Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing part of the notification dated 6-5-1993 issued by the Controller of Examination of the respondent B. N. Mandal University by which it has been directed that the 1st Part of M.B.B.S. Examination 1990-92 batch of the petitioner institution will be conducted after completion of the M.B.B.S. Part I examination of 1989-91 batch of Katihar Medical College, and for a further direction to hold examination of the students of petitioner institution as per the directions of the Chancellor along with the students of the said Katihar Medical College. 2. The petitioner institution is claimed to be a minority institution, which, on establishment took admission of 60 students on 1/12/1990. In the writ petition certain details have been given with regard to teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the institution as well as about the immoveable properties and other infrastructures held by the institution. It appears that the authorities of the institution have admitted certain subsequent batches of students as well. On 21-6-91 the Secretary of the institution filed an application for grant of affiliation before the Chief Minister. A similar application was made to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University on 25-2-1992 after depositing the requisite inspection fees. On 2-4-1992 a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was deposited in the University as reserve fund and affiliation fees. On 25-6-1992 the Secretary of the institution filed an application before the Chancellor requesting him for issuing appropriate direction to the university for holding examination of the students of the college. Accordingly, the Chancellor called for a report from the Vice-Chancellor in this connection. On 7-9-92 inspection was also made in the institution by a team of the University. A report was also called for from the Collector, Kishanganj, where the institution is located. Accordingly, the Chancellor called for a report from the Vice-Chancellor in this connection. On 7-9-92 inspection was also made in the institution by a team of the University. A report was also called for from the Collector, Kishanganj, where the institution is located. While the question of granting affiliation was still in process and it was still to be verified as to whether the institution fulfils the minimum requirements laid down by the Medical Council of India and the statutes of the University, for certain reasons, which need not be stated here, the Chancellor directed for enforcement of the transitory regulation (Annexure 7) directing the respondent university to hold 1st batch examination of M.B.B.S. Course for the students of the petitioner institution vide notification dated 25/12/1992, which is in the following terms : GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT, BIHAR NOTIFICATION No. ENMU-4/92/3293-GS(I) Patna, the 25/12/1992. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Sec. 39(2)(IJ) of the Bihar Universities Act 23 of 1976 as amended up to date the Chancellor, B. N. Mandal University has been pleased to approve the following Transitory Regulation as proposed by the Vice-Chancellor, B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura for conduct of Phase I examination of "Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery" (M.B.B.S.) Course 1992 for the students of Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and Lions Sewa Kendra Hospital, Kishanganj, and order that this may be published in the Bihar Gazette and brought into immediate effect TRANSITORY REGULATION FOR PHASE I EXAMINATION OF BACHELOR OF MEDICINE AND BACHELOR OR SURGERY (M.B.B.S.) 1992. Notwithstanding anything contrary to the provisions as made in the regulations, it is hereby provided that:- (a) The B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura shall conduct the M.B.B.S. Examination 1992. (b) The Syllabus as recommended by Medical Council of India and adopted by L. N. Mithila University for conduct of Examination of M.B.B.S. Course shall be applicable for the examination. (c) The eligibility of students for admission to the aforesaid examination shall be as recommended by Medical Council of India and approved by L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. The College and B. N. Mandal University will observe same and similar directions and guidelines as issued in the Katihar Medical College case by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No 7502 of 1992. Sd/- P. S. Cheema Commissioner and Secretary to Governor Bihar. 3. The College and B. N. Mandal University will observe same and similar directions and guidelines as issued in the Katihar Medical College case by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No 7502 of 1992. Sd/- P. S. Cheema Commissioner and Secretary to Governor Bihar. 3. Pursuant to the said transitory regulation, the principal of the institution under his letter dated 25-12-1992 requested the University to send examination and registration forms for its first batch of students. But the Controller of Examination under his impugned memo dated 6-5-1993 (Annexure 9) though announced the date for acceptance of fees and forms of first M.B.B.S. examination of Katihar Medical College, but with regard to the petitioner institution it has notified as follows: ".......... Also the 1st M.B.B.S. Examination of 1990-92 batch of M.G. M. Medical College, Kishanganj will be conducted after the completion of 1st M. B. B. S. Examination 1989-91 batch of Katihar Medical College, Katihar." 4. The two counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor of the University disclose some more sterling facts. The respondent B. N. Mandal University has been established on 15-1-1992 pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter the University Act) as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1992. Kishanganj where the institution is said to have been established earlier lay within the territorial jurisdiction of L. N. Mithila University. It appears that on receipt of the application for affiliation as stated above and even before any final decision regarding grant of recognition/ affiliation by the State Government or the University, the Inspector of Colleges of the University proposed to the Acting Vice-Chancellor to conduct the M.B.B.S. 1st year examination of the students of the college on humanitarian grounds by framing transitory regulation. Accordingly, draft of the above quoted transitory regulation was sent for approval to the Chancellor. 