Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. The respondents 1 to 16 are the students of the 17th respondent Institute. While the respondents 1 to 10 joined in Mechanic Motor Vehicle trade, the respondents 11 to 16 joined in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning trade in August, 2004. The students have completed their two years course in July, 2006 an the examinations were announced to be held from 20.7.2006. But, the appellants/authorities did not permit the students to write the examinations stating that the 17th respondent Institute, where the students have studied, did not possess the tools and equipments as per the revised new syllabus. Therefore, the 17th respondent Institute has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.21106 of 2006 and a learned single Judge of this Court, has passed the following order on 6.7.2006: "6. In these circumstances, the third respondent is directed to inspect the petitioner institute and verify whether they have complied with the conditions of securing tools and machineries and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law, with regard to the admission of students. This shall be done within six weeks from the date of this order. In the meantime, the examinations will commence and the students shall be permitted to write the exam, subject to the result of the inspection. The petitioner shall intimate to each student that their writing the examination will not give rise to any equitable right in their favour and the permission has been granted by this Court only subject to the result of the inspection and orders passed by the second and third respondents. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that by such orders, institutes which have not equipped themselves with necessary infrastructural facilities proceed to obtain directions, whereby students are not adequately trained to write their exams. Therefore, while making the necessary verification, the respondents shall make sure that there are contemporaneous record to show that even in August 2005, which is the date from which compliance with the requirements of providing tools and machineries came into effect for private institutions also, those tools and machineries were, in fact, purchased by the petitioner." 2. Therefore, while making the necessary verification, the respondents shall make sure that there are contemporaneous record to show that even in August 2005, which is the date from which compliance with the requirements of providing tools and machineries came into effect for private institutions also, those tools and machineries were, in fact, purchased by the petitioner." 2. Pursuant to the above directions issued by the learned single Judge, and the consequential instructions issued by the Commissioner, Department of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-32 in his R.C.No.50853/CT.5/2005, dated 12.7.2006, the Regional Joint Director of Training, Coimbatore has formed a Committee with the following members, to conduct departmental inspection for the implementation of revised syllabus for Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) and Mechanic (Refrigeration and Air Conditioning) trades, by his proceedings in Roc.No.7243/Aa.1/2006, dated 13.7.2006: 1. C.Ravichandran, Regional Joint Director (i/c), Coimbatore- Chairman 2. S.Ravibaskar, Deputy Director/Principal, Government ITI, Salem- Member 3. R.Prabhakaran, Principal, government ITI, Dharmapuri- Member 4. K.Ravi Murugesan, Assistant Training Officer - M(R&A/c)- Member 5. K.Justin Jebaraj, Assistant Training Officer - M (MV)- Member 3. On 19.7.2006, the Principal of the Institute has admitted that the trades of Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) and Mechanic (Refrigeration & Air Conditioning) is to be upgraded as per revised syllabus with effect from August 2004 as prescribed by the Director General of Employment and Training. He further went on to add that "Now, I assure that the students who were admitted in August 2004 in the trades Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) and Mechanic (Refrigeration & Air Conditioning) only will be allowed to write All India Trade Test in July 2006. I will not claim for other rights. I assure that I will not claim for the right of declaration of results and for the issue of certificates. Further, I assure that the students as well as I will abide by the action taken by the authorities on the outcome of Departmental Inspection Report for the upgradation of the revised syllabus of the above trades." 4. The Committee constituted for Departmental Inspection has submitted its report dated 9.8.2006 to the Commissioner of Employment and Training (CT.5 Section), Chennai-32, pointing out the defects and deficiencies with regard to '(1) tools and equipment, (2) Electricity, (3) Building/infrastructural facilities and (4) staff'. 5. The Committee constituted for Departmental Inspection has submitted its report dated 9.8.2006 to the Commissioner of Employment and Training (CT.5 Section), Chennai-32, pointing out the defects and deficiencies with regard to '(1) tools and equipment, (2) Electricity, (3) Building/infrastructural facilities and (4) staff'. 5. From the annexures to this report, it is seen that while there is some shortage with regard to some tools and equipments, certain tools and equipments are completely not available. This report of the Departmental Committee has been placed before the members of the Sub Committee of National Council for Vocational Training, dealing with affiliation, in its meeting held on 2.2.2007. Since the Departmental Inspection Committee has not recommended the affiliation of the respondent Institute, the same was not considered by the said Committee. 