Judgment :- In all these Writ petitions, common question arise for consideration and therefore with the consent of parties, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. All these petitioners requested the State Government for the issuance of no objection Certificate for establishing Teacher Training Institute. Only on getting a certificate from the State Government, Regional Committee under the National Council for Teacher Education Act could give recognition after considering the infrastructural facilities for establishing an institution. An application was made to Regional Committee for recognition. They informed all these petitioners that without getting no objection certificate from the State Government, their requests cannot be considered. When such a request was made to the State Government, an order was passed rejecting the application. All these applications were rejected more or less on same lines which read thus: “. The Government have considered for your request for the grant of ‘N.O.C in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the N.C.T.E.” 2. One of the main guidelines laid down by the NCTE is as follows: “The establishment of I.T.I. by Government, private managements or any other agencies should largely be determined by assessed need for trained teachers. This need should take into consideration the supply of trained teachers from existing institutions, the requirement of such teachers in relation to enrolment projections at various states, the attrition rates among trained teachers due to superannuation, change of occupation, death etc. and the number of trained teachers on the live register of the employment exchanges seeking employment and the possibility of their employment. The States having more than the required number of trained teachers may not encourage opening of new institutions for teacher education or to increase the intake”. 3. There are already about 60,000 unemployed secondary grade teachers. The present intake in the existing 75 institutions is in the range of 3,200 per annum. Now about 229 new Teachers Training Institute including your institute have applied for the grant of “NOC”. If all the said institutes are granted “NOC” and subsequently recognised by the NCTE, the total intake of students will shoot upto 14,500 per annum. But the vacancies for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers would arise in the order of only 30 00 - 5000 per annum. If all the said institutes are granted “NOC” and subsequently recognised by the NCTE, the total intake of students will shoot upto 14,500 per annum. But the vacancies for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers would arise in the order of only 30 00 - 5000 per annum. Hence, increasing the capacity in training institutions would only further swell the ranks of unemployed teachers and many of them would cross the prescribed age limit of 35 years, before they could ever succeed in procuring employment and this is all the more reason why no new Teacher Training Institutes are encouraged, as a matter of policy. 4. Considering the above facts, I am directed to convey the inability of the Government to grant “N.O.C” for the starting of Teacher Training Institute under your management and hence your request is rejected” 5. In some of the Writ petitions, application was rejected on the ground that Government has taken a policy decision not to grant permission for establishing Teacher Training Institute. These orders of the Government are assailed in these Writ Petitions on various grounds. 6. The main reason for refusing permission is that there are 75 institutions and per annum, they are giving training course on an average of 3,200 students. As on date, more than 60,000 unemployed Secondary Grade Teachers are on the roll of the various employment exchanges and every year the intake or fresh recruitment is only 3,000 - 5,000 teacher trainees and if all these applications are allowed, there will be unemployment problem among the trained teachers. Even to exhaust the existing list, it will take more than 35 years and the Government therefore decided not to issue no objection certificate for establishment of Teacher Training Institutes. 7. Learned Counsel for petitioners submit that the order enmass rejecting application is without taking into consideration the relevant provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act. It is argued that the Act does not contemplates for getting no objection certificate from the State Government and the Government is relying upon certain guidelines issued by the Regional Committee constituted under National Council for Teacher Education Act. These guidelines have no statutory force It is further argued that under Section 32 of the Act, regulations have to be framed and the regulations cannot go beyond the scope of the Act itself. These guidelines have no statutory force It is further argued that under Section 32 of the Act, regulations have to be framed and the regulations cannot go beyond the scope of the Act itself. Though the regulation is passed for getting no objection certificate, the same cannot be treated as passed with authority when the Act does not contemplate for getting such a certificate. The argument is regulation has gone beyond the scope of the Act and therefore invalid. 8. Further submission of the counsel is that when orders are passed, the Government has not considered the individual applications separately and it is clear that the rejection is based on a policy decision taken by the Government. It is said there is no scope for policy decision as on date when the matter is to be decided by the council constituted under the Act. While considering an application for no objection certificate, the Government will have to consider the feasibility of establishing an institute taking into consideration the requirement of the locality. A Secondary Grade Teacher is appointed only to cater the needs of the locality and they have to reach the students from standards 1 to 8. The state is not expected to consider the requirements of entire State but will have to consider whether on the basis of the present conditions requirements in the locality, the establishing of Teacher Training Institute is needed for desirable. 9. Learned Counsel also relied on various articles from the Journals and Dailies to substantiate their contention that the stand taken by the Government has no legs to stand. Even the statistics relied on by the State Government is patently incorrect and the impugned orders are passed without application of mind. The State Government who is in possession of records about the number of educational institutions, will be in a position to say the annual intake of Teacher Trainees. It is also argued that every year, the Government declares its policy of establishing schools and apart from the same, private educational institutions are also come into existence. It is also submitted that the Government has also taken a policy that in every Panchayat there must be an elementary school even if it is situated within a distance of one kilometre. It is also submitted that the Government has also taken a policy that in every Panchayat there must be an elementary school even if it is situated within a distance of one kilometre. It is argued that on the basis of statistics and articles, the literary has only increased and one of the reasons being non-availability of trained teachers. 10. As against the said contention, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that even though Statement in the letters that there are 60,000 unemployed teachers on the record of various employment exchanges, the same is not correct and on the date of these writ petitions, there are only 32,000 unemployed Teacher Trainees on the rolls of employment exchanges. It is submitted that on the basis of statistics taken from various Districts, there is possibility of only increasing number of unemployed teachers. In view of the family planning, the child birth is substantially reduced and that has also affected the recruitment process of trained teachers. The same has become surplus according to learned Additional Advocate General. It is submitted that there is no necessity to interfere in the impugned orders and there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The only point that requires consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the impugned orders are liable to be quashed the respondents have not taken into consideration the relevant materials while passing the order. 12. On going by the impugned orders, an impression is created that the Government has taken a policy decision not to give permission to establish teacher training institutes. All these applications are rejected on the basis of same order and similarly worded even though the applications are from entire 39 Districts of Tamil Nadu State. The only reason stated in the impugned order is because there are surplus hands, now in the live registers of various employment exchanges in the State, there is no necessity for establishment of Teacher Training Institutes. 13. There is no scope for taking policy decision by the Government after the enactment of National Council for Teacher Education Act. 14. The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 was enacted to provide establishment of National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of Teacher Education system throughout the country, regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the Teacher Education system. 14. The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 was enacted to provide establishment of National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of Teacher Education system throughout the country, regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the Teacher Education system. Under Section 3 of the Act, a Council is being established, which is called National council for Teacher Education. Section 12 deals with functions of the Council. Clause (f) empowers the council to lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions for starting new course or training and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing patterns and staff qualifications and to take necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of Teacher Education, etc. On going by various powers of the council, it is clear that it is for the Council to decide whether recognition has to be granted on starting new courses or training. Chapter IV deals with recognition of Teacher Education Institutions. The Regional Committee constituted under the Act is to make necessary recommendations after considering the infrastructural facilities whether recognition is to be granted or not. Section 15 deals with permission for new courses or training for recognised institutions. Section 17 deals with the consequences of contravention and provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. Section 31 deals with power to make rule and Section 32 regarding power to make regulations. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners, I do not find that the Act provide for getting no objection certificate from the State. But it could be seen the regulations have to be framed under Section 32. Regulation 5(a) provides that every institution intending to offer a course of training in teacher education but was not functioning immediately before 17.8.1995, shall submit application for recognition with a no objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located. Regulation 5(1) says that application for permission to increase to intake by recognised institutions under Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 4 above shall be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned with no objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located. 16. Even though Act does not provide for no objection certificate, regulation 5(e) and 51(f) insist on no objection certificate from the State Government or Union Territory. 