Page 1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1894 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 5995 OF 2016)

(CC NO. 1652 OF 2016)

Committee of Management Anuragi Devi       ...Appellants Degree College & Anr.

                               Versus

State of U.P. & Anr.      ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The  first  respondents  vide  its  letter  no.

Aff.333/Seventy-6-2012-2   (356)/2012  dated  12.09.2012,

granted  prior  permission  for  provisional  affiliation  to  the

appellant for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 01.07.2012 i.e. for the

period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2015 for imparting Education in

the  Arts  Faculty  for  the  subjects  Hindi,  Political  Science,

Sociology, Medieval History, Education Sanskrit and Home

Science.  In pursuance of  the aforesaid Government order

Page 2

No.  333  dated  12.09.2012,  the  Deen  Dayal  Upadhyay

Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur vide its letter no. 7539/

Affi.2012 dated 27.11.2012 permitted the appellant to admit

the students in the various subjects of the Arts Faculty.  

2. The appellant applied on 10.03.2015, to the University

for constituting an Inspection Panel for granting permanent

affiliation to the University.  Upon perusal of the application

dated 10.03.2015 submitted by the aforesaid appellants, the

University vide its letter No. DDUGU/Aff.2015/5096 dated

20.03.2015  constituted  an  Inspection  Panel  to  submit

status report of the appellant as far as the Infrastructural

Facilities existing in the appellant’s college were concerned.

The  Regional  Higher  Education  Officer  Gorakhpur

submitted  its  inspection  report  on  06.11.2015  to  the

University.  

3. As  per  Time  Schedule  prescribed  by  the  State

Government, the Inspection Report was not received within

the  prescribed  date.  In  the  absence  of  the  required

Inspection Report, the University did not grant permanent

affiliation  to  the  appellant  for  the  Academic  Session

2015-16.   No  appeal  was  preferred  before  the  State

Government.  

2

Page 3

4. As  the  permanent  affiliation  was  not  granted  the

appellant  college preferred  a writ  petition-C No.  42336 of

2015 and the learned Single Judge of the High Court taking

note of the fact that writ petitions seeking similar reliefs had

been dismissed, vide its order dated 20.08.2015 declined to

interfere.  However, it observed that “the petitioner would be

entitled for consideration of his claim for the next session”.

Being  dissatisfied  with  the  order  passed  by  the  learned

Single  Judge,  the  appellant  preferred  Special  Appeal  No.

610 of 2015 before the Division Bench.   

5. The  Division  Bench,  as  the  factual  scenario  would

unveil,  took note of the prayer of the college that it was in

effect seeking issuance of writ of mandamus requiring the

University to extend temporary affiliation for the courses of

Hindi,  Political  Science,  Sociology,  Medieval  History,

Education,  Sanskrit  and Human Science  at  the  graduate

level for the academic session 2015-2016 and accordingly

adverted to the reasonings of the learned Single Judge and

concurred with him.  

6. It was urged before the Division Bench that application

for grant of permanent affiliation in respect of subjects was

made  well  within  time,  that  is,12.12.2014;  that  the

3

Page 4

three-member  committee  that  was  constituted  by  the

University  on  20.3.2015  had  visited  the  institution  on

14.4.2015 and submitted the report; and that the inspection

team had recommended extension of temporary affiliation in

respect  of  subjects  in  question  for  the  academic  session

2015-2016 but there had been failure on the part of  the

University which had caused grave prejudice to the college.

The  Division  Bench  noted  the  stand  of  the  University,

referred  to  the  authority  in  Maa  Vaishno  Devi  Mahila

Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and others1, reproduced

the time schedule fixed in the said judgment and observed

that  pursuant  to  the  directions  so  issued  the  State

Government  formulated  a  time-frame for  consideration  of

applications  for  affiliation  the  particulars  of  which  stood

embodied  in  the  Government  Order  dated  14  November,

2014 and in terms of the government order the last date for

the grant of affiliation by a University is fixed as 30 May and

a person aggrieved by the decision taken by the University

was entitled to  prefer an appeal against the same by 15

June and the  State  Government  was liable  to  decide the

appeal so preferred latest by 15 July. The appellate-Bench

1  (2013) 2 SCC 617

4

Page 5

stated that in the facts of the case the affiliation was neither

granted  by  the  time  fixed  under  the  Government  Order

dated  14  November,  2014  nor  was  any  appeal  preferred

before the State Government and, therefore, bearing in mind

the  directions  issued  in  Maa  Vaishno  Devi  Mahila

Mahavidyalaya (supra),  it  was  not  open  to  either  the

second respondent or the State Government to pass orders

of  affiliation  after  30  May,  2015.   Being  of  this  view,  it

dismissed the intra-court appeal. Hence, the present appeal

by special leave.   