6. As could be seen from the above order of the learned single Judge of this Court, which has become final, it was the specific stand of the Institute that they had secured the tools and machineries in August 2005 itself, but the authorities have deliberately delayed the inspection and if the inspection is not done and the approval is not granted, then the students who have already been admitted would be put to great hardship. This contention of the institute is proved to be false, with the inspection conducted by the Departmental Inspection Committee. 7. While things stood thus, based on the direction issued by the learned single Judge, the students of the respondent Institute have appeared for the examinations, but their results were not published. Therefore, the students have initiated present writ proceedings before the learned single Judge, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities/appellants herein to publish their results. The learned single Judge, placing reliance on the earlier pronouncements by another learned single Judge of this Court in other matters, has allowed this writ petition directing the authorities to publish the results of the students ad to issue certificates to them. Against this order, the appellants/authorities have come forward to prefer this writ appeal. 8. We heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 16/students. 9. Against this order, the appellants/authorities have come forward to prefer this writ appeal. 8. We heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 16/students. 9. On the part of the appellants/authorities it has been argued that the learned single Judge, in the earlier round of litigation, in W.P.No.21106 of 2006, has specifically ordered that the students are permitted to write the examination, subject to the result of the inspection and that their participation in the examination will not give rise to any equitable right in their favour and hence, the present direction issued by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4945 of 2008, dated 11.7.2008 is running contrary to the earlier order passed in W.P.No.21106 of 2006. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 16/students, would argue that now that the results having been announced and the provisional certificates having also been issued to the students and that there was affiliation to the 17th respondent Institute, at the time the respondents 1 to 16/students joined the 17th respondent Institute, their right and interest should be protected. 11. From the materials placed on record, we are able to see that by the proceedings dated 11/18.2.2002, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, had intimated all the educational authorities that the syllabus of the trade 'Mechanic Motor Vehicle' is to be revised w.e.f. 1.8.2002. But, thereafter, taking into consideration the difficulty expressed by various State Directors in upgrading the facilities by July 2002, due to various financial constrains, the revised syllabus for the above said trade has been ordered to be implemented from August, 2004. Likewise, for the trade Mechanic Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning, the revised syllabus was ordered to be implemented from August, 2004. The respondents 1 to 16/students have joined the above said two trades in the 17th respondent Institute before August, 2004 and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that they have to pursue their trades only in the revised syllabus. But, the 17th respondent Institute did not procure the mandated tools and equipments, throwing the students to this litigation. 12. But, the 17th respondent Institute did not procure the mandated tools and equipments, throwing the students to this litigation. 12. When the revised syllabus is in cards from the year 2002 and 2003 and got postponed for implementation to August, 2004, because of the fact that most of the institutes have expressed their difficulties in adopting the revised syllabus on financial constrains, the Institutes, like the 17th respondent should have procured the mandated tools and equipments before admitting the students for the above trades. Wonder, no inspection was conducted till 25.8.2005 by the authorities and since, according to the appellants/authorities, the 17th respondent/Institute did not procure the mandated tools and equipments for the revised syllabus, the students/respondents 1 to 16 are not entitled to take out the examination. Had there been prior inspection of the 17th respondent Institute by the appellants/authorities, before admitting the students in the above trades, before implementing the new syllabus on and from August, 2004, this litigation would not have cropped-up. 13. This type of institutions are playing havoc with the careers of the students who land in their institutions for learning, aiming a better career from thereon. 14. We wonder as to how the authorities, like the appellants can leave the innocent students in lurch and why they are not providing any unbiased, authentic, accurate and up-to-date information on the affiliation and the danger of the institute facing de-affiliation, in view of the fact of lacking in necessary facilities. Had the authorities at the helm of affairs are vigilant enough, the students would not have been thrown to such a disadvantageous position. Such mandatory requirements have been prescribed to the educational institutions, to impart qualitative education to the students and it should not be viewed as a mere formality, rather in an undermined way. 15. This is a litigation initiated by the 17th respondent Institute through the respondent Students, playing the trump card of sympathy and the future of the students, who are otherwise eligible for all the benefits attached to the courses they have pursued and successfully completed. It has also been submitted before us by both the parties that pursuant to the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the present writ proceedings in W.P.No.4945 of 2008, dated 11.7.2008, provisional certificates were issued to the students. 16. It has also been submitted before us by both the parties that pursuant to the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the present writ proceedings in W.P.No.4945 of 2008, dated 11.7.2008, provisional certificates were issued to the students. 16. The present writ proceedings are nothing but the off-shoot of the earlier proceedings in W.P.No.21106 of 2006, wherein the respondents 1 to 16 herein/students were permitted to take down the examination, subject to the result of the inspection. At this juncture, we feel it appropriate to point out that the practice of issuing interlocutory remedies in academic matters has been deprecated by the Honourable Apex Court in catena of decisions like (1) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. VIKAS SAHEBRAO ROUNDALE AND OTHERS [ (1992) 3 SCR 792 ], (2) GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY vs. PARMINDER KR.BANSAL AND OTHERS [ AIR 1993 SC 2412 ], and (3) C.B.S.E. AND ANOTHER vs. P.SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS [ AIR 1998 SC 2235 ]. In the case on hand, the earlier direction issued by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21106 of 2006, dated 6.7.2006, permitting the students to take down the examination, has not been challenged by the appellants and allowed the said order to attain finality. Further, now, after the orders have been passed by the learned single Judge in the present writ proceedings, in W.P.No.4945 of 2008, dated 11.7.2008, the results of the students are declared and provisional certificates were also issued by the State Director, Tamil Nadu. But, it has been submitted on the part of the appellants that the impleaded 18th respondent/DGE &T, New Delhi will not issue the original certificates to the unaffiliated trades as it is the original certificate issuing authority (National Trade Certificate). But, since the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21106 of 2006, dated 6.7.2006 was not challenged by the appellants and also allowed the students not only to take down their examinations but also to get their provisional certificates, we, at this distant point of time, do not feel it necessary to re-open the said issue once again. 17. At this juncture, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/students that even if de-affiliation process is initiated, it will not affect the prospects of the students who already joined and pursuing the course. 17. At this juncture, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/students that even if de-affiliation process is initiated, it will not affect the prospects of the students who already joined and pursuing the course. In support of his contentions, he would rely on an unreported judgment of the Honourable First Bench of this Court in THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GUINDY, CHENNAI vs. I.C.W.S. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, THIRUNAVALUR AND ANOTHER [W.A.Nos.1163 and 1222 of 2008, dated 20.7.2010]. In the said case, the application for affiliation, though was made by the institute in the year 1991, it was considered by the Directorate General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment (DGE & T) only in the year 1997, though the Standing Committee recommended affiliation. Considering the plight of students joined in such institutes in the interregnum, the First Bench of this Court has observed that 'in our view, certainly such an attitude of the officers who are obligated to dispose of the application in time keeping the interest of the candidates admitted in the institute cannot be a ground for later on denying the benefit of the course by the candidates. The candidates, who were admitted, would certainly have legitimate expectation that they would be issued with National Trade Certificate. It is in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, equity requires to make the candidates entitled for National Trade Certificate, particularly when they have been issued with a provisional National Trade Certificate and on the strength of such certificate, they were also given employment.' On such observations, the Honourable First Bench has allowed the plea of the Institute therein to issue National Trade Certificates for the students. But, this judgment of the First Bench of this Court has no application to the facts of the case on hand, as no such affiliation application was pending consideration during the period when the students joined the course. 18. In the case on hand, the admitted fact is that necessary tools and equipments were not provided by the Institute to the students, in accordance with the revised syllabus. 19. We are aware that Rule 10 of the Appendix XX of the Training Manual for Industrial Training Institutes and Centres mandates as follows: "From the date of the issue of such an order by the State Director, the relevant trades/units will stand de-affiliated. 