16. Even though Act does not provide for no objection certificate, regulation 5(e) and 51(f) insist on no objection certificate from the State Government or Union Territory. Regulation 5(e) and 5(f) was challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos. 1079, 1253 of 1996 etc., and as per judgment dated 11.2.97, this question was considered by a Division Bench of our High Court. An argument was taken before the Division Bench that there are no guidelines for State Government to exercise their power under the regulations. The said argument did not find favour with the Division Bench. An argument was also taken before the Bench that the regulation insisting for no objection certificate by the State Government is inconsistent and therefore invalid. The Division Bench rejected the said contention and held thus: “The argument of learned counsel is that the Act howhere says that a no objection certificate should be obtained from the State Government. Therefore, the regulations cannot be inconsistent with the Act and the requirement as to obtaining no objection certificate from the State Government in the Regulation is therefore illegal and void. The question of inconsistency will come only if there is a provision in the Act, which says that recognition should be accorded without reference to the State Government. In the absence of such a provision the regulation cannot be said to be inconsistent with the Act “ (emphasis supplied) The Division Bench further held thus: “On the other hand, under Section 2(d) of the Act, the examining body itself is the State authority. It is very relevant to notice that the State Government is concerned with the Education in General and the Teacher Education in particular, as such, the State Government cannot be considered to be an authority unconnected or unconcerned with Teacher Education. On the contrary, the State Government is vitally concerned with Teacher Education. Therefore, the impugned Regulation 5(e) and 5(f) cannot be held to provide an out of the way or unnecessary requirement of obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the State Government. It is the State Government, which has to ensure law and order, safety, security, health and hygiene. Therefore, the requirement of “No Objection Certificate” as per Regulation 5(e) and 5(f) cannot be held to be unreasonable. It is the State Government, which has to ensure law and order, safety, security, health and hygiene. Therefore, the requirement of “No Objection Certificate” as per Regulation 5(e) and 5(f) cannot be held to be unreasonable. It cannot also be held to amount to a restriction, much less an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of a religious or linguistic minority. 17. It is also argued before the Bench that the State Government are rejecting the applications on the basis of policy decision and such policy decision can only emanate from the Central Government since the Central, the State Government cannot have policy decision. The said contention is answered by the Division Bench thus, “Mr. Joseph Thatheus Jerome learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 3087/96 argued that the Act in question being a Central Act, the consideration for recognition should originate from the Central Policy. The State Government is developing a State Policy for rejecting applications for no objection certificate, whenever an institution applies for the same under Regulation 5(e) of the Regulations. Therefore, he argues that in essence the question of recognition is relegated to the Stat e authority, which is improper. We are of the opinion that the validity of an order by the State Government while considering an application under Regulation 5(e) of the Regulation is totally a different matter and as and when such a question arises, it will be time enough to consider the validity of the order of the State Government. We have already indicated that if orders of the State Government are found to be illegal or in violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India it could always be challenged by the parties aggrieved. That stage has not yet arisen.” 18. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order, Their Lordships further went on and held thus: “..11. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Government has filed a memo adopting the counter affidavit of the Central Government in W.P. No. 1106/96, wherein reasons have been given for framing the Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order, Their Lordships further went on and held thus: “..11. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Government has filed a memo adopting the counter affidavit of the Central Government in W.P. No. 1106/96, wherein reasons have been given for framing the Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations. It has been clearly indicated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the requirements of a no Objection certificate from the State Government was found to be necessary, keeping in view the overall perspective of the situation prevailing in the State or Union Territory with particular reference to the manpower requirement in teacher education. They have also referred to the ‘norms’ and ‘standards’ fixed by the National Council for achieving planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education. It is also pointed out that such institutions have to necessarily get academic support only from the State Government like manpower, admission modalities and grant-in-aid etc. Therefore, it is contended that the Regulation, requiring the no objection certificate is perfectly is legal and necessary for the uplift of teacher education in the State Government. We accept the stand taken in the above counter affidavit. 