7. We have heard Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel

for the appellant, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel for the

respondent-university  and  Mr.  Gaurav  Bhatia,  learned

Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P.  

8. At the very beginning, we may note that in College of

Professional  Education  and  others  v.  State  of  Uttar

Pradesh  and  others2,  the  Court  recorded  that  for  the

academic  year  2012-13  and  subsequent  academic  years,

institution and the State Government had arrived at a broad

consensus  regarding  the  procedure  and  terms  and

conditions  of  admission,  recognition  and  affiliation.   The

2  (2013) 2 SCC 721

5

Page 6

terms  and  conditions  which  had  been  accepted  by  all

concerned were reproduced in the said judgment.  In  the

said judgment, as is evident, the Court has referred to the

order dated 11.3.2011, and also provided for the time by

which  the  affiliation  could  be  granted  to  the  colleges.

Paragraph (vi) (b) clearly stipulated that after the counseling

is over, the university concerned will continue to allot the

candidates from the relevant waiting list against the vacant

seats till all the seats in the colleges were filled up and the

organizing  university  would  provide  students  only  to  the

existing  B.Ed  college  and  all  those  B.Ed  colleges  which

would get affiliation up to 7.7.2011 would not be considered

for  counseling  to  the  year  2011-2012  and  for  the  next

consecutive  years and onward the colleges which will  get

affiliated on or before  10th of May of that year, would be

considered for counseling.  Certain affiliations were granted

to  the  colleges  which  were  interefered  with  by  the  High

Court  primarily  on  the  ground  that  the  court  had  no

jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date.   

9. In  Maa  Vaishno  Devi  Mahila  Mahavidyalaya

(supra), the Court dealing with various aspects, taking into

consideration the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the

6

Page 7

NCTE Rules 1997, opined that:-

“The  above  enunciated  principles  clearly  show that the Council is the authority constituted un- der  the  Central  Act  with  the  responsibility  of maintaining education of standards and judging upon the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opin- ion is of utmost importance and shall take prece- dence over the views of the State as well as that of  the  university.  The  Department  of  the  State concerned  and  the  affiliating  university  have  a role  to  play  but  it  is  limited in  its  application. They  cannot  lay  down  any  guideline  or  policy which  would  be  in  conflict  with  the  Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The State can frame its policy for admis- sion to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. In the present cases, there is not much conflict on this issue, but it needs to be clarified that while the State grants its approval, and the university its affiliation, for increased intake of seats or commencement of a new course/college, its directions should not of- fend  and  be  repugnant  to  what  has  been  laid down in the conditions for approval granted by the Central  authority or  Council.  What is  most important  is  that  all  these  authorities  have  to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of imparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education,  examination  and  infrastructure  for betterment of the educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a coordinated manner and with cooperation, will they be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist”.

10. And again:-

7

Page 8

“67. In the present case, we are concerned with the provisions of the NCTE Act which is a Central legislation referable to Schedule VII List I Entry 66. Thus, no law enacted by the State, which is in conflict with the Central law, can be permitted to be operative.

68. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in the present cases. In terms of the provisions of the  Act,  the  Regional  Committee  is  required  to entertain the application, consider State opinion, cause inspection to be conducted by an expert team and then to grant or refuse recognition in terms of the provisions of the Act. Once a recog- nition is granted and before an institution can be permitted to commence the course, it is required to take affiliation from the affiliating body, which is the university.

69. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent to running of the courses by the institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position  to  commence  the  relevant  academic courses. There is a possibility of some conflict be- tween a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  Shastra  Ma- havidyalaya3 where  the  Court  stated that  after coming into operation of the Central Act, the op- eration of the University Act would be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges.  It  also  observed  that  provision  of  the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation by the university would remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the university for grant and continuation of af- filiation  must  be  in  conformity  with  the  norms and guidelines prescribed by NCTE”.

