ORDER 1. Upon motion the matter is taken on Board. We have heard Sri R.F. Nariman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Sivasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Leave granted. 2. "The Tamil Nadu Dr M.G.R. Medical University" is the appellant and is aggrieved by the order dated March 22, 1993, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in CMP No. 3960 of 1993 in Writ Appeal No. 323 of 1992. The first respondent is an educational institution and claims to maintain a dental college. In the writ petition before the High Court is sought a mandamus to the University to accord affiliation to its courses in dental medicine and surgery. That writ petition was dismissed. An appeal is preferred by the first respondent-college before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in the pending appeal, at the interlocutory stage, has persuaded itself to grant a direction to the University that it should admit the students of the college to the I and II year examinations. 3. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid that the High Court has overleapt its interlocutory jurisdiction in a matter of this kind particularly, in view of the fact that the first respondent had lost before the learned Single Judge and its case for entitlement to affiliation had yet to be made good in the appeal. An interlocutory direction of this kind would virtually render the appeal infructuous by granting in advance the main relief in the appeal. It is well known that such orders build up expectations in the students and in the ultimate analysis render it difficult to unsettle the effect of the interlocutory directions. 4. But then, the college and its students must also be protected against their remedy in appeal becoming infructuous even if they finally succeed. At this stage we cannot permit the students to be admitted to the examination without there being a valid affiliation either by the University or pursuant to a final determination judicially on the dispute. The answer to this situation is to request the High Court to dispose of the appeal itself before the summer recess. At this stage we cannot permit the students to be admitted to the examination without there being a valid affiliation either by the University or pursuant to a final determination judicially on the dispute. The answer to this situation is to request the High Court to dispose of the appeal itself before the summer recess. If the first respondent-college succeeds in the appeal and its entitlement to affiliation upheld, then the University should come forward to hold a special supplementary examination for the students who had been denied the benefit of the examination by withholding of the interlocutory order. The University, before us submits that if the first respondent-college succeeds in the writ appeal, it would hold such a supplementary examination, subject, of course, to its right to come to this Court in appeal. We place the submission on record. The right of appeal shall not interdict the obligation to hold such a supplementary examination, subject, of course, to such directions as this Court may issue at the appropriate time. 5. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed, the interlocutory order of the High Court dated March 22, 1993, set aside, with a request to the High Court to dispose of the writ appeal itself finally as indicated earlier. No costs. For Citation: 1995 Supp(4) SCC 694