19. We therefore do not find any substance in any of the points raised by the petitioners to invalidate Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations. We therefore uphold the validity of Regulation 5(e) and 5(f). So far as the requirements to make a cash endowment of at least Rs. 5 lakhs, we hold that the same cannot be enforced in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in MadrasEnglish Baptist Church, Madras v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1991 Writ L.R. 419). In that order, Honourable Judges came to the conclusion that insisting on no objection certificate from State Government is not invalid and Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) are not liable to be struck down.” 20. Even though the Division Bench upheld the validity of Regulations 5(e) and 5(f), Their Lordships did not pronounce any finding whether the State Government can reject the application on any policy decision. Even though the Division Bench upheld the validity of Regulations 5(e) and 5(f), Their Lordships did not pronounce any finding whether the State Government can reject the application on any policy decision. The Division Bench only held that question will have to be considered only when orders have been passed by the State Government and when challenge is made on any such order, Court will consider whether the State Government has exercised its power reasonably in accordance with provisions of the Act. 21. On the same date, i.e. on 11.2.97, another batch of Writ Petitions were disposed by the same Division Bench and the same is reported in 1997 Writ L.R. 129 ( Emmanuel Teacher Training Institute, etc v. The Regional Director, etc). The order challenged in those Writ Petitions read thus, “In Tamil Nadu Trained Certificate holders are unable to be given appointment, therefore, no objection will not be given and the said decision is taken by the Government. This is for your information.” The Division Bench, in paragraph 7 of the judgment held that the guidelines issued by the National Council have got the force of law and the State and Union Territories are bound to follow the same. In paragraphs 8 and 9, Their Lordships held thus: “In the case of request for ‘no objection certificate’ made by a Teacher Training Institution, the State is required to consider, with reference to the need for trained teachers and it is also required to take into consideration supply of trained teachers from existing institutions and requirement of such teachers in relation to enrolment projections at various stages and such other matters as are stated in the guidelines. These norms could be called out from the objects of the Act and the various provisions contained therein. Therefore, in the absence of guidelines, the State were required to consider, the applications, applying the aforesaid norms. As the order of the State Government does hot disclose any such application of the norms, it is not possible to sustain the same. “No Objection Certificates” by the State or the Union Territory for making applications for recognition for establishment of the Teacher Training Institutions are required. Therefore, the State Government is required to consider such applications keeping in view the objects of the Act, the Rules, the Regulations and the guidelines issued under the Act. 9. “No Objection Certificates” by the State or the Union Territory for making applications for recognition for establishment of the Teacher Training Institutions are required. Therefore, the State Government is required to consider such applications keeping in view the objects of the Act, the Rules, the Regulations and the guidelines issued under the Act. 9. For the reasons stated above, all these Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of the State Government refusing to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ are quashed. The matters are remitted to the State Government to consider the request of the petitioners for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ in the light of “the guidelines for establishment of Teacher Training Institution and Introduction of New Programme-issue of No Objection Certificate by States/UTs”. We make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to submit such further material as they consider necessary to comply with the guidelines“ It is pursuant to this direction, the impugned orders are passed by the State Government. 22. In view of these two Bench decisions, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the guidelines have no force of law and guidelines are only guidelines, cannot be accepted. The further contention that no objection certificate need not be obtained from the State Government also cannot stand. 23. But the question that arises for consideration ie , are not the impugned orders invalid for very same reason which did not find favour in Emmanual Teacher Training Institutes case reported in 1997 Writ L.R 129 (cited supra). Even now the State Government has only said because there is unemployment problem and there is no possibility of giving employment to the trainees for another 35 years, the State Government is not in a position to give no objection certificate. According to me, the impugned orders are also invalid for the, reasons, mentioned in Emmanuel Teacher Training Institutes case . Except for giving more details of reasons, the order only reflects the policy decision of the Government. 24. According to me, even the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders are without any materials. In all orders, it is said that more than 60,000 trained teachers are in the registers of various employment exchanges. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that this statement is really exaggerated and it comes only nearly 32,000. 24. According to me, even the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders are without any materials. In all orders, it is said that more than 60,000 trained teachers are in the registers of various employment exchanges. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that this statement is really exaggerated and it comes only nearly 32,000. It is stated that on 31.12.1998, there are 20,500 unemployed secondary grade teachers and the results of more than 10,500 trained teachers are to be published as on 31.3.99 and it is said that the intake is only 3000 - 4000 per annum and if we calculate the highest range of 4000, the unemployment problem will prevail for another 30 years. It is also said that the population is also bewildering and in view of sharp reduction in child population by nearly 15,00,000 more than 35,000 teachers will be rendered surplus. Students-teacher ratio has been fixed as 1:40 as per G.O.Ms. No. 525 and taking into consideration these facts, there is no necessity for establishing any Teacher Training Institute. 