Judgment :- S. MOHAN (CJ). This case brings to the fore a malaise which is slowly developing in this part of the country. 2. In the name of imparting training or giving education, so may mushroom institutions have sprung up. In order to better the prospects of students, in their days of competition unwary and unfortunate students join these institutions either without knowing whether they are genuine institutions or not or whether they are recognised institutions or not. In this situation, the Court is confronted with a problem as to what should be done. Should the Court be harsh and come down upon those persons who start these institutions unmindful of the statutory regulations governing the institutions or should the Court mellow down and come to the rescue of these unfortunate students? Betwixt those conflicting interests, a via media could be struck provided there is room for that. With this background, we go on to the facts of this case. 3. The writ petition was preferred by the appellant for a mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the 80 students of the appellant - Institute who had completed the two year Diploma Course in the appellant-Institute during the year, 1989 to appear for and write the Government Examination for Diploma in Teacher Education scheduled to be held on 3-4-1989 in the nearest Centre to the appellant - Institute, publish the result of the Examination and issue certificates and Diplomas to the students through the appellant Institute viz. Al-Ameen Teacher Training Institute, No.26, Vadamathathi Street, Tiruvannamalai, North Arcot District. 4. The learned single Judge (S. Ramalingam, J.) was of the view that the petitioner before him approached after the 11th hour, however, before the 12th. Therefore, he dismissed the writ petition in limine. Thus, the appeal. 5. Mr. Vedantam Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the appellant strongly urges before us that the appellant is now seeking the benefit of Art.30 (1) of the Constitution as a minority institution that the same is pending consideration before the appellate authority where the question relating to recognition is also pending examination and that in these circumstances, there is no justification for withholding permission for the students (eighty in number) of the appellant Institute to take the Examination. He stated that as a matter of fact, this Court, with regard to the very institution had granted similar permission on earlier occasion as seen from the order dated 6-11-1987 in W. P. Nos. 10837 of 1987 etc. He only prays that subject to the right of recognition the same privilege may be granted here as well. 6. We had directed notice to the learned Government Pleader to get urgent instructions. Accordingly, he has obtained instructions and has placed the concerned file before us. He would draw our attention to the report of the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore, North Arcot District dt. 31-10-1988. That clearly indicates that there is no such institution at all as the appellant would claim in the address given, namely, No.60, Chellaneri Street and that there is no such street at all and that in No.26, Vadamathathi Street, excepting a name board, nothing else was found. Therefore, he would strongly urge that to such a bogus institution, the Court should not lend its helping hand. Whether the students have undergone the course or not is a moot point. Even assuming they had undergone the course, the law relating to these unweary or unfortunate students had come to be clearly delineated in the ruling of the Supreme Court in Nageshwaramma v. State of A. P., 1986 (1) Scale 1198 , 1986 AIR(SC) 1188, 1986 (S) SCC 166, 1986 SSCC 166, 1986 Supp(SCC) 166 . Therein, the Supreme Court has pointed out that if the students had joined such an institution, they had run the risk and the Court cannot sympathise with them. Under these circumstances, the question of granting permission to take the examination would not arise. 7. It might be true that on earlier occasions this Court might have granted permission to take the Examination but on those occasions, the Court was not aware of the important fact that the institution itself is not in existence since there was no report of this kind. In any event, the Joint Director by his order dt. 11-11-1988 had rejected the application for recognition by a well-considered order. That is pending in appeal. Therefore, there is no merit in this case. 8. Courts as a matter of prudence and policy should not be over zealous on the basis of considerations which are not germane to the issue. In any event, the Joint Director by his order dt. 11-11-1988 had rejected the application for recognition by a well-considered order. That is pending in appeal. Therefore, there is no merit in this case. 8. Courts as a matter of prudence and policy should not be over zealous on the basis of considerations which are not germane to the issue. In other words, what we are entitled to find out even at the threshold is that on the mere ground that unfortunately 80 students have undergone the course (which itself is a point of disputation before us) whether permission could be granted. In this case, the factual position as seen from the order of the Joint Director of School Education dt. 11-111988 is that the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore visited the institute on 11-10-1988 at the address given by the correspondent, namely. No.60, Chellaneri Street, Perumal Nagar, Thiruvannamalai. Then the order reads as follows: "....5. The Chief Educational Officer has stated that in Perumal Nagar, there is no street called Chellaneri Street. Hence it is very clear that the correspondent has simply mentioned an address in the application for recognition and sent the same. Hence, the application itself is a false one. 6. Even before the visit of the Chief Educational officer on 11-10-1988, the school was inspected on 9-12-1987 at 5. p.m. by the then Joint Director of School Education and it was found that the school was not functioning at that time also. 7. The Chief Educational Officer has further stated that there was a name board found at No.26, Vadamathathu Street, which is a dwelling house and during the visit it was found that the house was locked. 8. From the above report it is very clear that the institute was not at all functioning and the management has simply sent application for recognition. 9. If from this report it is clear that no institute as claimed by the appellant is functioning at all and the management has merely sent an application for recognition, how can this Court sympathise with the students? Crafty persons taking advantage of the situation in which unweary are placed who want to better their prospects by earning more qualifications, start bogus institutions and drive a hard bargain of the situation. This case is nothing more than that. Crafty persons taking advantage of the situation in which unweary are placed who want to better their prospects by earning more qualifications, start bogus institutions and drive a hard bargain of the situation. This case is nothing more than that. We say so because the report of the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore, North Arcot, puts the matter beyond doubt about the very existence of, much less the functioning of the appellant institution. What then are we to do? Are we to as is contended by Mr. Vedantam Srinivasan, punish the man who had started the bogus institution or who is supposed to have trained the students without a proper institution or are we to take note of the hard realities of the situation? We consider that it is impossible to ignore the very fact in this case that the very existence of the institution and equally the functioning of the institution is at stake. That fact stares at us. There is no escape from the situation. In view of this factual position, what are we to do for the students? Are we to follow the earlier orders of this Court? Saying "via tuta"(oft repeated past is good), we do not propose to follow that case. Whatever simpathy we could have or we could have had could no longer go exercised in view of the categoric pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in Nageshwaram v. State of A. P., 1986 (1) Scale 1198 , 1986 AIR(SC) 1188, 1986 (S) SCC 166, 1986 SSCC 166, 1986 Supp(SCC) 166Their Lordships clearly pointed out therein in a similar case of Teacher Training Institute as follows (at p. 1191):" * .....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 unweary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. 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 unweary 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." 10. In the case on hand, the position is, more worse because there is no semblance or trace of an institution. For this conclusion of ours we rely only on the report of the Chief Educational Officer dt. 31-10-1988 and the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education in Re. No.272239/ M3 / 88 dated 11-11-1988. 11. There is an added reason for us as not to follow the earlier orders because at that time, as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, this Court was not presented with the factual position. In these circumstances, if the students had joined the Institute, they have run the risk. That risk cannot be set right by a stroke of pen, namely, by a command issued by this Court. 12. For the above reasons, we dismiss the writ appeal. But this dismissal shall not prejudice the right of the appellant to agitate the points that are available to him in the appeal against the refusal to recognise, pending before the Director of School Education. No costs.