3  (2006) 9 SCC 1

8

Page 9

11. After so stating, the Court further proceeded to state:-

“76. In terms of Section 37(10), a college which has  been  affiliated  is  entitled  to  continue  the course of study for which the admissions have al- ready taken place. To give an example, under the statute  of  Meerut  University,  affiliation  of  new colleges  is  dealt  with  under  Statutes  13.02  to 13.10  of  Chapter  XIII.  This  requires  that  every application for  affiliation of  a  college has to  be made so as to reach the Registrar in less than 12 months before the commencement of the course and before  an application is  considered by  the Executive Council,  the Vice-Chancellor must be satisfied that  there  is  due compliance  with the provisions  of  Statutes  13.05,  13.06  and 13.07. Besides, it requires the conditions like adequate financial resources, suitable and sufficient build- ing, adequate library, two hectares of land, facili- ties for recreation of students, etc. to be fulfilled. The constitution of the management of every col- lege has also been provided.

77. The fields which are sought to be covered un- der the provisions of Section 37 of the Universi- ties Act and the statutes of various universities are  clearly  common  to  the  aspects  which  are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act. That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation insofar as they are covered by the Act must give way to the operation of the provisions of  the  Act.  To  put  it  simply,  the  requirements which  have  been  examined  and  the  conditions which have been imposed by NCTE shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under  the  garb  of  the  State  law.  The affiliating/examining body and the State Govern- ment  must  abide  by  the  proficiency  and  com- mand of NCTE’s directions. To give an example, existence  of  building,  library,  qualified  staff,  fi-

9

Page 10

nancial  stability  of  the institution,  accommoda- tion, etc. are the subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would not be open to re-examination by the State and the university. If the recognition itself was  conditional  and  those  conditions  have  not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give affiliation and in- form  NCTE  forthwith  of  the  shortcomings  and non-compliance with the conditions. In such sit- uation,  both  the  Central  and  the  State  body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both recog- nition  and  affiliation.  But  certainly,  the  State Government  and  the  university  cannot  act  in derogation to NCTE.

78. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of the case. It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the State should be after the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body. We have already discussed that the State opin- ion,  as  contemplated  under  Section  37  of  the University  Act,  to  the  extent  it  admits  to  over- reach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its orientation to the directives of NCTE are void and inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which case clear precedence is to be given to the directives  of  NCTE during such resolution.  The opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean that it would keep the factors determined by NCTE intact and then examine the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State Government is minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should primarily be for the university to determine the grant or refusal of affiliation and role of the State should be the bare minimum, non-interfering and non-infringing.

10

Page 11

79. It  is  on record and the Regulations framed under the Act clearly show that upon receiving an application for recommendation, NCTE shall send a copy of the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments  of  the  State  Gov- ernment  on  all  aspects  within  a  period  of  30 days. To such application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields is called for. This is the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital role. They must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by due rea- soning. Once these comments are sent and the State Government gives its opinion which is con- sidered  by  NCTE and  examined in  conjunction with the  report  of  the  experts,  it  may grant  or refuse  recognition.  Once  it  grants  recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-à-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be reagitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the univer- sity conducts inspection in terms of its statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State  Government at  the second stage is  a mere  formality  unless  there  was  a  drastic  and unacceptable mistake or the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to the life of the students working in the school  because  of  non-compliance  with  a  sub- stantive condition imposed by either of the bod- ies. In the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one and the State is not ex- pected to obstruct the commencement of admis- sion process and academic courses once recogni- tion is granted and affiliation is found to be ac- ceptable.

80. In  Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Ma- havidyalaya the view of this Court was that the State Government has no role whatsoever. How-

11

Page 12

ever, in  Bhartia Education Society4 it was stated that the role of the State Government was limited to  the  manner  of  admission,  eligibility  criteria, etc.  without  interfering  with  the  conditions  of recognition prescribed by NCTE. The exercise of discretion by the State Government and affiliating body has to be within the framework of the Act, the  Regulations  and  conditions  of  recognition. Even in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute5 the Court  stated that  the  State  Government  or  the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by NCTE while considering the application for grant of “no-objection certifi- cate”. Minimisation of the role of the State at the second stage can also be justified on the ground that affiliation primarily is a subject-matter of the university which is responsible for admission of the  students  laying  down  the  criteria  thereof, holding  of  examinations  and implementation of the  prescribed  courses  while  maintaining  the standards of education as prescribed”.

12. After  laying  down  the  principles  of  law,  the  Court

opined  that  adherence  to  the  schedule  is  the  essence  of

granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well

as to maintain the standard of education.  The Court further

observed that:-

“….. None in the hierarchy of the State Govern- ment, university, NCTE or any other authority or body  involved  in  this  process  can  breach  the schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Any- body who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for ini- tiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a dis-

4  (2011) 4 SCC 527 5  (2003) 3 SCC 321

12

Page 13

ciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court”.  

13. In that context, the Court further proceeded to state:-

“83.  Undoubtedly,  adherence  to  the  schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various as- pects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not  commencing  the  courses  within  the  stipu- lated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit.

84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the schedule stated by this Court in College of Professional Education in relation to ad- mission  as  well  as  recognition  and  affiliation. This obviously includes the commencement of the courses in time. However, in order to avoid the possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state the  schedule  for  recognition  and  affiliation  in terms  of  the  NCTE  Regulations,  2009  and  the judgment of this Court in College of Professional Education.

86. There appear to be some overlapping periods and even contradictions between the dates and periods stated under the regulations inter se and even  with  reference  to  the  judgments  of  this Court prescribing the schedule. For example, in terms of the judgment of this Court in College of Professional Education, the last date for grant of affiliation is 10th May of the year concerned, but as per Regulation 5(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009,  the  last  date  for  grant  of  recognition  is 15th May of the relevant year. Similarly, there is an overlap between the period specified in Regu- lation 7(1) and that under Regulation 7(2). Such overlapping is likely to cause some confusion in the mind of the implementing authority as well as the applicant. Thus, it is necessary for this Court

13

Page 14

to put to rest these avoidable events and unnec- essary controversies.

87. Compelled by these circumstances and to en- sure that there exists no ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, we direct and prescribe the follow- ing Schedule upon a cumulative reading of  the Regulations and judgments of this Court in rela- tion to recognition and affiliation:

87.1. Schedule for Recognition and Affiliation

87.1.1. Submission of  applications for recognition in terms of Regula- tion 5(4)

1st September to 1st Oc- tober of the year immedi- ately preceding the rele- vant academic year

87.1.2 Communication of deficiencies, shortcomings or any other dis- crepancy  in  the  application submitted by  the  applicant  to the applicant in terms of Regu- lation 7(1)

Within 45 days from the  date of receipt of the ap- plications

87.1.3. Removal of such deficiencies by the applicant

Within 60 days from the  date of receipt of commu- nication

87.1.4. Forwarding of copy of the appli- cation  to  the  State  Govern- ment/UT Administration for its recommendations/comments in terms of Regulation 7(2)

Within 90 days from the  date of receipt of the ap- plication

87.1.5 Recommendations/comments of  the  State  Government/UT Administration to be submitted to the Regional Committee un- der Regulation 7(3)

Within 30 days from the  date of issue of letter to it

87.1.6. If  recommendations/comments are  not  received  within  30 days,  the  Regional  Committee shall send to the State Govern- ment/UT Administration  a  re- minder letter for submission of the  recommendations/com- ments

Within seven days from  the date of expiry of the  period of 30 days  

87.1.7. State  Government/UT  Admin- istration shall furnish the rec- ommendations/comments

Within 15 days from the  date of receipt of such re- minder letter

87.1.8. Intimation regarding inspection by  the  Regional  Committee  to the applicant under Regulation 7(4)

Within 10 days from final  scrutiny of the application

87.1.9. Report by the Inspection Com- mittee under Regulation 7(5)

20 days thereafter

14

Page 15

87.1.10. Letter  of  intent  to  the institu- tion with respect to grant or re- fusal of recognition in terms of Regulation 7(9)

10th of February of the  succeeding year/relevant  year

87.1.11. Time  to  comply  with  certain specified conditions, in terms of Regulations 7(10) and 7(11)

20 days from the date of  issuance of letter of intent

87.1.12. Issuance  of  formal  order  of recognition

By 3rd March of each year

87.1.13. Last  date  for  submitting  pro- posal for affiliation

By 10th March of each  year

87.1.14. Forwarding of  proposal by the University to the State Govern- ment/UT  Administration  after inspection by expert team

By 10th March of each  year

87.1.15 Comments to be submitted by the  State  Government/UT Ad- ministration, if any

By 10th March of each  year

87.1.16. Final date for issuance/grant of affiliation for the relevant aca- demic year

By 10th March of each  year

87.2.  All  notices/orders/requirements/letters  in terms of the above schedule or under the provi- sions of  the Act or  terms and conditions of  al- ready granted recognition/affiliation shall be sent by the authority concerned by speed post/e-mail on the address given in the application for corre- spondence, etc. and shall be posted on the web- site  of  the  Authority/Committee/  Council/Gov- ernment concerned.

87.3.  The recognition and affiliation granted as per the above Schedule shall be applicable for the current academic year. For example, recognition granted up to 3-3-2013 and affiliation granted up to 10-5-2013 shall be effective for the academic year  2013-2014  i.e.  the  courses  starting  from 1-4-2013. For the academic year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued after 3-3-2013 and no affiliation shall be granted after 10-5-2013. Any affiliation or recognition granted after the above cut-off dates shall only be valid for the academic year 2014-2015.

87.4.  We  make  it  clear  that  no Authority/person/Council/Committee  shall  be entitled  to  vary  the  Schedule  for  any  reason

15

Page 16

whatsoever. Any non-compliance shall amount to violating the orders of the Court.”

14. We are obliged to state here that there is justification

for  reproducing  the  above  paragraphs  from the  aforesaid

decision.  The Court has taken pains to explain the scheme

of the Act, role of the university and the purpose of fixing a

time  schedule  for  each  purpose.   Certain  action  of  the

authorities can be flawed and eventually fall in the sphere of

illegality.  It has to be so declared by the Court.  In the case

at hand, the benefit could not be extended as the appellants

have not maintained the time schedule fixed by the State

Government  pursuant  to  judgments  of  this  Court.

Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge as

well as the Division Bench cannot be found fault with.

15. The controversy does not end here.  The stand of the

University  is  that  the  appellant  College  has  admitted

students  without  having  the  necessary  affiliation  for  the

academic  session  2015-16.  This  kind  of  conduct  has

become  a  disease,  and  when  the  conduct  becomes  a

disaster, it is a disastrous phenomenon.  While dealing with

admissions  without  affiliation  from  CBSE,  the  Court  in

Sunil  Oraon  (minor)  through guardian  and others  v.

16

Page 17

CBSE and others6 referred  to  earlier  decisions  and  was

constrained to state thus:-   

“Time and again, therefore, this Court had depre- cated the practice of educational institutions ad- mitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities.  As  the  factual  scenario  delineated against goes to show that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though  the  ultimate  victims  are  innocent  stu- dents that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. …”   

16. In  Adarsh  Shiksha  Mahavidyalaya  v.  Subhash

Rahangdale and others7the Court has laid down that:-

“(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised in- stitution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency.”

The Court further proceeded to direct:-  

“88. (ii) The result of the students admitted by an unrecognised  institution  or  by  an  institution which had not been granted affiliation by the ex- amining body shall not be declared. The result of the students who were admitted without qualify- ing  the  entrance  examination shall  also  not  be declared. In other words, the students admitted by the private institutions on their own shall not be entitled to declaration of  their  result.  If  any

6 (2006) 13 SCC 673 7 (2012) 2 SCC 425

17

Page 18

private institution had not complied with the re- quirements of completing the prescribed training, then  the  result  of  students  of  such  institution shall also not be declared.”

17. In  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  and

another v. Venus Public Education Society and others8

the two-Judge Bench ingeminating the anguish of the Court

was compelled to observe:-

“… It is urged by him that NCTE had procrasti- nated its decision at every stage and such delay was  deliberate  and,  therefore,  the  Society  was compelled to admit the students and impart edu- cation,  regard being  had to  the  fact  that  there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in  many  a  pronouncement  of  this  Court  that without  recognition  from  NCTE  and  affiliation from the university/examining body, the educa- tional institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are ex- pected  to  enquire  whether  the  institution  has recognition and affiliation. If  we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admis- sion possibly immersed with the idea that igno- rance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the  institution  had  the  anxious  enthusiasm  to commercialise education and earn money forget- ting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anx- iety to get a degree without bothering for a mo- ment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. ..”

8 (2013) 1 SCC 223

18

Page 19

 18. Coming  to  the  present  case.  As  is  evincible,  the

University has not granted affiliation as the schedule for the

same was over. No appeal was preferred by the appellant

College.  The High Court rightly held that it cannot issue a

writ contrary to the judgment of this Court.  However, we

observe that the University shall consider the application for

affiliation, if not considered already, within a span of four

weeks and, if  the affiliation is  granted,  the students who

had been granted admission shall be treated as students as

admitted for the academic session which would be covered

by  the  affiliation  to  be  granted  in  future.   We  have  so

directed  so  that  the  appellant  College  would not  be  in  a

position  to  admit  any  other  student  after  affiliation  is

granted.

19. Consequently,  the  appeal  stands  dismissed.   There

shall be no order as to costs.

.............................J. [Dipak Misra]

..........................., J. [Shiva Kirti Singh]

New Delhi; June 29, 2016

19