25. Before further going into this question, the guidelines which have the force of law issued by thee National Council for Teachers Education may be extracted thus, “1. The Establishment of Teacher Training Institutions by Government, private managements or any other agencies should largely be determined by assessed need for trained teachers. This need should take into consideration the supply of trained teachers from existing institutions, the requirement of such teachers in relation to enrolment projections at various stages, the attrition rates among trained teachers due to superannuation, change of occupation, death etc. and the number of trained teachers on the live register of the employment exchanges seeking employment and the possibility of their deployment. The States having more than the required number of trained teachers may not encourage opening of new institutions for teacher education or to increase the intake. 2. States having shortage of trained teachers may encourage establishment of new institutions for teachers education and to increase intake capacity for various levels of teacher education institutions keeping in view the requirements of teachers estimated for the next 10-15 years. 3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to emphasize the preparation of teachers for subjects (such as Science, Mathematics, English etc) for which trained teachers have been in short supply in relation to requirement of schools. 4. 3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to emphasize the preparation of teachers for subjects (such as Science, Mathematics, English etc) for which trained teachers have been in short supply in relation to requirement of schools. 4. Apart from the usual courses for teachers preparation, institutions which proposes to concern themselves with new and emerging specialties (e.g. Computer education, use of electronic media, guidance and counselling etc.) should receive priority. Provision for these should however, be made only after ensuring that requisite manpower, equipment and infrastructure are available. These considerations will also be kept in view by the institution intending to provide for optional subjects to a view to ensuring supply of qualified and trained teachers for such specialties as education of the disabled, non-formal education, educational for adults, pre-school education, vocational education etc., special efforts and incentives may be provided to motivate private Managements/Voluntary organisations for establishment of institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas. 6. With a view to promoting professional commitment among prospective teachers, institution which can ensure adequate residential facilities for the Principal and staff of the institution as well as hostel facilities for substantial proportion of its enrolment should be encouraged. 7. Considering that certain areas (Tribal hilly, regions etc.) have found it difficult to attract qualified and trained teachers, it would be desirable to encourage establishment of training institutions in those areas. 8. Institutions should be allowed to come into existence only if the sponsors are able to ensure that they have adequate material and manpower resources” in terms, for instance, of qualified teacher educators and other staff, adequate buildings and other infrastructure (laboratory, library etc) a reserve fund and operating funds to meet the day to day requirement of the institution, including payment of salaries, provision of equipment etc. Laboratories and practicals should have adequate gas plants, proper fittings and regular supply of water, electricity etc. They should also have adequate safety arrangements. Capabilities of the institution for filling norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view. 9. In the establishment of an institution preference need to be given to locations which have a large catchment area in terms of schools of different levels where student teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and undertake practice teaching. Capabilities of the institution for filling norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view. 9. In the establishment of an institution preference need to be given to locations which have a large catchment area in terms of schools of different levels where student teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and undertake practice teaching. A training institution which has a demonstration school where innovative and experimental approaches can be demonstrated could be given preference.” A reading of the above guidelines makes it clear that the Government will have to consider the locality where the institution is to be established and not state as a Unit. Secondary Grade Teachers take the course immediately after the higher secondary education is over. Most of the students also hail from middle class or below the middle class family. These secondary grade teachers cater to the need of elementary schools and middle schools in the locality. Employment is also given only taking into consideration the registration in the District Employment Exchange. Merely because in one area there is surplus that does not follow that in another District the institute is not necessary. Surplus in one District may not cater the needs of children students in another District. Guidelines No. 7 itself shows that the tribal areas and hilly regions, etc. are to be separately treated and encouragement will have to be given for establishment for training institutes in those areas. It makes it clear that the State, as a whole, cannot be considered as a unit. While considering the applications of various institutes, State Government will have to consider the backwardness of the area, number of elementary schools and middle schools etc. and the student-population in that District. Whether in that particular District, there are sufficient number of teacher trainees is to be considered. The question whether no objection certificate will have to be issued or not, therefore cannot be based on policy decision and what the State Government will have to consider is the desirability or feasibility of having the proposal and the proposed location. While considering the application for issuance of no objection certificate, the above aspect will have to be considered by the State Government, and individual application have to be disposed of separately. 