Judgment 1. These two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, have been filed for a direction to the respondents-authorities to recognise the petitioners Institution as also to direct the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Examination Board) to publish the result of the students, who had already appeared at the Primary Teachers Training Examination for the Sessions 1986-88 and 1987-89. 2. Both the writ applications have been heard together and, therefore, with the consent of the parties, they are being disposed of by a common order at the stage of admission itself. 3. Although in the writ applications the first prayer of the petitioners is to direct the respondents to recognise their Institutions, but at the time of argument learned Advocate, confined his prayer only for a direction to the respondents-examination Board for publication of the result of the students. He submitted that from time to time directions have been issued by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court to the respondents-authorities, to consider the claim for recognition of the Institution, no useful purpose would be served in pressing these writ applications for a similar direction. 4. Mr. Singh contended that the students of the petitioners Institutions have already appeared at the examination on the basis of permission, granted by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11987 of 1989. Therefore, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the Examination Board to publish their results. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent-Examination Board, wherein, it has been stated that as the petitioners Institutions have not been recognized by the State of Bihar as yet, therefore, it was not proper to publish their results. Learned Counsel for the Examination Board has also drawn our attention towards the interim order of the Hon ble Supreme Court, passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11987 of 1989. It would be relevant to quote the aforesaid order hereinafter : "Heard counsel. Issue notice on the special Leave petition as well as on the application for stay returnable within a month. Notice to indicate that the matter may be finally disposed of at the notice stage itself. Dasti service is additionally permitted. It would be relevant to quote the aforesaid order hereinafter : "Heard counsel. Issue notice on the special Leave petition as well as on the application for stay returnable within a month. Notice to indicate that the matter may be finally disposed of at the notice stage itself. Dasti service is additionally permitted. Pending notice, only those students of the petitioner Mahayidyalaya who fulfill all the requirements as to qualifications and attendance will be permitted to obtain application forms, deposit the forms and the fees and to sit at the final Primary Teachers Training and Examination for the Sessions 1986-88, 1987-89 in accordance with the rules. However, the results of the students who appear by virtue of this order shall not be published until further orders of the Court and the results shall be subject to the outcome of this petition. They shall not be entitled to in any right by virtue of having appeared at the examination, the petition is decided against the petitioner Mahavidyalaya". 6. From the aforesaid order it appears that although the students were permitted to appear at the examination, but it was made clear that their results shall not be published until further orders and the same shall be subject to the outcome of the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also produced a copy of the final order dated 30th of March, 1990, passed by the Supreme Court in aforementioned case in order to show that the special Leave Petition has been finally disposed of on the basis of an undertaking, given on behalf of the State of Bihar, that decision for recognition shall be completed within the time limit, fixed by the Court. 8. After hearing learned counsel on this issue, we have also gone through the aforementioned order of the Supreme Court. No order to publish the result of the students, who have appeared at the examination pursuant to the interim order of the Supreme Court, has been passed. Their Lordships have any directed the examination Board that in case where the recognition is granted by the Government, to consider whether having regard to the period of existence of the institutions and the adequacy of training facilities available, any students had, in fact, completed satisfactory training and if so whether they should be extended the benefit of such recognition. Their Lordships have any directed the examination Board that in case where the recognition is granted by the Government, to consider whether having regard to the period of existence of the institutions and the adequacy of training facilities available, any students had, in fact, completed satisfactory training and if so whether they should be extended the benefit of such recognition. If the Board is so satisfied as to the bona fides and genuineness of the claim of students, it may consider whether the justifice of the situation would be met by permitting the students who, according to the Board, had such full training in the past to take up the examination. In the background of the facts, discussed above, as also in absence of any specific direction by the Supreme Court, it is not desirable for this Court to direct the Examination Board to publish the result of the students. 9. Mr. Singh then submitted that in different cases a Bench of this Court in a similar circumstance has allowed the students to appear at the examination and direction was also issued for publication of the results. In this connection reference has been made to an order dated 9th of Sept. 1991 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1119 of 1987 as also an order dated 18-12-1991, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8787 of 1991. According to him, there are other cases also in which similar orders were passed. Therefore, according to him, in order to maintain consistency this Court has no option but to pass a similar order. 10. Admittedly, the Institutions to which the petitioners are representing, have not been recognised as yet. In view of several binding decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court, it is difficult for us to direct the respondents to allow the students of unrecognised Institutions to appear at the examination and thereafter, to publish their results. In this connection we may refer to some of the reported decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Court; namely, AIR 1986 SC 1490 (A. P. Christian Medical Educational Society V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1188 (Nageshwaramma V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 PLJR 90 (SC) (Faridi primary Teachers Training College V/s. The state of Bihar, ( 1991 (3) SCC 87 (State of Tamil Nadu V/s. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute), 1989 PLJR 916 (Arya Prathmik Sikshak Shiksha Maha Vidyalaya V/s. The State of Bihar) and 1991 (1) PLJR 595 (FB) (Rahmania Primary Teachers Training College V/s. The State of Bihar). From the judgment reported in 1991 (3) SCC 87 (supra) it appears their Lordships have taken into consideration almost all the previous reported cases on this issue. Therefore, it would be relevant to quote Paragraph 6 of the judgment hereunder :- "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. Ngeshwaramma V/s. State of A.P. 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 Art. 32 of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution should not be frittered away for such a purpose. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society V/s. Government of A.P. a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The Court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to a year at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The 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 examination. 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 sustainable in law." 11. 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 sustainable in law." 11. Besides the aforesaid in our view, it may also be useful to notice an observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Faridi Primary Teachers Training College V/s. The State of Bihar (1988 PLJR 90 (SC)), wherein, their Lordships, while rejecting the prayer to allow the students of unrecognised institutions to appear at the examination before such institution, which are recognised, have observed as follows : "We do not feel persuaded to issue any directions as prayed for, because of the fact that in several cases of a similar nature which had come up subsequently for orders, this Court declined to interfere or to make any directions. The reason for the Courts refusal to interfere or issue directions is on account of the mushroom growth of unrecognised schools and other educational institutions of an alarming rate various states, including the State of Bihar due to constant efforts systematically undertaken by interested agencies to bring about such institutions by openly and deliberately flouting the Rules and Regulations and making the schools and institutions a fait accempli in order to wrest recognition from the authorities concerned for such institutions with out complying with the formalities or fulfilling the prescribed conditions and requirements." 12. Apart from the aforementioned decisions, it will be also useful to notice a judgment of this court, reported in 1989 PLJ R 916 in which their Lordships have held as follows : "So far as the prayer for allowing the students, a list of which has been filed by the Institution vide Annexures 11 and 12 is concerned, in view of the binding decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Nageshwaramma V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1188 and A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1490 , this prayer is rejected." Similar view was taken by the Full Bench of this Court in a case, reported in 1991 (1) PLJR 595 (supra). 13 Mr. 13 Mr. Singh also produced a copy of the order dated 30th of July, 1991, passed in Civil Appeal No. 3655 of 1987 in order to show that in that case also direction was issued for publication of the result of the students, who had appeared at the examination. The relevant passage of the aforesaid order is being quoted hereunder : "So far as the second aspect is concerned we accept in retrospect that permission to take the examination should not have been granted, particularly when the institution is neither recognised nor affiliated to the Bhagalpur University which has the territorial jurisdiction over the institution. But the examination was held several years back and the publication of result has been withheld. Let the result be published. But we make it clear that the appellant institution would not be permitted to admit the students or make any application for permitting its students to take any further examination until the application for affiliation is granted. The State of Bihar will redispose of the matter within three months from today." From bare reference to the aforesaid order it is clear that according to their Lordships permission to take examination should not have been granted particularly when the institution is not recognised. 14 It is also useful to refer to an order dated 10-1-1992, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4069 of 1991, wherein, we have rejected a similar prayer, made in the aforementioned writ application. In the aforesaid judgment also we have placed reliance over several decisions of the Supreme Court. 15. In view of the consistent view of the Supreme Court as also of this court, not to permit the students of unrecognised institutions to appear at the examination, it is difficult for us to take a different view and allow the students of such institution to appear at the examination as also to publish their results on the basis of some of the interim orders passed by this court, whereby the students have been permitted to appear at the examination. 16. In that view of the matter, for the reasons, stated above, it is not proper for us to direct the respondent-Examination Board to publish the result of the students of these institutions. In the result, this application is dismissed but, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.Application dismissed.