5. The Chancellor on receipt of the said proposal send the same to the Bihar Inter University Board constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981 (hereinafter State Board Act only). Accordingly, draft of the above quoted transitory regulation was sent for approval to the Chancellor. 5. The Chancellor on receipt of the said proposal send the same to the Bihar Inter University Board constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981 (hereinafter State Board Act only). According to Sec. 3 of the said Act, this Board has been established inter alia, with an object to advise the Chancellor/ State Government on matters of bringing about coordinated development of higher education and research, raising the standard of degrees awarded by the Universities, promoting excellence in the Universities by maintaining uniformity in the Satutes, Ordinances, regulations and Rules of the Universities. The Board on appraisal of the material. placed before it and particularly the fact regarding non-grant of any permission/ recognition/ affiliation to the institution by the State Government/ University, expressed its surprise at the move of the Acting Vice-Chancellor proposing framing of the above quoted transitory regulation and resolved to advice the Chancellor to reject the proposal of the University. 6. Despite the said resolution of the Board, Chancellor for his own reasons felt persuaded to approve the transitory regulation permitting holding of examination for students of the unaffiliated institutions like the petitioner institution. 7. The present Vice-Chancellor under its letter dated 9-1-1993 addressed to the Governors Secretariat by pointing out the provisions of Bihar Medical Educational (Regulation and Control) Act, 1981 (hereinafer State Regulation Act) raised various objections regarding the validity and enforcibility of the aforesaid transitory regulation, which contemplated for holding of examination of the students of the petitioner institution. But the Chancellor vide a letter dated 9-2-93 written by his secretary as contained in Annexure C"to the counter affidavit, directed the Vice-Chancellor to abide by the directions contained in the transitory regulations. The Vice-Chancellor again by his letter dated 2-3-93 (Annexure D) communicated to the Chancellor that the Examination Board of the University after examining the entire legal position, has resolved to request the Chancellor to review his earlier order keeping in view the difficulties mentioned in the resolution, a copy whereof was enclosed with the letter, has been annexed as part of Annexure D. The Secretary of the Chancellor under his direction vide letter dated 23-4-93 (Annexure E) then communicated that the objections and the requests for review will be considered for the performance and conducting of future examination of the institution. But in the meantime the university must conduct the examination as per the transitory regulation within a month. Again by another letter dated 23-4-1993 the said Secretary to the Chancellor directed the Vice-Chancellor to file a show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him for not implementing the Chancellors direction as provided under S. 11 of the University Act, which contemplates a deemed removal of the Vice-Chancellor in case of his failure to abide by the directions of the Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor filed his show cause Annexure G. The matter seems to be resting at this stage. 8. There are three Acts in force which require permission/ affiliation/ recognition by an institution intending to impart teaching and training in the faculty of medicine. These are Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter Central Act), as amended by the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, an act made by the Parliament, State Regulation Act and State University Act. The Central Act has been made under Entry 66 of List I read with Entry 26 of List III and the State Act has been made under Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the provisions of Article 246(1) of the Constitution, the law made by the Parliament in relation to education will prevail over any State legislation made in this regard. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner institution has not been granted permission/ affiliation/ recognition by either the Central Government or the State Government or the University under any of the aforesaid three Acts. 10. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan V/s. State of A.P., reported in (1993) SCC 645 at page 757 has held that, "No private educational institution shall be allowed to send its students to appear for an examination held by any Government or other body constituted by it or under any law or to any examination held by any university unless the concerned institution and the relevant course of study is recognised by the appropriate authority and/or is affiliated to the appropriate University, as the case may be." 11. While dealing with a similar matter, the Supreme Court in the case of Nageshwaramma V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1986 SC 1188 has held at page 1191 that, "If by a fiat of the Court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at, the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoing the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Art. 32 of the Constitution or Art. 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose." 12. Subsequently, the Supreme Court again in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Vikas Sahebrao, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 435 : ( AIR 1992 SC 1926 ), taking judicial notice of mushroom growth of ill-equipped, ill-housed and under-staffed unrecognised Educational institutions in various States including Bihar, while setting aside the order of the High Court permitting the students of an unaffiliated College to appear at the examination of the University, has held at p. 439, that: "Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are deterimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source of indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc." 13. In the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1992 (1) PLJR (HC) 747, which was referred to me because of difference of opinion on certain points between S. B. Sanyal, J. and Aftab Alam, J., I, agreeing with S. B. Sanyal, J after considering in detail the provisions of the State Regulation Act and the University Act took the view (at pr. 19) that, " .......this Court is not competent to issue any mandamus directing the university to permit the students of Katihar Medical College to appear at the M.B.B.S. examination conducted by the University unless the statutory requirements with regard to permission and affiliation are fully complied with." 14. 19) that, " .......this Court is not competent to issue any mandamus directing the university to permit the students of Katihar Medical College to appear at the M.B.B.S. examination conducted by the University unless the statutory requirements with regard to permission and affiliation are fully complied with." 14. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court which binds the High Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution, at least this Court cannot permit or approve the permission accorded by any authority in relation to appearance of the students of any unaffiliated/ unrecognised private college including the petitioner at the university examination. 15. It appears that against the aforesaid judgment in relation to Katihar Medical College, Civil Appeal No. 2590 of 1992 has been preferred in the Supreme Court wherein an interim order has been passed in the following terms: "By way of an interim Order we direct that the students admitted to Katihar Medical College will be permitted to take examination but their result will be withheld till further orders by this Court. The concerned university which will take the examination is B. N. Mandal University at Madhyapur which we are told is successor university to L.N. Mithila University. We also make it clear that the College will not grant new admissions without express permission of this Court." So far as the above order passed by the Supreme Court is concerned, it is an interim order passed in relation to a particular case and cannot be taken to be a law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. What binds all the courts and authorities in the territory of India which is the law declared by the Supreme Court in the catena of its judgments including those in the cases of Nageshwaramma V/s. State of A.P., State of A.P. V/s. Vikas Sahebrao and Unni Krishnan V/s. State of A.P., referred to above. What binds all the courts and authorities in the territory of India which is the law declared by the Supreme Court in the catena of its judgments including those in the cases of Nageshwaramma V/s. State of A.P., State of A.P. V/s. Vikas Sahebrao and Unni Krishnan V/s. State of A.P., referred to above. 16 In a case similar to the present one, while dealing with the similar reliefs as claimed in the present case, in the case of Nawadah Vidhi Mahavidyalaya V/s. State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No. 5855 of 1993 and in the case of Board of Directors of Sarjug Dental College V/s. State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No. 3459 of 1992 and analogous case both disposed of on 2/09/1993, we have held that the action of the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor in framing the transitory regulations permitting the students of unrecognised law College and Dental College is ultra vires the underlying policy and mandatory provisions of the University Act and is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 17. For those very reasons, we hold that the transitory regulation is contained in Annexure 7"to the writ application is ultra vires and inoperative and, accordingly, the said transitory regulations and the directions issued by the Chancellor for compliance thereof, are quashed. 18. Recently another Bench of this Court while dealing with the case of another private unaffiliated/ unrecognised medical college in C.W.J.C. No. 11696 of 1992 and analogous case disposed of on 15/07/1993, after examining the relevant statutory provisions as noted above, including Secs. 10A, 10B and IOC of the Indian Medical Council Act is inserted by the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, and the succeeding Act incorporating the said provisions, has held that the private medical institutions so far not affiliated or recognised can impart medical education only after seeking permission from the Central Government. It has also been held that the decision of the Central Government either granting or refusing permission will bind the State Government as well as the University, who have to act in conformity with such order. It has refused the prayer of those institutions to permit their students to appear at the University examination. 19. It has also been held that the decision of the Central Government either granting or refusing permission will bind the State Government as well as the University, who have to act in conformity with such order. It has refused the prayer of those institutions to permit their students to appear at the University examination. 19. Further the University in its supplementary counter affidavit has stated in para 5 that till the date of swearing that counter affidavit,, the University has not even made any application to the Central Government for including the M.B.B.S. qualification then in the 1st schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, declaring its degree to be a recognised medical qualification enabling the holders thereof for enrolment on the State Medical Register in absence whereof they can neither hold any office as a physician or surgeon or can practise in medicine in any State and/or do any other legal acts in this regard as per the contemplations under Sec. 15 of the said Act. It has been also stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the University that the University is not even having any medical faculty as yet. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, in my considered opinion, the writ application is devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. :- I agree. Petition dismissed.