26. While considering the application for issuance of no objection certificate, the above aspect will have to be considered by the State Government, and individual application have to be disposed of separately. 26. Even though Additional Advocate General submitted on 31.12.98 there are more than 28,500 unemployed Secondary Grade Teachers in the registers of various employment exchanges and 10,500 trained teachers results have been published on 31.3.99, the details of the number of the schools that are existing in Tamil Nadu is conspicuously absent. Only after knowing the number of schools, the strength of students, the question whether there is any requirement of secondary grade teachers are there can be considered. For reasons better known to the State, such details are not provided. 27. In an article in the Hindu daily dated 25.11.97, it could be seen that as on that date, there are 30,619 elementary schools, 5503 middle schools, 3574 High Schools and 2734 Higher Secondary Schools, totalling about 42,430. In all those schools, 3,07,971 teachers teach 1,23,89,725 students. This does not include the Matriculation Schools and it could be seen from the article that there are 1700 Matriculation Schools on that date. 28. While considering the arguments of the state, we have to take note of the number of Secondary Grade Teachers now employed in various schools, the number of teachers to retire, opening of new schools and various other matters which would enable the court to consider the correctness of the statements by the Government. The Government who is the custodian of all these records, for better reasons known to it, does not produce any documents before the Court. Opportunity was given to the Government to file statements and supporting documents for more than six months, but they did not avail that opportunity to substantiate their case. 29. In various orders issued by the Government, it is stated that there are 75 existing Teacher Training Institutes and the same will be more than sufficient. At the time when the matter was being argued a counter statement was filed on behalf of the State signed by the Section Officer stating that there are 81 institutes. How 75 became 81 is also not explained. 30. Both 75 and 81 cannot be correct and the said statement by the State is seriously disputed by the petitioners. 31. At the time when the matter was being argued a counter statement was filed on behalf of the State signed by the Section Officer stating that there are 81 institutes. How 75 became 81 is also not explained. 30. Both 75 and 81 cannot be correct and the said statement by the State is seriously disputed by the petitioners. 31. In 1993 Writ L.R 604 ( P. M Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu ) paragraph 8 gives the total number of institutes which are permanently recognised and temporarily recognised on the date when the Writ Petition was filed. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Division Bench has said that there are only 25 private institutions which had permanent recognition and 16 private institutions which had temporary recognition after complying with the old rules. That means, there are only 42 private institutions. There are also few teacher training institutes run by the Government. At any rate, it cannot reach either 75 or 81 as alleged by the Government in the impugned orders or in the Counter statement filed on 19.4.99. It could be seen from the statement that the students who have undergone the course in the various de-recognised institutes are also registered their names in various employment exchanges. 32. An argument was taken that all the certificate holders of Teacher Training Course with an endorsement that ‘School in which the students studied not recognised by the Director of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, are also eligible for appointment’ and there is no discrimination as stated by the petitioners in this regard. If a student has undergone the course in the institute which is not recognised or de-recognised for not complying with the conditions which enables them to get recognition, will not be entitled to any benefit on the basis of certificates issued to them. In the decision reported in 1993 Writ L.R 604, the Division Bench has declared that they will be entitled to have the results published and they will, not be entitled to any consequential benefits. To get employment in a consequential benefit for having completed the course in unrecognized or de-recognised institutes. The names of such students cannot be taken into consideration by the Government for considering issuance of no objection certificate. 33. To get employment in a consequential benefit for having completed the course in unrecognized or de-recognised institutes. The names of such students cannot be taken into consideration by the Government for considering issuance of no objection certificate. 33. It is only proper at this stage to take into consideration the decision reported in 1993 (1) SCC 645 = AIR 1993 SC 2178 ( Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of A.P. ) wherein in paragraph 204, their Lordships considered the effect of recognition and non-recognition of educational institutions. Their Lordships said that unless the institute is recognised, the certificate is of no use. If the certificate is of no use, can that be made use of for the purpose of employment as is now contended by the learned Additional Advocate General? I have no doubt, that such certificates could not be used for employment, for every employment is for valid recognised qualifications. 34. It is also argued on behalf of the State that in various self-financing Matriculation Schools, teachers in higher qualification alone are appointed. I do not think the State can be permitted to raise such a contention. State has taken a definite stand while issuing G.O.Ms. No. 557 that the post of Secondary Grade Teacher cannot be filled up by a graduate trainee teacher. The contention that was raised by the State was the graduate trainee teacher is not having higher qualification but a different qualification. The Court has accepted the contention of the State. 