HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a minority-institution started several years back, admitting students of engineering in different faculties with a view to extend its teaching in other faculties thought of introducing a new course namely b. e. in computer science for the academic year 1989-90. In this connection the petitioner made an application to the concerned university. The university in turn constituted a local enquiry committee. The said local enquiry committee after inspecting the institution of the college, staff, ascertaining the need to have a computer science course in the petitioner's institution made a recommendation to the university that the institution deserves to be considered for granting affiliation to start b. e. in computer science. Inspite of making such a recommendation by the local enquiry committee, decision of the academic council of the university and approval of the same by the syndicate of the university in this regard, including the application filed by the petitioner furnishing particulars regarding staff, equipments, its financial position, the university for the reasons best known to it, failed to affiliate which compelled the petitioner to approach this court for the following reliefs :a) call for records from 1st respondent relating to the consideration of the prayer of the petitioners for grant of affiliation to establish b. e. course in computer science. B) issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant affiliation to the petitioners for establishing b. e. course in computer science for the academic year 89-90 on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent university. C) issue such order relief/s which this Hon'ble court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE only reason for the state notto consider the petitioner's request to start b. e. in computer science was that the petitioner has not obtained necessary permission from the government. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel forthe petitioner the stand takers by the government in not considering the petitioner's request for grant of permission for affiliation for 1 year computer science for the academic year 1989-90 is untenable. As far as the a-icte act is concerned council has been constituted. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel forthe petitioner the stand takers by the government in not considering the petitioner's request for grant of permission for affiliation for 1 year computer science for the academic year 1989-90 is untenable. As far as the a-icte act is concerned council has been constituted. All that the council could do is to fix the standard of education and other norms regarding maintaining the standard of technical education. As far as the granting of affiliation is concerned, it is the duty of the state under Section 53 of the Karnataka University Act. It is also clear about the duty of the state in matters of this type. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner-institution is a minority institution. Its interest is safe-guarded under arts 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India read with Article 45 of the constitution. When once affiliation is granted by the university to start computer science course after accepting the recommendations of local enquiry committee, academic council of the university and syndicate of the university, now it is incorrect and unconstitutional on the part of either the state or the university to say that the request made by the petitioner cannot be considered till the decision is taken by the aicte. It is nothing but a clear case of uncharitable attitude on the part of the state. The approach of the state is in clear violation of Articles 29 and 30 of the constitution. As on one hand it granted permission to the petitioner institution to start b. e. course in different faculties on the other hand compelled the college to stop it by resorting to some other method. The approach of the state in not giving permission to start computer science is also in clear violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court under similar circumstances in the case of managing board of the milli talimi mission Bihar Ranchi and others v The State of Bihar and others [air 1984 (2) S. C. page 1757] held as follows:- that while art. 30 undoubtedly seeks to preserve the religious freedom, autonomy and its individuality ; there is no fundamental right under which an institution can claim either aid or affiliation as a matter of right. 30 undoubtedly seeks to preserve the religious freedom, autonomy and its individuality ; there is no fundamental right under which an institution can claim either aid or affiliation as a matter of right. It is permissible for the state or the university, as the case may be, to lay down reasonable conditions to maintain the excellence of standard of education but in the garb of doing so, refusal to grant affiliation cannot be made a ruse or pretext for destroying the individuality and personality of the said institution. If this is done, then apart from being wholly arbitrary and unreasonable it would amount to a clear infraction of the Provisions of art. 30 because what cannot be done directly is done indirectly. 2) while the state or a university has got an absolute right to insist on certain course of study to be followed by institutions before they could be considered for affiliation but these conditions should not in any way take away the freedom of management or administration of the institution so as to reduce it to a satellite of the university or the state. This is wholly impermissible because such a course of action directly violates art. 30 of the constitution. 3) while imposing conditions before granting affiliation, the state or the university cannot kill or annihilate the individuality or personality of the institution in question by insisting on foliowing a particular kind of syllabus or a course of study which may be directly opposed to the aims, objects and ideals sought to be achieved by the institutions. 4) there is a very thin line of distinction between withholding of affiliation for a particular purpose on extraneous grounds so as to (subject the institution to rigorous orders, edicts or resolutions which may run counter to the dominant purpose for which the institution has been founded, and insisting on genuine and reasonable conditions to be imposed in the larger interest of education. In the instant case, the position is that the state has refused to grant affiliation on purely illusory grounds which do not exist and failed to consider the recommendation of the education commissioner which was made after full inspection for grant of affiliation. In other wards, the affiliation was refused without giving any sufficient reasons and such a refusal contravenes the Provisions of Article 30 of the constitution. In other wards, the affiliation was refused without giving any sufficient reasons and such a refusal contravenes the Provisions of Article 30 of the constitution. According to him the principles laid down in the above dscisionin all fours apply to the present case. Hence, this is a case where a writ of mandamus sought has to be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the state to consider the petitioner's request for grant of affiliation to start computer science and grant permission as sought for with retrospective effect in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to supra within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Sri Adi Submitted that the university did not commit any mistake. On the other hand they accepted the recommendations made by the local enquiry committee, academic council and syndicate and forwarded the same to the government for further action. Now it is for the state to take any action. Whatever action the state takes, university is bound by it. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .