Judgment : 1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of respondent in Na.Ka.No.358104/E1/97 dated 212. 1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue Duplicate Diploma Teacher Education Examination Marksheet to the petitioner bearing Registration No. 11049/89 as per her application dated 8. 1997 .2. Petitioner after her completion of the Higher Secondary Examination underwent Teacher Training Course from 1987 to 1989 in Syro Malabar Mission Jubilee Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Varuthattu, Medukummal Post, Kanyakumari District. During the said period, the said Institute was recognised. Petitioner also wrote her Examination in April 1989 and obtained First Class marks. The result of the petitioner alongwith other candidates was ordered to be published in W.P.No.5271 of 1991 dated 14. 1991. Consequently, the respondent published the results and also issued the Diploma Certificate on 310. 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner registered her name with the Employment Exchange. Whileso, Petitioner lost her marksheet and after completing the formalities such as paper publication, etc. moved an application for issuance of Duplicate Certificate on 8. 1997 after remitting necessary fees on 8. 1997. The Principal of the District Institute of Education Training (DIET) recommended for the issuance of Diploma Certificate by his letter dated 210. 1997. But the respondent rejected by virtue of the decision reported in P.M. Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 W.L.R.604. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner underwent the Training in a Recognised Institute, and the state of affairs as on the date of admission of the petitioner is the matter to be considered and during the entire period during which the petitioner underwent the Course, it was a recognised Institute. A subsequent derecognition by order of court will not take away the validity of the course which the petitioner has already undergone. It is further said that once the respondent has found the petitioner eligible and she has been issued a Certificate, naturally they are also bound to issue the Diploma Certificate, for, it is not an additional relief that is claimed, but she is claiming only a right which she has already obtained when the certificate was issued by the Government. 3. When the matter came for admission, I directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice. Accordingly he took notice, and advanced arguments on instructions. 4. 3. When the matter came for admission, I directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice. Accordingly he took notice, and advanced arguments on instructions. 4. The institute in which the petitioner was undergoing the course was having recognition during the entire period and she also wrote the Examination while the Institute was having recognition. When the result was published, the recognition continued. It is consequent to the same, respondent issued the marksheet and also the Diploma Certificate. These facts are not disputed. .5. Learned Government Advocate submitted that in the decision reported in P.M. Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 W.L.R. 604 the Division Bench has held that once the Institute was de-recognised, candidates who have already written the Examination will not have any right except to have the results declared and the same principle will have to be followed in this case also. 6. I do not think that the said submission of the learned Government Advocate could be accepted in this case. While the petitioner joined the course, the Institute was recognised. Recognition during that period was not a matter in issue. Validity of recognition subsequent to 1989 was in issue in P.M. Josephs case, 1993 W.L.R. 604. Respondent also, considering the Institute as a recognised Institute, issued Diploma Certificate, though it was pursuant to Orders of Court. 7. In Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) SCC 445 : AIR 1987 SC 2027 a similar question came for consideration. In that case, petitioner therein joined a Physical Training Institute at a time when it had recognition. Long thereafter the Government derecognised the certificate course with the result the certificate obtained by petitioner became useless for appointment as Physical Training Instructor in government schools in Haryana. A writ petition was filed by aggrieved candidates before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, for a direction to the State Government to recognise the Certificate obtained by them, on the basis that they joined the Course in view of recognition granted by the State, and the recognition was also in force at the time when they joined the Course. It was summarily rejected by the High Court, and the matter was taken up before the Honourable Supreme Court. It was summarily rejected by the High Court, and the matter was taken up before the Honourable Supreme Court. While considering the same, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus: "We are of the view that since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the Government of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognised, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was derecognised by the State Government on January 9, 1985. We would therefore, allow the appeal and direct the State Government to recognise the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others similarly situate as a result of completing the certificate course in Shri Hanjman Vayayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in government schools in Haryana. Of course, if any person has joined the certificate course after January 9, 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail".... According to me, the above decision fully applies to the facts of this case. 8. If the respondent himself has given a certificate and if the same is lost, petitioner is not seeking any fresh relief, but she wants only a duplicate marksheet of the one which was already granted. If the relief prayed for is only for getting a duplicate copy of the marksheet already issued, I do not think the issuance of the same will go against the principles enunciated in P.M. Josephs case, 1993 WLR 604. It could be further seen that the results were published and certificates were issued pursuant to order of this Court in W.P.No.5271 of 1991 dated 14. 1991. This contention was not controverted by the Government. So, whatever may be declaration of law by the Division Bench subsequently, the order passed in W.P.No.5271 of 1991 between inter partes will bind the respondent, and it is in consequence of the same, the marksheet and Diploma Certificate were issued. 1991. This contention was not controverted by the Government. So, whatever may be declaration of law by the Division Bench subsequently, the order passed in W.P.No.5271 of 1991 between inter partes will bind the respondent, and it is in consequence of the same, the marksheet and Diploma Certificate were issued. The marksheet diploma certificate already issued are not invalidated in P.M. Josephs case, 1993 WLR 604. It also did not declare that the examination written by candidates earlier is invalid and the candidates will not be entitled to any benefits. In P.M. Josephs Case, 1993 WLR 604, the court was considering how recognition was granted during the period in question and how far interim orders were also granted by Court on the basis of which recognition was granted. Some of the candidates also wrote the examination on the basis of temporary recognition granted by orders of court. It was under those circumstances, the Division Bench had to declare that since the impugned recognition was invalid, candidates who wrote the examination on that basis are entitled only to have the results declared. The recognition which was in existence in 1987-88 was not a matter in issue, nor was it declared by court that those recognition were invalid. 9. In fact, I have taken a similar view in the decision reported in Jhansi Rani v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1998 (2) M.L.J. 281. 10. In the result, there will be a direction to the respondent as prayed for, and I direct the respondent to revive the application of the petitioner dated 8. 1997 for issuance of a duplicate certificate, and also direct them to issue the same within a period of ten days from the date of production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. No costs. WMP 12452 of 1998 for interim direction is closed.