19. We are aware that Rule 10 of the Appendix XX of the Training Manual for Industrial Training Institutes and Centres mandates as follows: "From the date of the issue of such an order by the State Director, the relevant trades/units will stand de-affiliated. However, the existing batch of trainees, if otherwise eligible, should be permitted by the State Director to appear in the ensuing All India Trade Test. Further admission of trainees should be stopped from the next session onwards." 20. The materials on hand would undoubtedly draw us to the irresistible conclusion that the officials at the helm of affairs of the appellants adopt a snail pace attitude in respect of these matters, thus 'facilitating' the institutes to admit the students and continue with their courses, thereafter to play the sympathy card on the ground of students' innocence and their future prospects. When the revised syllabus has been decided to be introduced on and from 2004 August, is it not the duty and responsibility of the authorities to see that all the institutes, before admitting students, procure necessary tools and equipments? Though, the 18th respondent was brought on record, as per the order of the Honourable First Bench of this Court, while hearing this matter on 7.8.2009, nothing has been heard from them by us. Expectedly, the 17th respondent/Institute, also has not been represented by anybody and they are remaining in the array of parties, as if they are formal parties. 21. Our above discussions, would lead to hold as follows: 1. Courts should not be in haste to pass interlocutory directions in academic matters, since there is every possibility of an illegality or an irregularity being thrashed on the authorities to implement. 2. The educational authorities, like the appellants and other authorities like the 18th respondent, should come out of their slackness and conduct regular and frequent inspection of the educational institutes so as to monitor the conditions prevailing therein and to keep up the standards. 3. In the case on hand, as has been repeatedly observed by us supra, the authorities at the helm of affairs of the appellants have 'facilitated' the 17th respondent Institute to admit the students, like the respondents 1 to 16 herein, though the Institute has not procured the mandated tools and equipments in accordance with the revised syllabus. 3. In the case on hand, as has been repeatedly observed by us supra, the authorities at the helm of affairs of the appellants have 'facilitated' the 17th respondent Institute to admit the students, like the respondents 1 to 16 herein, though the Institute has not procured the mandated tools and equipments in accordance with the revised syllabus. The appellants have started acting towards inspecting the premises of the 17th respondent Institute only during August, 2005, though the students were admitted in July, 2004 itself. We are not able to appreciate this attitude of the authorities at the helm of affairs of the appellants, since none should expect a reminder of their legitimate duties by other. When a decision has been taken to implement the revised syllabus on and from 2004, is it not the minimum duty of the authorities of the appellants to verify whether all the institutes have complied with the conditions imposed therefor, before allowing such institutes to admit the students? The authorities at the helm of affairs of the appellants are quite aware of the legal position provided for under Rule 10 of the Appendix XX of the Training Manual for Industrial (extracted supra). This is the probable reason for the authorities at the helm of affairs of the appellants adopting the slow-pace attitude against the institutes, for the reasons best known to them, and allowing the institutes to admit the students and pursue their courses, thus leaving this well established principle of law as a defence for the students and the Institutes, when any 'action' is initiated against such institutes by the authorities after passage of a considerable length of time. Entire aim of providing the best education to the future citizens of this great country is being diluted and is being made a mockery by certain black sheeps in the departments connected with education and the case on hand could be the best example for it. 4. Entire aim of providing the best education to the future citizens of this great country is being diluted and is being made a mockery by certain black sheeps in the departments connected with education and the case on hand could be the best example for it. 4. Even though sympathy cannot be a ground, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand (to explain, the order of the learned single Judge, permitting the students to take down the examination passed in W.P.No.21106 of 2006, dated 6.7.2006 has not been challenged by the authorities at the appropriate time and that they have also issued provisional certificates to the students, facilitating them to join either higher studies or some employment), we confirm the order of the learned single Judge. 5. We hope and trust that the State and Central Governments (the subject 'education' being in the concurrent list of the Constitution) will take all necessary steps to see that the standards of education are maintained, at all times and levels, for the betterment of Society, students and the Nation at large and take stringent action against the persons who are making mockery of the entire system, by adopting slow-pace attitude (as in the case on hand by the authorities at helm of affairs in the appellants' departments) and 'facilitating' the educational institutes to perpetuate illegality and thereafter rush to the Courts, mostly playing the sympathy towards the students as their trump card. With the above observations, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.