35. The Code of Regulation for Matriculation Schools also provides for the appointment of teachers in Matriculation Schools. Secondary Grade Teachers is one such post that has to be filled up in the Matriculation Schools. In view of the categorical finding of this Court, that G.O.Ms. No. 557 is valid, the present contention that schools are appointing only graduate trainee teachers in those posts cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting an application for issuance of no objection certificate. In fact, the vacancies that have arisen in the various Matriculation Schools have not been taken into consideration by the State. 36. It is admitted in the counter statement dated 19.4.99 that the Government has undertaken a massive recruitment of about 24,000 secondary grade teachers during the year 1998-99. In fact, the vacancies that have arisen in the various Matriculation Schools have not been taken into consideration by the State. 36. It is admitted in the counter statement dated 19.4.99 that the Government has undertaken a massive recruitment of about 24,000 secondary grade teachers during the year 1998-99. If once the Court accept this contention, it follows that as on date there will be thousands of vacancies to be filled up, and the contention that there are unemployed secondary grade teachers in various registers of employment exchanges is only to be rejected. 37. An argument was also taken by the learned Additional Advocate General that child population has come down and that has also effected the recruitment process. The State is not giving details about new schools which are opened and number of pupils admitted to those schools. It is not disputed that even recently the Government has declared a policy of starting Elementary Schools in every Panchayat even though the distance is one kilometre. Questioning the policy, Writ Petitions are also filed before this Court questioning the right of the Government to establish schools without taking into consideration the existence of other schools in the neighbourhood. Those Writ Petitions were also dismissed as not maintainable. If there was really a reduction in child population, there is no necessity for Government to increase the number of schools and that too in thousands. 38. The guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, though it has force of law, are not exhaustive. Though giving employment is one of the purposes for establishing a teacher training institutes, it cannot be said, that is only end of teacher training institute. Government also does not guarantee that all the Teachers will be given employment, whoever comes out of the teacher training institute. So, naturally, a candidate who comes out of the institute will have to seek his/her own employment opportunities. If he/she is qualified to be a teacher, he/she also becomes eligible to take tuitions and get self-employment. Court can take judicial notice of the fact that without tuition a student cannot come up and the parents are also not getting time to give enough coaching to the students. School education by itself will not arm the students with necessary knowledge. The students who come out of the teacher training course can fulfil that requirement. Court can take judicial notice of the fact that without tuition a student cannot come up and the parents are also not getting time to give enough coaching to the students. School education by itself will not arm the students with necessary knowledge. The students who come out of the teacher training course can fulfil that requirement. That is also a matter which can be taken into consideration when application is filed for no objection certificate. 39. The Government has taken only the employment opportunities in the State. There is no guarantee that all the students who come out of the Teacher Training Institutes of Tamil Nadu will find their activities within the State. In fact, in one of the advertisements in “The Hindu” daily dated 9.9.98, Secondary Grade Teachers vacancy have been notified in Maldives and qualification required is only Teacher Training Certificate. Therefore to assess the necessity of a Teacher Training Institute, various other circumstances also will have to be considered which the Government has failed to do so. 40. A further argument was taken by learned counsel Mr. Paulvasanthakumar, that the total number of teachers as could be seen from the Article in the Hindu, dated 25.11.97 written by H.S.S. Lawrence (reference of which made in the earlier portion of the order) is 3,07,971 for standards 1 to 12. It is argued that Secondary Grade Teachers are appointed for standards 1 to 8 and it will come to not less than 2,00,000 teachers. Every year, there will be vacancies of at least 7,000 due to retirement, resignation etc. As per NCTE norms, vacancies which is likely to arise for 10 to 15 years will have to be taken into consideration for considering issuance of no objection certificate. If that be so, the present orders cannot stand when the Government itself admit that the intake is only 3000 per annum. I find force in the said contention. 41. Taking into consideration the various infirmities in the impugned orders, the same are liable to be quashed. I hold that respondents have not proved that the requirement of the trained teachers in the State is more than that is required. No materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate their contention. Taking into consideration various circumstances which I have stated above, I hold that the impugned orders refusing to issue no objection certificate are not valid. 42. No materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate their contention. Taking into consideration various circumstances which I have stated above, I hold that the impugned orders refusing to issue no objection certificate are not valid. 42. I direct the respondents to restore the application of various petitioners and pass revised orders, taking into consideration the above facts and such other matters which petitioners may urge before the authorities, within a period of one month from today. It is only proper on the part of respondents to hear the petitioners also, for which notice will have to be given to them sufficiently early. 43. The Writ Petitions are allowed as above. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed.