Tarlupadu College of Education vs Nagarjuna University and others

In this Writ Petition the petitioner Tarlupadu College of Education, seeks a declaration that the refusal to grant affiliation for the year 1990-91 to it by the Nagarjuna University, the 1st respondent herein, conveyed by letter dated 24-4-1991 of the University to it, is bad and violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.of India and consequently seeks a Writ of Mandamus etc,., directing the University to grant affiliation to it and permit the 160 students admitted by it for 1990-91 in B.Ed, course to sit for the theory and practical examinations to .be conducted from, 21-10-1991, announce itheir results and issue the certificates etc. The following are the undisputed facts: The petitioner-college has not been given any permanent affiliation by the 1st respondent-University though it was set up in 1984. Permission was granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the setting up of a College of Education by the petitioner at Tarlupadu in Prakasam district under G.O. Ms. No.431, Education (S) Department, dated 8-9-1984. Conditions 8 to 11 imposed under the said G.O. are that the management of the petitioner-college should follow the Rules issued by the Government from time to time in regard to the reservations for S.Cs., and B.Cs., in respect of admissions and also for appointment of staff, that the management should also fulfil all the conditions laid down by the University from time to time before admissions of the students in the college, that admissions into the B.Ed. course in the college should be through the common entrance examination conducted by the University, and that the management should not collect any capitation fees. The petitioner claims to be a minority institution and that it was established by the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Guntur. Whatever might have been the position of the institutions claiming to be minority institutions prior to the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''), after the Rules have come into force, unless certificate of recognition is obtained no educational institution can be treated as minority educational institution by virtue of sub-rule (7) of the Rule 7 which is as follows :--

"7(7): In view of the requirement under sub-rule (6), the educational agencies claiming minority status for their institutions and those already enjoying minority status either on Government instructions and/or by Court directions, shall make an application to the competent authority in the prescribed form (Form-1) in triplicate following the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 after fulfilling the criteria laid down under Rule 4 for the issue of the Certificate of Recognition as Minority Educational Institution. The Competent Authority shall issue the certificate only when he is satisfied about the fulfilment of the criteria laid down."

Sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 provided that "mere obtaining of permission for the establishment of a minority educational institution by the Permission Authority will not entitle the educational institution for recognition as minority educational institution unless the institution has been issued a certificate to that effect by the competent authority". Sub-rule (5) (a) of Rule 7 provides as follows :--

"7(5)(a) : Any educational institution which has been permitted to be established with the status of a minority educational institution shall be deemed to have been accorded minority status for one academic year only for the purposes of making admission of students and appointment of staff, and is subject to obtaining of certificate of recognition as minority institution from the Competent Authority before the beginning of the next academic year."

By Memo No. 246/Rules/89-2, Education, dated 1-9-1989 the Government of Andhra Pradesh has clarified the position obtained after the Rules have come into force. After referring to sub-rules (5) and (7) of Rule 7 of the Rules, the Memo states as follows :--

"Now, it is hereby clarified that all the educational institutions which are already enjoying the minority status and those which have been established during the current academic year with minority status, only will continue to be treated as minority educational institutions for the purposes of recruitment of staff and admission of students for the current academic year 1989-90 only."

The petitioner by letter Ref. I/A-4/89, dated 20-3-1989 applied for grant of recognition as minority educational institution by submitting application in Form-1. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that the said application was rejected by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30-12-1991 and that the order of rejection was received on 6-1-1992. This no doubt took place after the filing of the present writ petition.

2A. For the academic year 1989-90 the petitioner admitted candidates directly and did not take allotment of candidates from the Convenor, BEDSET. The record produced by the 1st respondent-University discloses that the petitioner-college also stated that it admitted 48 extra students for the B.Ed. course during the year 1989-90 in addition to the 160 students which is its sanctioned strength. In the letter Re. No. 541/N2-2/90-2, dated 12-6-1990 the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh informed the University that the Principal of the petitioner-college requested the ratification of the action taken by him in admitting 48 extra students for B.Ed. and that the said college admitted the students directly through advertisement and not by allotment to the institution and requested the University not to admit the students of the petitioner-college to B.Ed. examinations scheduled to be held in 1990. However, subsequently by letter Re. No. 541 / N2-2/90-2, dated 8-8-1990, the Director of School Education informed the University that on inspection by the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur it was found that the petitioner-college made 55 excess admissions and that to avoid hardship to the students 160 students admitted by the management during the year 1989-90 as per order of merit may be allowed to sit for the examination scheduled to be held in 1990. Thereafter, at an emergency meeting of the Executive Council of the University dated 13-8-1990, it was resolved by Resolution No. 4 as follows :--

"4. CONSIDERED the Report of Inspection Commission (Dt. 13-8-1990) by Prof. S. C. Sarma on Tarlupadu College of Education, Tarlupadu, for extension of temporary affiliation for 1989-90, taking serious note of the repetition of the violation of rules of admission into the course.

RESOLVED that Tarlupadu College of Education, Tarlupadu, be permitted to hold examination for 160 candidates of 1989-90 batch and issue hall-tickets for 160 candidates as submitted by the Principal in his list of candidates with covering letter dated 18-7-1990.

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Principal be directed : (a) to admit candidates during the academic year 1990-91 only after the issue of proceedings granting affiliation, (b) admit only those candidates who will be allotted for the college by the Convenor of B.Ed. CET, and (c) do not make any extra admissions without the sanction of the University as well as permission of the Director of School of Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and failure to comply with the above conditions by the college will invite suitable action."

Thereafter by letter No. NU/Affil-IV/TCE/ 90, dated 17-9-1990 the University informed the petitioner-college about the said Executive Council Resolution No. 4, dated 13-8-1990 making it very clear that the Executive Council resolved that the Principal of the petitioner-college be directed :

"(a) to admit candidates during the academic year 1990-91 only after the issue of proceedings granting affiliation by the University,

(b) admit only those candidates who will be allotted for the college by the convenor of B.Ed., GET, and

(c) do not make any extra admissions without the sanction of the University as well as permission of the Director of School of Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh and that failure to comply with the above conditions by the college will invite suitable action.

I am to request you to scrupulously adhere to the above directions regarding B.Ed., admissions for 1990-91."

Earlier by letter dated 14-8-1990 the Controller of Examinations of the 1st respondent-University informed the petitioner, inter alia, as follows :--

"You are further informed to admit in 1990-91 candidates allotted by the Convenor, BEDSET only. Also you are informed that in the academic year 1990-91 admissions should be made only after the receipt of affiliation from the University. Any admissions you make for the academic year 1990-91 without affiliation from the University and allotment from the Convenor, BEDSET, is at your own risk and the University will not hold examinations for such candidates. Further, you are informed hereby that if you admit candidates without taking University affiliation in advance and without receiving allotment of candidates from the Convenor, BEDSET, in the year 1990-91, the University will not consider application for extension of temporary affiliation for your college."

It is interesting to note in this connection that the record discloses that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education (EE) Department issued G.O. Rt. No. 1657, Edn. dated 20-10-1990 ordering inter alia, as follows :--

"2. The Director of School Education in the references third and fourth read above has reported that the Management made direct admissions during the year 1989-90 through paper advertisements and selected 215 candidates even though the intake capacity is only 160. The Principal selected 55 excess candidates, did not follow the rules and did not observe the merit order. It is evident from the above that the management on its own accord made 55 excess admissions without prior permission of the competent" authority. Sri U. P. Konda Reddy, M.L.A., Markapur and Sri J. Raghava Rao, M.L.A., Addanki in the letter fifth cited have requested the Government to ratify the action of the management of Tarlupadu College of Education in having made 55 extra admissions and also to permit the 55 students to appear for the B.Ed. Exams, to be conducted by the Nagarjuna University.

The Director of School Education is requested to institute an enquiry for the above lapses of the management of Tarlupadu College of Education, Tarlupadu and send a detailed report within one month.

Pending enquiry, the Director of School Education is requested to see that the 55 excess candidates admitted by the Tarlupadu College of Education for the B.Ed. Course for 1989-90 are permitted to appear for the examinations to be conducted by the Nagarjuna University, Guntur as already intimated in the telegram dated 13-10-1990 issued to the Registrar, Nagarjuna University."

Thus receiving allotment of the candidates from the Convenor, BEDSET for the academic year 1990-91 has been made a precondition for the University to grant extension of temporary affiliation for the petitioner-college. By letters dated 14-11-1990, 22-11-1990 and 4-12-1990 the 1st respondent-University mentioned the other conditions to be satisfied by the petitioner-college before its application for extension of temporary affiliation could be considered.

By letter dated 4-2-1991 the Regional Co-ordinator, B.Ed. Common Entrance Test-1990 informed the Principal of the petitioner-college as follows :--

".....that the admissions committee will be meeting at 8 a.m. each day on 12th, 13th and 14th of February, 1991 at Dr. C.R.R. College of Education, Eluru, W.G. Dist. to make admissions to B.Ed. Courses, in unaided colleges of Andhra and Nagarjuna University areas. The candidates allotted to your college are to be admitted by you on the same day by collecting the tuition and special fees. Hence I request you to kindly attend with your supporting staff not exceeding two and make necessary arrangements to admit candidates during the three days specified above."

By letter Ref : 20/A-1/9I, dated 6-2-1991 the Principal of the petitioner-college replied to the Regional Coordinator, B.Ed. Common Entrance Test with reference to a letter dated 28-1-1991 of the Regional Coordinator stating that the petitioner-college was a Christian Minority College under the Management of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church and that it applied to the Director of School Education for issuance of minority certificate and that the College was already inspected by the Special Officer in the month of June, 1989 and that the issuance of the certificate was being awaited and that therefore the college should be exempted from allotment of candidates. The petitioner has not placed the said letter dated 28-1-1991 of the Regional Coordinator before this Court. After the petitioner received the letter dated 4-2-1991 from the Regional Coordinator, it sent a telegram to him on 11-2-1991 as follows :--

"Tarlupadu College of Education is a Christian minority institution run by Lutheran Church. Minority certificate is awaited from Director of School Education. Please exempt us from allotment."

The Principal of the petitioner-college or any of his representatives did not attend the admission committee meeting on the 12th, 13th and 14th of February, 1991 as required by the Regional Coordinator in his tetter dated 4-2-1991. Thereafter the petitioner made admissions on its own without any allotment of candidates being made by the Regional Coordinator. By letter dated 3-4-1991 the Regional Coordinator informed the 1st respondent-University that the Principal of the petitioner-college did not attend the meeting and did not take allotment of candidates and admit them and that instead he issued a telegram requesting for exemption for his college from allotment as it was a Christian minority institution run by Lutheran Church and minority certificate was awaited from the Director of School Education. Thereafter the 1st respondent-University addressed letter dated 24-4-1991 to the petitioner informing it that the affiliation for the year 1990-91 was not granted to it stating inter alia, as follows :--

".....It is surprising to note that despite clear instructions not to make admissions on your own, you have made admissions.

In this connection, you are informed that unless the Director of School Education issues the necessary certificate recognising your college as a Minority Institution, you cannot claim, yourself as a Minority, Institu-tion and make admissions without following the BEDCET Rules. Your action admitting candidates into B.Ed. Course for the year 1990-91 is against the orders of the Government (Vide G.O.Ms. No. 431, Education, dt. 8-9-1984).

In view of the above you are once again hereby informed that the irregular admissions violating the BEDCET Rules, Government orders and clear instructions from this University, made by your college are not recognised and it is made clear that no examinations will be conducted to these candidates by this University. You are further informed that affiliation for the year 1990-91 will not be considered under the above circumstances,"

The University also got published in the Press a note dated 23-4-1991 informing the public as follows :--

"The public and all other concerned are informed that Tarlupadu College of Education, Tarlupadu is not granted affiliation for the year 1990-91 by this University.

It is brought to the notice of this University that admissions to the B.Ed. Course for the year 1990-91 are taking place in Tarlupadu College of Education, Tarlupada by its. Principal violating the Government orders and the instructions issued by the University. This University will not consider such admissions and will not conduct examinations to those candidates. Hence it is informed that candidates seeking admission in the above college are doing so at their own risk."

The University also got the said note published through All India Radio on 26-4-1991. This much is admitted by the petitioner in its letter dated 2-5-199! addressed to the University.

The above narration of facts discloses the intransigent attitude of the management of the petitioner-college in refusing the allotment of candidates by the Regional Coordinator. The University and the Government had been making the position very clear to the petitioner-college that it would have to admit only such of those Candidates Who had been allotted to it by the Regional Coordinator. It is not as if the petitioner was asked for the first time to take candidates allotled to it by the Regional Coordinator for the year 1990-91. From the beginning this was being insisted upon. Even as regards admissions made by the petitioner for the year 1988-89 an objection was raised by the Director of School Education by his letter dated 28-2-1989 that the petitioner admitted students directly without allotment of candidates by the Convenor, Common Entrance Test for 1988-89 and that this was contrary to the conditions prescribed by the Government while granting permission to run the college. By letterdated 10-3-1989 the University asked the college to inform whether the petitioner-college was specifically recognised as a minority institution by the Department of Education or by the Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh. By letter dated 15-3-1989 the petitioner-college informed the University that "there is no evidence at present to the effect that Tarlupadu College of Education, Tarlupadu is specifically recognised as a Minority Institution by the Government or by the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and we are sure to obtain it shortly from the Government." The College also informed the University that it was submitting a separate application to the Government for claiming the minority status as per G.O.Ms. No. 526, Education, dated 21-12-1988. What happened in respect of the admissions made directly by the petitioner-college for the academic year 1989-90 and also in respect of the additional 55 students admitted by it during that year has already been narrated earlier. The petitioner-college was also informed of Resolution No. 4 dated 13-8-1990 of the Executive Council of the University by letter dated 17-9-1990. It was also informed by the Controller of Examinations of the University by his letter dated 14-8-1990 (o admit in 1990-91 candidates allotted by the Convenor, BEDCET only and that if the petitioner admitted candidaics without receiving allotment of candidates from the Convenor, BEDCET for the year 1990-91, the University would not consider application for extension of temporary affiliation for it. The petitioner-college did not object to this to the University. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from the said requirement on the ground that it did not receive any reply from the Regional Coordinator to its telegram of 11-2-1991 and that it understood that it was exempted from allotment as stated by it in its letter dated 2-5-1991 to the University.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-college is a minority institution and that Art. 30(1) of the Constitution comes to its rescue and that at any rate it applied for grant of recognition as minority educational institution on 20-3-1989 itself and that it was awaiting a decision thereon by the competent authority and that therefore it was entitled to admit candidates without going to the Regional Coordinator, BEDSET. I do not agree. It is not as if the petitioner has come to this Court for the first time by way of the present writ petition. Earlier the permission granted to the petitioner for starting the college was cancelled by the Government in January, 1986 on the ground that it did not comply with some of the conditions subject to which permission was granted to it. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1116 of 1986. The said writ petition and several other writ petitions by similarly placed colleges were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and allowed by a common judgment dated 7-3-1986, Sastry Educational Academy v. State of A.P 1986 (1) APLJ 255 and the order cancelling the permission for establishing the petitioner-college was quashed with certain directions to be complied with by the college. Direction (g) is as follows :--

"(g) The Government shall forthwith direct the Convenor to allot students to the petitioners'' Colleges out of the Central admission pool for the academic year 1985-86."

Thereafter the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh in his proceedings Rc No.4309/M-2/8, dated 20-9-1986 declared that the petitioner-college failed to comply with the directions of this Court in its judgment dated 7-3-1986 in Writ Petition No. 1116 of 1986 and batch and that therefore it would cease to exist from the last day of the academic year 1985-86. The petitioner herein sought the quashing of the said proceeding dated 20-9-1986 by this Court in W.P. No. 15064 of 1986. That writ petition and several other similar writ petitions were heard together and a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 24-4-1987 dismissed the same. As regards the said condition (g) relating to admissions for the academic year 1985-86 the Division Bench held in its judgment dated 24-4-1987 as follows :--

"So far as admissions are concerned it is stated by the petitioner and not disputed by the respondents, that the admissions for the academic year 1985-86 were made by the petitioner even prior to the earlier order of cancellation dt. 23-1-1986. In such a situation direction (g) of the Division Bench judgment (dated 7-3-1986 in Writ Petition No. 1116 of 1986) cannot be said to be applicable to the petitioner-institution."

In the latter judgment, the Division Bench also considered the claim of the petitioner that it was a minority institution. It observed that in the previous Writ Petition (W.P. No. 1116 of 1986) the Division Bench merely took note of the petitioner''s contention that it was a minority institution and that it was entitled to make appointments without reference to the Government authorities and that the Division Bench did not accept the said claim or contention nor did it give any declaration that the petitioner was a minority institution. The latter Division Bench also held that the petitioner, irrespective of its claim to be a minority institution, was bound to comply with each and every direction given by the earlier Division Bench. The latter Division Bench also observed that the per-. mission for opening the College was granted by the Government subject to certain conditions and that the said conditions had to be satisfied and complied with by the petitioner and that the petitioner not only accepted the said conditions which are imposed by the Government at the time of granting permission, but had also implicitly accepted the directions given by the Division Bench on 7-3-1986 and that therefore it was bound to carry out those directions and that it could not be allowed to plead that it was a minority institution and that it need not comply with some of the directions given by this Court or some of the conditions imposed by the Government at the time of granting permission. So far as the claim of the petitioner being a minority institution was concerned, the latter Division Bench observed that its observations made with respect to writ petitioner-respondent in Writ Appeal No. 323 of 1987 would apply with equal force to the present institution as well. The latter Division Bench in its judgment dated 24-4-1987, in Writ Appeal No. 323 of 1987, inter alia, held as follows :--

"We make it clear that unless the Court or the Government or the University declares, after due enquiry, that a particular institution is a minority educational institution, it cannot be treated, recognised or dealt with as a minority educational institution. It is not for the institution to decide for itself that it is a minority educational institution. It must be remembered that the status of a minority education carries with it certain very important rights and benefits. Unless the status of an institution is affirmed by a competent authority as stated above no one can presume such status for himself and claim those rights and benefits."

The judgment of the latter Division Bench dated 24-4-1987 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in an appeal preferred by a petitioner in one of the writ petitions in the batch A.K.E. Society v. Director of School Education, AIR 1989 SC 183 and the Supreme Court held as follows (at page 185) :--

"At the outset, it may be stated that before the High Court the appellant did not contend that it had complied with all the conditions laid down for recognition. The contention, however, was that the college is a minority institution and, therefore, it need not comply with all those requirements. The High Court did not accept that contention and in our opinion very rightly. It was observed that since the appellant has deliberately refused to comply with the conditions by taking a new and untenable stand that it is a minority institution, it is not entitled to any relief."

The Supreme Court in that case also held as regards the admissions made directly by the appellant before it as as follows :--

"The explanation of the appellant appears to be far from satisfactory. The permission to start the college by the appellant was cancelled twice by the authorities for want of requirements. Of that ground, the University also has refused to grant affiliation to the college. The order of the High Court affirming the decision of the University is not under appeal before us. In spite of it, the appellant''s sought an interim order from this Court and admitting 160 students. If the Government order had been delayed, the appellant ought to have asked the Convenor, B.Ed. Common Entrance Test to allot the students for admission to the college. That was one of the conditions laid down by the High Court also. Even that was not complied with. From the sequence of events which were earlier referred to, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the appellant was trying to overreach everybody at every stage."

The petitioner herein also preferred Civil Appeal No. 1331 of 1987 against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24-4-1987 dismissing its Writ Petition No. 15054 of 1986 and in the said appeal, the Supreme Court held as follows in its judgment dated 1-9-1989:

"The High Court by the impugned order accepting the direction of the Director of Education, has ordered that the appellant''s teachers training institution shall cease to exist with effect from the last date of the academic year 1985-86. In this appeal the appellant has obtained interim orders from time to time. The interim orders are to the effect that the students of the academic years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 could appear for the examination and their results should be published. Pursuant to the interim orders the students have taken examinations and their results have been published. Those belonging to the academic year 1986-87 have been given certificates with the stamp that they are subject to the result of this appeal.

We have heard counsel on both sides on the merits of the matter. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the impugned order of the High Court, the Institute has been coaching students for B.Ed. Course and as earlier noticed, three batches have already completed their courses with the publication of their results. In fact, the institution has been continuously functioning after the decision of the High Court and even on today. We cannot therefore sustain the order of the High Court.

We also find that the deficiency noticed by the High Court and the Director have been substantially made good by the management.

That, however, does not mean that the appellant is not bound to comply with the fresh directions of the University or the Government as to the conditions that may be applicable to the institution. The management shall comply with such directions as per law.

With these observations and the directions, the appeals stand allowed setting aside the order impugned. There will be no order as to costs."

This look into the past of the petitioner-college shows that it was attempting to project itself as a minority educational institution for the purpose of excusing itself from complying with the conditions imposed by the Government at the time of granting permission for its establishment and the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Us judgment dated. 7-3-1986 in Writ Petition No. 1116 of 1986 and that its game plan did not click. The latter Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 24-4-1987 in the petitioner''s Writ Petition No. 15054 of 1986 ruled thai Irrespective of the petitioner''s claim to be a minority institution, it was bound to comply with the conditions imposed by the Government and by the earlier Division Bench. Two of the conditions imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 431, Education (S) Department dated 8-9-1984 while according permission for the starting of the petitioner-college were that the management should fulfil all the conditions laid down by the University from time to time before admissions of the students in the college and that admissions into the B. Ed. course in the college should be through the common entrance examination conducted by the University. A readiflg of the said G. O. also establishes that no permission was granted for the establishment of the petitioner-college as a minority educational institution. The latter Division Bench in its judgment dated 24-4-1987 also made it cristal clear to the petitioner after a detailed dissertation on the question, that it was not for the institution to decide for itself that it was a minority educational institution and that unless that status of an institution was affirmed by a competent authority no one could presume the status for itself and claim the rights and benefits attached to that status. As already stated above, the petitioner in its letter dated 15-3-1989 admitted that there was no evidence to the effect that it was specifically recognised as a minority institution by the Government. It is therefore clear that the petitioner never enjoyed any minority status. In fact, after the academic year 1985-86 its functioning depended upon the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15054 of 1986 or of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1331 of 1987. The judgment of the Supreme Court dated 1-9-1989 makes it clear that the petitioner-college obtained interim orders from time to time to the effect that the students of the academic years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 could appeat for the examination and their results should be published and that pursuant to the interim orders the students had taken examinations and their results had been published. After the coming into force of the Rules, it was made clear by the Government in its Memo dated 1-9-1989 that even the educational institutions which were already enjoying the minority status would continue to be treated as minority educational institutions for the purpose of recruitment of staff and admission of students for the academic year 1989-90 only. Therefore, even on the unwarranted assumation that the petitioner-college had been enjoying the minority status, it could be treated as a minority educational institution only for the academic year 1989-90 and not thereafter unless the minority certificate was obtained under Rule 7(7) of the Rules. Mere application to the ompetent authority in the prescribed form for issuance of a certificate of recognition as a minority educational institution does not give the petitioner the status, rights and privileges of minority educational institution. Whatever might have been the position when the present Writ Petition was filed, the position is made beyond dispute now by the rejection of the petitioner''s application for recognition as minority educatinal institution. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-college was established by the Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur which had already established several educational institutions which are recognised as minority institutions. But this argument is blunted by the clarification issued by the Government in G. 0. Rt. No. 1596 dated 8-10-1990 stating that "minority certificate shall be for each institution and not for the sponsoring society as a whole, as the character of each institution may be different" and I am of the view that that is as it should be.

In the result, I am of the view that the petitioner-college had no excuse whatever for not complying with the condition imposed by the Executive Council of the University by its resolution dated 13-8-1990 and communicated to it by letter dated 17-9-1990 and reiterated by letter dated 14-8-1990 of the Controller of Examinations of the University that the petitioner should admit in 1990-91 candidates allotted by the Convenor, BED-SET only and that any admission without allotment from the Convenor, BEDSET would be at its own risk and that the University would not hold examinations for such candidates and that any violation of the same would mean that the University would not consider the application for extension of temporary affiliation to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to rely on the proceedings dated 10-11-1990 of the University where-under it was directed to send the list of candidates immediately after the last day for admission was over, but suppresses the fact that that list of the candidates related to those admitted by it for the academic year 1989-90. The said proceedings, by no stretch of imagination, could make the petitioner-college believe that it could admit candidates for the academic year 1990-91 directly without approaching the Convenor, BEDSET for allotment of candidates. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the antecedents of the petitioner-college, 1 am satisfied that the 1st respondent-University cannot be faulted for refusing to grant affiliation to the petitioner-college for the year 1990-91; when no such affiliation is granted by the 1st respondent-university to the petitioner-college, it goes without saying that the students admitted by the petitioner-college for the year 1990-91 in the B.Ed, course cannot be permitted to appear for the examination and have their results announced and they cannot be issued any certificates by the University.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two other colleges i.e., A. L. College of Education, Guntur founded by the same body i.e., Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur and St. Joseph College of Education, Guntur were permitted to send students of the academic year 1990-91 to the examination though they were yet to obtain the minority certificate from the competent authority and that therefore refusal to allow the students admitted by the petitioner-college for the year 1990-91 to sit for the examination amounts to discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He also submits that A. L. College of Education, Guntur admitted students directly from among the list of candidates declared eligible at the common entrance test and did not go to the Convenor, BEDSET for allotment of candidates for the year 1990-91. The said two colleges were not parties to the judgments of the two Division Benches of this Court dated 7-3-1986 and 24-4-1987 referred to earlier. The antecedents of the said two colleges are not known. They were not made parties to this writ petition. It is also not known whether the Government or the University imposed any conditions on them as regards admission of students as in the case of the petitioner- college. More over in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-University, it is stated that the said two colleges were given permanent affiliation by the University. Under the circumstances, J do not see any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-college was being discriminated by the 1st respondent-university. The petitioner''s is a clear case of. inveterate violation of clear conditions imposed by the University with impunity despite severe warnings given to it because of its previous conduct. There is no excuse for this especially when the Supreme Court also made it clear in its judgment dated 1-9-1989 in C. A. No. 1331 of 1987 that the appellant is bound to comply with the fresh directions of the University or the Government as to the conditions that may be applicable to the petitioner-college. It is also to be noted in this connection that the State has preferred Civil Appeals Nos. 1151 to 1165 of 1986 before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the earlier Division Bench dated 7-3-1986 allowing Writ Petitions of the various colleges and setting aside the cancellation of the permissions for their being set up, one of the writ petitions in the said batch being writ petition No. 1116 of 1986 of the petitioner herein. The Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court in respect of Writ Petition No. 1116 of 1986 is C.A. No, 1154 of 1986. The said Civil Appeals are still pending before the Supreme Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states thatinW. P.M. P. No. 17311 of 1991,a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 11-11-1991 directed the 1st respondent University to permit the students of the petitioner-college admitted by it for the academic year 1990-91 to appear for the B.Ed, annual examination being conducted from 21-11-1991, but that their results should be withheld pending the present Writ Petition. He also states that the University preferred Writ AppealNo. 1248 of 1991 against the said order and that a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same by order dated 18-11-1991 and that subsequent to that the University permitted the said students to appear for the written examination. While dismissing the said writ appeal, this Court observed that the interests of the University were protected by directing that the results of the said students should be withheld and that the declaration of the results would depend upon the final result of the said Writ Petition. As regards permitting the said students appearing for the practicals which was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner-college, this Court observed in the said writ appeal that "if the writ petition is allowed, it would be open to the Court to then direct holding of special practicals for these students". The petitioner-college also filed W.P.M.P. No. 20479 of 1991 for directing the 1 st respondent-University to conduct the practical examination for its 160 students of the 1990-91 batch pending disposal of the writ petition, but the said W.P.M.P. was disposed of on 31-1-1992 observing that no orders were necessary in the said petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that subsequently the said students were permitted to take the practical examinations also and that withholding their results would cause hardship to the said students. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K.E. Society v. Director of School Education AIR 1989 SC 183. In that case, even after observing that the appellant before it "was trying to overreach everybody at every stage", the Supreme Court observed as follows :--

"They are the students who were admitted on the strength of the interim order made by this Court. The students were perhaps led to believe that this Court permitted the appellant to admit them. We consider, therefore, that it may not be proper to drive them to street if they have undergone the prescribed course with the necessary syllabi and other matters relating thereto. But it would be for the Director of School and the Registrar, Nagarjuna University to consider and satisfy themselves and not for this Court at once to permit them to appear in the examination.

In the result, we dismiss the writ appeal, but direct respondents 1 and 3 to consider forthwith whether the students in the appellant''s college have undergone the necessary B.Ed. course and if so, permit them to appear for the ensuing examination and publish their result."

But the position of the petitioner and the students admitted by it for the academic year 1990-91 on its own without being allotted to it by the Regional Co-ordinator is very different. The facts narrated above establish that the respondent-University was already lenient in allowing the students admitted by the petitioner-college directly for the academic year 1989-90 and while showing that lenience the University required the petitioner that in 1990-91 it should admit candidates allotted by the Convenor, BEDSET only and that any admission without allotment from the Convenor, BEDSET would be at its own risk and that the University would not hold examinations for such candidates and that any violation of the same would mean that the University would not consider the application for extension of the temporary affiliation to the petitioner. The University also got published through the newspapers and the Radio a warning to the public and all concerned that the petitioner-college was not granted affiliation for the year 1990-91 by it and that admissions to B.Ed, course for the year 1990-91 were being made by the Principal of the petitioner-college violating the Government orders and the instructions issued by the University and that the University would not consider such admissions and would not conduct examinations to those candidates and that candidates seeking admission would be doing so at their own risk. That was a clear warning given to all concerned in April, 1991 itself at the time when the petitioner was making admissions. The University could not have done better. (See Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers Training College and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . In the circumstances they cannot have any claim for sympathy now. The Supreme Court, after referring to several of its decisions i.e., N.M. Nageshwaramma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, ., A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, . State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Another, and Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalaya v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 440 held in State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others, as follows :--

"In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education, AIR 1989 SC 183 relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, no doubt this Court directed the Government to consider whether the students in the appellant''s college have undergone the necessary B.Ed, course and has permitted them to appear in the ensuing examination and publish their results. In that case there was a long drawn history of the recognition of the institute and that the direction was issued by this Court in the special circumstances therein. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a precedent, in particular, in the light of the law laid down by this Court as stated supra."

In State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Another, the Supreme Court elaborately dealt with the matter and held as follows:--

"The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. In N.M. Nageshwaramma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, this Court observed that if permission was granted to the students of an unrecognised institution to appear at the examination, it would amount to encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. The court declared that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be frittered away for such a purpose. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, a similar request made on behalf of the institu-tion and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected this Court. The court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. This court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public exam-ination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustain able in law."

Therefore, I am of the view that sympathy is out of place in a matter like this. The petitioner had shown better sense in respect of admissions for the year 1991-92. In the reply affidavit filed on its behalf dated 29-7-1992, it is stated by its Principal that he made admissions by going to the Convenor, Common Entrance Test for allotment for the year 1991 -92 and admitted the candidates allotted.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs.500/-.

Petition dismissed.