R. D. SHUKLA. , J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS seefc a mandate against the respondents for granting recognition to the petitioners, school and for further permitting them to run XIth class in the Institution It has also been prayed that the students who had appeared in the examination from the petitioners, institution be treated as regular studets and their results be declared. ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 an institution registered under the M. P. Societies Registration Act with registration No. 12172. The petitioner is running various education institutious in Nagda The petitioners were granted permission to start Class IXth in the school running by them for a period upto 30th June, 1987. Thereafter they were permitted to open and start class Xth In the same institution. The renewals were granted upto 30th April, 1993. They were permanently permitted to run school upto class VIIIth ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 State of M. P. and other respondents who are the officers of the State and looking after education at various stages i, e. District, Division and State level. ( 4 ) BEFORE granting permission for running Class Xlth in the school an enquiry in the matter was directed to find out as to whether all the requirements for running the school and the classes upto Xlth standard has been complied with. The officers who conducted enquiry gave adverse report. As such, respondent No. 2 issued a letter Ex. P/15 and pointed out defects and short comings in the grant of permission for starting Class xith. The petitioners failed to comply and therefore, the permission was not granted. Meanwhile, some students who were studying regularly as students of Class XIth run by the petitioner institution appeared in the examinations. However, as the petitioners Institution was not a recognised institution for Xlth Class the results of students were not declared and it were with held. The petitioners failed to comply and therefore, the permission was not granted. Meanwhile, some students who were studying regularly as students of Class XIth run by the petitioner institution appeared in the examinations. However, as the petitioners Institution was not a recognised institution for Xlth Class the results of students were not declared and it were with held. ( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that other institutions have also not complied with all the conditions but they were granted permission for running the classes as desired by them but the petitioner is being given a discriminatory treatment and, therefore, this petition with following reliefs (I) that the petitioners be permitted to open and run classs xith with retrospective effect i. e. for the year 1992-93 ; (ii) that the results of the students be declared treating them to be regular students ; and (III) that the permission for running the classes should permanently be granted and should not be made yearly affair. ( 6 ) LEARNED Dy. Advocate General appeared in the case on the basis of advance copy supplied to him and made his submissions. As such, parties were finally heard in the case. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since other institutions having similar facilities, have been grated permission to run the classes and by refusing permission to petitioners, Institution, respondents, who are State and authority working under the State, are giving discriminatory treatment. ( 8 ) IT has also been submitted that the petitioners started Xlth class expectations that the permissions as usual would be granted by the end of the educational session but the same has not been done and, therefore, the career of some of the students who have appeared as regular candidates from this institution had been put in jeopardy If their results are not declared they will have to loose one year of their career, unnecessarily and that would be unjust treatment to the students who were studying in the petitioner Institution. ( 9 ) AS against it learned Dy. ( 9 ) AS against it learned Dy. Advocate General had submitted that since Rules have been framed regarding private schools and such other they are bound to comply with the conditions and if they fall to comply with the conditions and the requirement as per rule, the State would be justified in not recognising those institutions and not granting permission for running various classes. It has also submitted that no grievance can be made on that count. It has also been submitted that from the records produced by the petitioners it could not be demonstrated that any discriminatory treatment between the two such institutions have been made. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, it has been submitted that a prior intimation for not runing. Class XI was sent to the petitioners but they started Class XI at their own risk and, therefore, now they cannot ask for permission being granted with retrospective effect. ( 11 ) THIS has been admitted by the counsel for parties while making their submissions that State of M. P. has framed Rules regarding the private schools and such other educational institutions. Admittedly all the conditions required as per rules have not been complied with. ( 12 ) ON perusal of document Ex. P/15 it appears that the letter was issued by respondent No. 2 on 11th November, 1992 much prior to the date of examinations that the petitioners are not being granted permission for starting Class XIth in their school. They were further prohibited to open and run class Xlth The defects and short coming were also pointed out The petitioners instead of complying with the conditions sent reply and pleaded that other institutions have been allowed to run the classes without complying with all the conditions. ( 13 ) IT is, thus, apparent from the documents filed by the petitioners themselves that they have not complied with all the requirements for running educational institutions- Merely because some other similar institutions have been granted permission in breach of Rules ; no grievance can be allowed to be made by the petitioners that they should also be allowed and permitted to run the institutions against the provisions of Rules. Despite the request from the respondents the petitioners continued with the running of class XIth. This they have done at their own risk. Despite the request from the respondents the petitioners continued with the running of class XIth. This they have done at their own risk. Now, therefore, if they continue with the teaching of class XI as against the directions issued by the State and in breach of rules, they should be ready to face the consequence Clemency, if any is demanded. That can be pleaded before the respondents but the courts while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue direction for showing any clemency that too against the provisions of Rules. Since the petitioners admittedly having committed the breach of rules and started Class XIth as against the instructions of the State no right for the same can be accepted to have been created in their favour. ( 14 ) SINCE they no right to start the classes in breach of Rules, they cannot be allowed to seek redressal in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. ( 15 ) IT appears that earlier the students of petitioner institution have tried to seek remedy in the Civil Court and after having failed in their attempt this petition has been filed by the petitioners. It also appears that students were made gcape goat in filing the Civil Suit. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands. ( 16 ) EVEN otherwise looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and further as the petitioners have failed to comply with the Rules and instructions for running a private educational institution, This Court would not like to exercise its extraordinary power to grant the relief (that too against the Rules and Instructions ). ( 17 ) AS a result this petition fails and it hereby dismissed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 300/- if certified. Petition dismissed .