy to note that the respondent State have risen to the occasion and my suggestion has got fructified. Mr. Trivedi after taking instructions from the concerned authorities made a statement that this year only on equitable and humanitarian ground 1985 batch of students who might have studied in unrecognised institutions will be given a single chance to appear at the examination provided their examination forms are routed through recognised institutions and that this concession is being given by the State of Gujarat at the suggestion of this Court only on humanitarian ground and that would not be available to any other students of any other batch from 1986 onwards who might have studied in unrecognised institutions and whose examination may be due in March/april 1988 onwards. Mr. Mr. Trivedi also submitted that this concession will be given to these concerned students provided the managements of these institutions undertake to this Court to immediately close down their institutions and only on this undertaking being given the aforesaid concession will be made available to these students when they bad illegally admitted after collecting fees and to whom they have gone on imparting training for all this period. I am also happy to note that Mr. R. N. Shah for these institutions which are unrecognised institutions viz. Stri Adhyapan Mandir Sabarmati and Mishra Adhyapan Mandir Kumbera respondent No. 5 in Spl. C. A. 339 of 1987 has undertaken to this Court to immediately close down these institutions subject of course to completing the training for 1985 batch of students as for that batch the State is good enough to give this concession. He also stated that they would not impart any further training to students of 1986 batch and there will be no question of admitting 1986 students in June 1987 as these institutions will be forthwith closed down. However he added a rider that it would be open to these institutions to apply for recognition to the competent authority and if the recognition is granted then only they will think of restarting the institutions and in case such recognition is not granted whatever legal recourse is available against such refusal of recognition will be available to the concerned institutions. This stand taken by the managements is taken note of. These managements shall file requisite undertakings incorporating the aforesaid terms within one week from today in this Court. In view of this happy development at the end of these proceedings these petitions though legally required to be dismissed will stand practically allowed by consent of parties as is indicated hereafter the consensus which has finally been reached between the parties regarding 1985 batch of students studying in unrecognised institutions is as follows:only on humanitarian ground the respondent-State has agreed that students of 1985 batch who were admitted and who had studied at unrecognised institutions will be permitted to appear at the ensuing practical and theory examinations of PTC to be held by the State Examination Board in March/april 1987. For that purpose the concerned students of 1985 batch will have to apply on or before 6-3-1987. For that purpose the concerned students of 1985 batch will have to apply on or before 6-3-1987. Examination forms if not supplied to the students will be supplied by the State through the office of the State Examination Board on or before 27-2-1987. The examination forms duly filled in by the concerned students of 1985 batch will be submitted through Mahalaxmi Training College Ahmedabad so far as Ahmedabad students are concerned and through the Principal Government Adhyapan Mandir Idar so far as students of Mishra Adhyapan Mandir Kumbera respondent No. 5 in Spl. C. A. 339 of 1987 are concerned. Mr. Trivedi for the respondents submits that necessary instructions will be sent to these institutions to accept examination forms onward submission to the concerned authorities. ( 14 ) IT is also agreed to between the parties that so far as 1985 batch of students admitted by respondent No. 1 institution in Spl. C. A. 6321 of 1986 is concerned a complete list of girl students which is at annexure A will be taken to be the final list. It will be open however to the State authorities to scrutinies this list and to cross check it with the relevant registers maintained by respondent No. 1 from 1985 onwards. ( 15 ) SO far as students admitted by Kumbera College in Sabarkantha District are concerned the respondents will be entitled to cross check the list of students in the light of the relevant registers maintained by tie institution. ( 16 ) IT is clarified that the last date for submitting these examination forms by 1985 batch of students for which this package deal is offered will be 6-3-1987 and that date will be taken to be the final date for that purpose. ( 17 ) IT is distinctly understood that the concerned students of 1985 batch who might have taken training through unrecognised institutions and who seek permission to appear at 1987 Examination will have to satisfy all the procedural requirements for being eligible to appear at such examination meaning thereby the following requirements will have to be satisfied by the concerned students: (A) Age requirement being 15 to 22 years for general category of students and up to 27 years for S. T. and S. C. students. (B)REQUIREMENT of having given necessary lessons in recognised- institutions (C) Minimum presence required of these students in the classes conducted by these institutions even though they are unrecognised institutions; (D) All other requirements as laid down by appendix V of Gujarat Educational institutions (Preprimary and Primary Teachers Training Colleges) Rules 1984 ( 18 ) IT is also made clear that those students of 1985 batch who are given concession to appear at the ensuing examination of PTC will not have to comply with the following two requirements; (I) minimum mark eligibility; (ii) being required to be trained at any recognised institution. Save and except these two requirements rest of the procedural requirements for eligibility will have to be complied with by those students and if they are found by the authorities to satisfy these remaining requirements they will be permitted to appear at the ensuing PTC practical and theoretical examinations to be held in March/april 1987. ( 19 ) IT is also distinctly understood and agreed to between the parties that the concerned students of 1985 batch trained at unrecognised institutions who will be permitted to appear at the 1987 examination as per the present arrangement will get only one chance and if unfortunately any one of them fails in that examination he/she will not be entitled to have a fresh chance at the future PTC examination which might be held year after year by the Examination Board. The only exception to this provision is to the effect that in case any one of these students of 1985 batch which can be known in short as irregular batch for some unforeseen reason cannot actually appear at 1987 examination and cannot utilise the chance given as per the present arrangement he/she will be entitled to appear at the future examination as he/she will not be treated tn have exhausted the solitary chance agreed to be given to them as per the present arrangement. Further rider will also be added on this aspect viz. Further rider will also be added on this aspect viz. that if any student of the 1985 irregular batch actually appears in some of the papers at the ensuing 1987 examination and if for any unforeseen contingency he/she is not able to appear at the rest of the papers in the said examination he/she will naturally be declared to have failed at the examination on that count and in such circumstances if he/she applies for a fresh chance for being permitted to appear at the future examination which may be held hereafter if the authorities are satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of the concerned student that on account of any unforeseen circumstances he/she could not appear in any of the papers at 1987 Examination then in that eventuality the authorities will permit the concerned student to take one more chance at the future examination. But it will also be a last chance for such left-out student. ( 20 ) THE concerned institutions referred to in these petitions which are unrecognised institutions have duly undertaken to this Court through their advocate Mr. R N. Shah to close down their institutions. The nature of this undertaking which these institutions will have to file in this Court is already indicated hereinabove Such undertakings to be filed within one week from today. A copy of such undertaking will be submitted to the learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for the respondents. . ( 21 ) IT is also distinctly understood between the parties and made clear to Mr. R. N. Shah for the unrecognised institutions that suitable undertaking will have to be filed by all the trustees of the institutions which are running the concerned unrecognised colleges and they should undertake to this Court that they themselves will not float any other institution and will not start any fresh institution in any fresh name without previously obtaining recognition from the State of Gujarat. ( 22 ) IT is distinctly understood between the parties that save and except 1985 batch of students no other batch of students starting from 1986 onwards if they have taken training at any unrecognised institutions will be permitted to be examined at any future examination to be held by the respondent-authorities and it is on this distinct understanding that the respondent-authorities have risen to the occasion and have responded to my suggestion to do justice to 1985 batch of students. ( 23 ) THE respondent-authorities will put up a public notice about the present order and will inform the public at large of the recognised institutions through which only the P. T. C. students can appear at the P. T. C. examination in future and from which institutions only they can get the training required as per the rules and regulations. The respondent-authorities may also publish another list which may mention the names of unrecognised institutions which are functioning in the State. However it must be indicated that these unrecognised institutions which have come to this Court by way of writ petitions and whose petitions for recognition are pending may no be mentioned in the second list of unrecognised institutions but must be mentioned in the third list which may be captioned as list of unrecognised institutions whose matters before the High Court for recognition are sub judice. Under that caption must be listed this third category of institutions. In short three separate lists as aforesaid must be published alongwith the contents of the present order. ( 24 ) MR. Dave Ex-President of Gujarat Vali Mandal who appears as petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6321 of 1986 has stated before the Court that his Vali Mandal is recognised by the State of Gujarat and that his Mandal has passed a resolution in the light of which he is authorised to state as under :-HE states that on the strength of the above resolution henceforth no petition will be filed in this Court or any Court by guardians of students of 1986 batch who may have studied in unrecognised institutions requesting the respondents to examine such students in future examination of P. T. C. and he further states that if any such application is made by any one else he will certainly oppose the same. This fair stand taken by Mr. Dave is recorded with appreciation. ( 25 ) IT is also agreed between the parties that Managers and Principals of the concerned unrecognised institutions whose students are being given benefit of this order will produce all necessary information registers and records in original as required by the committee appointed by the Government for scrutinising and cross-checking which will be done at the office of the Director of State Examination Board Delhi Chakla Ahmedabad. This scrutiny and cross-checking will be completed by the said committee on or before 9-3-1987 and the concerned students will be informed accordingly. ( 26 ) IT is also made clear that if any form for examination is submitted after 6-3-1987 by the concerned student of 1985 batch before the authority the authority will be entitled to reject the same. ( 27 ) IT is also made clear that after scrutiny be the committee if the students are found to be eligible for being sent up for examination requisite certificate for having completed practical training will be issued by the committee. Mr. Trivedi for the respondents agrees that such certificate given by the committee will be sufficient compliance with the rules and regulations for the students of 1985 batch only. ( 28 ) MR. Trivedi states that he reserves his right notwithstanding the concession given to 1985 batch of irregular students to take appropriate criminal action against the Managers Principals of those unrecognised institutions which are running PTC classes at present or who will run PTC classes hereafter. ( 29 ) IN view of the aforesaid consensus reached between the parties present group of petitions is disposed of as aforesaid. Rules issued in Special Civil Applications Nos. 6321 of 1986 6560 of 1986 and 236 of 1987 and 339 of 1987 will be made absolute to the aforesaid limited extent by consent of parties as aforesaid. Special Civil Application No. 293 of 1987 which is taken out by the management of Stri Adhyapan Mandir Sabarmati shall stand rejected as it is not pressed by the institution and as the institution has given an undertaking as aforesaid to close down its activities subject to the right reserved by the management as indicated hereinabove. ( 30 ) THERE will be no order as to costs in Special Civil Applications Nos. 6321 of 1986 6560 of 1986 236 of 1987 and 339 of 1987. So far as Special Civil Application No. 339 of 1987 is concerned the petitioner-institution will pay costs of the respondents in separate sets. Petition allowed on humanitarian grounds. .