JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---These petitions are filed by the students who were admitted by different institutions who were not granted recognition by the Government of Maharashtra. These students were admitted for D.Ed. course and were allowed to continue and prosecute their studies throughout the year. Their examination forms are not accepted by the Commissioner and Bureau of Government Examinations (respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989). The ground given for not accepting the examination forms is that the institutions which admitted these and similar students were not recognised by the State Government and the admissions are given by the managements without having obtained any proper recognition, therefore, the admissions of these and other students are illegal. 2. Apart from this, a communication is also addressed to the management by Exhibit F-1 dated 1-2-1989 (in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989) that the management will be prosecuted for admitting students illegally without obtaining proper permission or recognition from the competent authority. In this letter, it was also mentioned that their act constitutes a criminal offence and will be dealt with accordingly. 3. The students have, therefore, filed these petitions seeking directions from this Court to enable them to appear at the D.Ed examinations commencing from 19 April, 1989. They have also contended that not only the students who have approached this Court should be granted such relief but such of those students who were admitted by these institutions and whose forms were not accepted by the respondent No. 6 should be treated similarly and granted the same relief alongwith the petitioners. Shri Patil, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2,4 5 contended that because of the illegalities committed by the managements, the students admitted by them should not be permitted to appear for this examination as not only the institutions but even students were warned from taking admissions and education in such institutions. 4. Shri Patil, appearing for the petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989) had produced before us a Government resolution dated 27 February, 1989, by which students from as many as 35 institutions who were also not granted recognition nor approval by the competent authority had admitted students and such students were permitted to appear for the ensuing examinations commencing in April, 1989. 5. We have gone through the Government circular dated 27 February, 1989. 5. We have gone through the Government circular dated 27 February, 1989. We find that as many as nine Urdu medium institutions who have admitted students to D.Ed. course without having proper permission or recognition, the students of such institutions were allowed to fill in forms and appear for the examinations to be held in April, 1989. We are told at the Bar that apart from nine institutions imparting D.Ed. education in Urdu medium, there are 28 other institutions who had illegally admitted students were given benefit by allowing their students to appear for the examination to be held in April, 1989. 6. We are surprised to find as to how the State Government permits students from as many as not less than 35 institutions to appear for the examinations to be held in April 1989, and deny the same treatment to the students like petitioners who were admitted by the institutions who had also not obtained proper and legal recognition from the competent authorities. 7. After going through the circular of the Government dated 27 February, 1989, we have no doubt in our mind that hostile discriminatory treatment is given to the petitioners and the institutions who have admitted the petitioners. This is not to say that the institutions while admitting the students like petitioners have acted legally or lawfully or that the conduct of the institutions, which have admitted the students who are petitioners in these petitions, is justified in any manner but in view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we have to see in the light of circular of the Government dated 27 February, 1989, whether any discriminatory treatment is being given to the petitioners. 8. There is no doubt that the institutions who admitted the petitioners had acted unauthorisedly and acted in a very callous manner while admitting the students knowing fully well that no recognition is yet granted by the authorities to run the D.Ed. course but these were not the only institutions who have acted in this manner. From the Government circular it is clear that there were other atleast 35 institutions who had acted in the same manner. course but these were not the only institutions who have acted in this manner. From the Government circular it is clear that there were other atleast 35 institutions who had acted in the same manner. Though the Government had threatened the management of the institutions who have admitted the present petitioners with dire consequences and with penal consequences also but the same Government had given a rose carpet treatment to 35 institutions who have acted in the same manner and acted illegally and callously also. 9. In view of the circular and in view of the concession granted by the State Government in favour of 35 institutions, there is no reason as to why the same concession cannot be granted to the petitioners and other students. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner and Bureau of Government Examinations (respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989) to allow the petitioners and other students like petitioners admitted by respondent Nos. 7 8 to the D Ed. course. The Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989 relates to 91 students (as per list Exhibit H) who desire to appear at Udgir Centre so also the Writ Petition No. 678 of 1989 relates to 131 students (as per list Exhibit X) who desire to appear at Osmanabad Centre and the Writ Petition No. 968 of 1989 relates to 60 students (as per list Exhibit A) who also seek to appear at Osmanabad Centre. 10. This order is being passed on 17th. As the matter was required to be adjourned at the request of Additional Government Pleader who was informed at the time of granting adjournment that at any rate on 17th, he will not be permitted to contend that in short period no arrangements can be made by the examining authority because of the short period available to them for making arrangements. The respondent No. 6 is the Commissioner of Bureau of Government Examinations who is competent to accept the examination forms of all these students. There is hardly any time for the students to send the examination forms to the Commissioner and Bureau of Government Examinations nor they can be approached at this time in view of the fact that the examination is to commence on 19th of this month. We, therefore, direct the respondent Nos. There is hardly any time for the students to send the examination forms to the Commissioner and Bureau of Government Examinations nor they can be approached at this time in view of the fact that the examination is to commence on 19th of this month. We, therefore, direct the respondent Nos. 2 4 to make all arrangements regarding all these students involved in all these writ petitions and seek to appear at the respective Centres. The respondent Nos. 2 or 4 shall accept the forms of students with or without fees on or before 19th April, 1989. They shall also maintain the proper list and give seat numbers to all these students to enable them to appear for the examination. They shall also make all the arrangements for conducting the examination of all these students and after the examinations are over, they may communicate the examination forms received by them to respondent-Commissioner of Bureau of Government Examinations. They shall apprise him of the entire steps taken by them which were required for holding the examination of these students. The seat numbers given by them to the students should be communicated to respondent No. 6 to enable him to maintain the record of the examination of these students and to facilitate the declaration of results in due course. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall take all the necessary steps which are required for holding the examinations. At any rate they should not wait for any instructions or directions from the respondent No. 6 in this regard. If the question papers or answer papers supplied by the Bureau are not sufficient to examine all these students, the respondent Nos. 2 or 4 shall get prepared the answer papers and also the question papers by giving, if necessary, additional time to students which may be lost in preparing the question papers. All these steps cannot be envisaged at this stage but respondent Nos. 2 and or 4 shall overcome all the hurdles in their way and see that the examination of these students is conducted properly. The respondent No. 1 State shall bear the cost, if any required for holding this examination in the manner as indicated above. 11. All these steps cannot be envisaged at this stage but respondent Nos. 2 and or 4 shall overcome all the hurdles in their way and see that the examination of these students is conducted properly. The respondent No. 1 State shall bear the cost, if any required for holding this examination in the manner as indicated above. 11. It is clear from what has happened in the background of these petitions that the managements are taking law into their own hands while admitting the students and in many cases, Government is also playing to the tune of the management following the policy of pick and choose in the matter of granting recognition or allowing the students to appear for the examinations who were illegally admitted by the managements. In fact, at one stage we wanted to suspend the examination itself which was to commence from 19th April, 1989, because though the forms of the petitioners and other students admitted by the concerned institutions were not accepted by the authorities and they were threatened of dire consequences including facing a criminal trial but at the same time, we find that the Government had issued circulars in favour of atleast 35 institutions who had also illegally admitted students, but students so admitted were allowed to appear for the examination. In these three writ petitions, there were atleast 300 students whose fate was involved. We were also told that there are number of students who have not approached this Court but whose forms are not accepted on the same grounds. In view of large number of students involved in these writ petitions and also in the light of the contents of circular, a large number of students were given concessions by the State Government having regard to number of students involved on the basis of circular in these writ petitions. We had thought at one stage that it would be in the interest of society to suspend the examinations because this Court had witnessed such a phenomena for over number of years now as managements admit students without recognition; Government allows students of some of such managements to appear for the examinations and ultimately the courts are required to permit the rest of the students who are also illegally admitted to appear for the examinations. In this state of affair if the examination is cancelled at this stage for this year, for proper scrutiny of the matter probably the repetition of same would not take place next year or thereafter but such a drastic step would have caused and affected the interest of equally large number of students who have taken admission either in Government run colleges or in colleges which are properly recognised by the Government. In this background, we restrain the managements respondent Nos. 7 8 (in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989) and respondent No. 5 (in Writ Petition No. 678 of 1989) and respondent Nos. 4 5 (in Writ Petition No. 968 of 1989) and their officers and subordinates from admitting any student to D.Ed. course for the next academic year 1989-90 without prior obtaining recognition or sanction from the competent authority. 12. We also direct the respondent No. 1-State not to issue circulars like that of 27 February, 1989, allowing students of non-recognized, non-approved colleges or institutions imparting education in D.Ed. course; without prior approval of this Court. 13. The respondents managements and also the State Government are at liberty to move this Court for the said purpose whenever they so desire by making a separate application. With these directions, petitions disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----