Judgment S. B. Sinha, G. C. Bharuka, JJ. 1. - In the aforementioned writ application the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant recognition of Swami Dayanand Arya Teachers Training College, Bikram Patna. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner No.1 is a society registered under Societies Registration act (Act No.21 of 1860) and [they decided t,o open a technical institution at Bikram to impart technical education to youngesters of arya Samaj followers in accordance with its own culture and tradition. 4. The general students are also not debarred for taking admission in the said Institution. Since 1985-86 Sessions allegedly 185 students had admitted in the aforementioned Institution each year. The petitioners further filed an application before the State of Bihar for grant of recognition. A representation was filed by the petitioner to the respondent no.2 permitting the students of the aforementioned Institution to fill up from and allow them to appear at the examination conducted by the respondent No.3, but no action has been taken thereupon. 5. The petitioners filed a writ petition in this court being CWJC no.3571 of 1989 and by an order dated 12-5-1989 a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to accept fess and forms for the years 1986-88, for the examination in question and allow them to sit in the examination subject to the result of the said writ application. 6. The said order so far as Sessions 1986-88 is concerned was later on corrected as Sessions 1985-86 tand 1986-87. Allegedly some students appeared at the examination and their results were also published, who had turned up to fill up their forms. However, students who did not turn, up at that point of time, their fees and forms were not be accepted by the University. 7. The petitioner allegedly filed an application for grant of recognition in prescribed form alongwith treasury challan showing deposit of Rs.1,000/-. 8. It is further alleged that the respondent-University constituted a board of two persons, namely Shri Kunj Bihari Singh Principal of H. D. Jain College, Arrah and Shri S. N. Singh, Principal of Maharaja College arrah who submitted their report dated 17-10-1989 which is contained in annexure-3 to the writ application. 9. 8. It is further alleged that the respondent-University constituted a board of two persons, namely Shri Kunj Bihari Singh Principal of H. D. Jain College, Arrah and Shri S. N. Singh, Principal of Maharaja College arrah who submitted their report dated 17-10-1989 which is contained in annexure-3 to the writ application. 9. The petitioners have further contended that in the meanwhile students for the Sessions 1987-88, 1988-87, 1989-90 and 1990-91 have completed their training com ses and they were waiting to appear at the bachelor of Education Examination. 10. The petitioners have contended that despite the application having been filed for recognition of the said Institution, no action has yet been taken on behalf of the State. 11. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. 12. In the said counter-affidavit it was pointed out that the said order dated 11-6-1991 and 22-11-1991 were passed without hearing the said respondent and University came to learn about the same when the copy of the order dated 22-11-1991 was submitted by the petitioner to the University. 13. It is further stated that the respondent-University in order to ascertain the genuineness of the petitioner and further for the purpose of ascertaining the students being given training for the required minimum period in the property organised and equipped training Institute constituted Committee who submitted a reported dated 4-1-1992 which is contained in Annexure-A thereto. 14. According to the said report the Institution was bogus one. Allegedly thereafter an application was filed on 6-2-1992 for modification of the order dated 11-6-1991 and 22-11-1991. It has further been brought to our notice that on or about 11-12-1991 an antedated petition was filed by the Secretary of the petitioners Institution before the Officer on Special Duty requesting him to accept fees and forms. The said letter is contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. 15. It has been stated that in the said letter it has been disclosed that in each year 185 students had been admitted, although in terms of the regulations more than 100 students per year can be admitted. 16. In M. J. C. No.521 of 1992 the petitioners have prayed for initiation of a proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act as against the respondents for non-compliance of the aforementioned order dated 11-6-1991 and 22-11-1991 passed in CWJC No.4031 of 1991. 17. 16. In M. J. C. No.521 of 1992 the petitioners have prayed for initiation of a proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act as against the respondents for non-compliance of the aforementioned order dated 11-6-1991 and 22-11-1991 passed in CWJC No.4031 of 1991. 17. In the aforementioned contempt application a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3. The said affidavit has been sworn by the Deputy Director (Research and Training) of the human Resources Development Department. 18. It has been contended that the order dated 22-11-1991 has not yet been received by the said respondents. It has further been stated that the application for recognition and treasury challan etc. , have also not been received in the said department as per its records. 19. It has also been stated that the respondents are always read to consider the matter for recognition, but the petitioners must submit application for recognition in prescribed form alongwith treasury challan an ounting to Rs.1000/- as per Notification No.1107 dated 25-11-1990 as contained in Annexture-A to the counter-affidavit. 20. It appears that by an order dated 11-6-1991 a learned Single judge of this court passed the following orders : - "the limited prayer in this application is for allowing the students to appear in the examination for the Sessions 1987-88 and to accept their fees and forms. My attention has been drawn to an order passed by a Bench of this court on 12-5-1989, whereby the students were allowed to appear in the examination for the Sessions 1985-86 and 1986-87 after accepting their fees and forms subject to the result of the application. Accordingly let this application be listed for admission before an appropriate Bench after vacation. In the meantime, the respondents will accept the fees and forms from the petitioners students for the Sessions 1987-88 for the examination in question. They shall be allowed to sit in the examination subject to the result of this application and the result will not be published until the disposal of this application. In the event of the failure to writ application, they shall not be entitled to return of the fees deposited by them," 21. It stands admitted that the Institution of the petitioner is not a recognised one. 22. In the event of the failure to writ application, they shall not be entitled to return of the fees deposited by them," 21. It stands admitted that the Institution of the petitioner is not a recognised one. 22. The Supreme Court of India as also this court in various decisions have categorically held that unless an institution is recognised, it students do not derive any legal right either to appear at the examination and to get their results published. 23. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Division bench of this Court in Maulana Mazharul Hague Primary Teachers Training college V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1992 (1) BLJ 712. 24. In this view of the matter, evidently, this court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the students of the petitioners institution to appear at the said examination. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief prayed for in this writ application and consequently the interim orders passed in this case stand vacated. 25. However, there cannot be any doubt that the State is bound to consider the matter relating to recognition of the petitioners institution in accordance with law. 26. The State itself has issued Notification bearing No. GSR-1107, dated 25-11-1987 laying down the rules in exercise of its power under section 5 of the Bihar Act No.29 of 1992 In terms of the said rules, the application for recognition has been filed before the State Government. It is admitted that the college in question was inspected by the Committee constituted by the University which had no jurisdiction in the matter. 27. The petitioners, of course, had stated in the writ petition that they have deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of challan but it appears from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 in the contempt application that neither any application for recognition nor the challan of Rs.1,000/- are available on records. 28. In this situation, in our opinion, if the petitioners file a fresh application together with the requisite inspection fees, the State should make an inspection in accordance with the said rules and proceed to consider the matter relating to grant of recognition at an early date in accordance with law. 29. 28. In this situation, in our opinion, if the petitioners file a fresh application together with the requisite inspection fees, the State should make an inspection in accordance with the said rules and proceed to consider the matter relating to grant of recognition at an early date in accordance with law. 29. It is expected that the state shall dispose of the matter within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the application from the petitioner. 30. So far as the M. J. C. application is concerned, we may observe that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this court as referred to hereinbefore the students of petitioners institution did not have any right to fill up forms, deposit fees, etc. , and to get their results published. 31. In this view of the matter and particularly in view of the directions given in the writ application, in our opinion, it is not necessary to proceed with the matter any further. These two applications are disposed of with the aforementioned directions.