Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. Writ Appeal 1475/1994 is at the instance of the University of Kerala and the Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala against the order passed by the learned single judge in C.M.P.22974/94 in O.P.13051/94. Writ Appeal 1486/1994 is filed by the Secretary of Jamiya Mannaniya Islamia Society, one of the applicants for affiliation to a college during the academic year 1994-95, against the order passed in C.M.P.26391/94 in O.P. 15032/94. Writ Appeal 1489/94 is by the State of Kerala questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M.P.22974/94 in O.P. 13051/94. 2. A learned Single Judge referred O.P. 15032/94 to Division Bench by his order dated 9-11-1994. 3. Petitioners in O.P. 13051/94 seek to restrain the University of Kerala and the Vice-Chancellor of that University from giving affiliation to new colleges proposed to be sanctioned by the State without following the statutory requirements stipulated in S.56 of the Kerala University Act and Chapter 24 of the Kerala University First Statutes. Petitioners in O.P. 13296/94 inter-alia asked for the same relief as against the Chancellor and Registrar of the Calicut University. They filed C.M.P. Nos. 22974/94 and 23272/94 respectively in their Original Petitions seeking interim direction restraining the respondents in the respective Original Petitions not to sanction any new college or grant affiliation to any new college and which did not apply in time in term? of S.56 of the Act and Chapter 24 Chapter 26 of the respective First Statutes of the Universities. On 27-9-1994, learned Single Judge issued an interim direction and directed respondents not to sanction any new college or grant affiliation to any new college which has not complied with the statutory provisions within the time fixed therein. By order dated 10-10-1994, the learned judge corrected the clerical mistake which crept in the previous order dated 27-9-1994 by substituting the words ' 31 st of May of the previous academic year for 31st December of the previous academic year'. 4. C.M.P.No.26391/94 in O.P.15032/94 was filed by the petitioners in the Original Petition for an interim stay of all proceedings relating to the grant of affiliation to colleges to be started during the academic year 1994-95. Learned Single Judge by order dated 3-11-1994 granted an interim order as prayed for by the petitioners. 4. C.M.P.No.26391/94 in O.P.15032/94 was filed by the petitioners in the Original Petition for an interim stay of all proceedings relating to the grant of affiliation to colleges to be started during the academic year 1994-95. Learned Single Judge by order dated 3-11-1994 granted an interim order as prayed for by the petitioners. Consequently, the operation of Exhibits P1 to P4 marked in the case and all further proceedings taken pursuant thereto for starting new colleges or for granting affiliation to new colleges were also stayed. 5. Respondents in the above mentioned Original Petitions moved the learned Single Judge for varying the interim orders granted by this Court. C.M.P.22974/1994 in O.P. 13051/1994 was taken up and disposed of by order dated 8-11-1994. The learned Single Judge reaffirmed the order dated 27-9-1994 as modified by the order of 10-10-1994. This order is under challenge in the Writ Appeals. 6. When the Appeals and the referred Original Petition came up for hearing, learned counsel representing the parties in the other Original Petitions submitted before us that those Original Petitions may also be called for and disposed of jointly. Accordingly, all the matters were taken up and extensive arguments advanced by counsel on either side were heard. We are disposing of all the above matters by this common judgment. 7. Questions that arise for consideration in all these matters are common. The main question that is to be considered by us is whether the action taken by the three universities, namely the Kerala University, the Mahatma Gandhi University and the Calicut University, to give affiliation to new colleges during the academic year 1994-95 is in conformity with the provisions contained in the respective University Act, First Statutes and Regulations made thereunder. 8. In order to have a full understanding of the provisions relating to the affiliation of new colleges or new courses in the existing colleges, it is worthwhile to refer to the provisions in the respective Acts under which the Universities have been constituted and those in their First Statutes and Regulations. It is common case that the statutory provisions applicable to all the three Universities are virtually identical. So, we refer to the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974, Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978. 9. It is common case that the statutory provisions applicable to all the three Universities are virtually identical. So, we refer to the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974, Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978. 9. An'affiliated college' is defined as one affiliated to the University in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the statutes and in which instruction is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, Bye-laws and Rules in so far as it relates to *he University is concerned are the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, Bye-laws and Rules made or promulgated by the authorities of the University. The 'Authorities of the University' are the Senate, the Syndicate, Academic Council, Faculties, Students' Council, Finance Committee and other bodies or boards declared by Statutes to be authorities of the University The word 'prescribed' has been defined as meaning prescribed by the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder. S.3 of the Universities Act defines 'the University'. It reads: - "The Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor if any, and the members of the Senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council, for the time being, shall constitute a body corporate by the name of the University of Kerala". University so constituted has got perpetual succession, having a common seal. It shall sue and be sued in the said name. 10. Section 23 of the Act deals with the powers of the Syndicate A states that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statute, the executive powers of the University, including general superintendence and control over the institution of the University, shall be vested in the Syndicate. The Syndicate has the power to affiliate institutions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such affiliation prescribed in the Act and the Statutes. Statute 3 of Chapter 6 of the Kerala University First Statutes deals with the powers and duties of the Syndicate Clause (xxx) of Statute 3 in Chapter 6 inter-alia states that subject to the provisions in the laws of the University, the Syndicate can dispense with compliance with the laws of the University with reference to the time of submitting applications for affiliation of colleges in subjects or courses in which no college is already affiliated or applications for starting new colleges. If the Syndicate exercises such a power to dispense with the compliance of the time schedule by passing a resolution, the matter should be reported to the Senate at its next meeting. Chapter 24 of the First Statute deals with procedure to be adopted in granting affiliation of new colleges and to new courses. Statute 1 in this Chapter fixes the date for applying for affiliation to new colleges or new courses in existing colleges. This educational agency which intends to start a new college or wants to start a new course in an existing college should forward the application to the Registrar of the University not later than the 31st of October preceding the academic year in which the courses are proposed to be started. As per this provision, if one intends to start a new college during the academic year 1994-95, application for affiliation from the University should be submitted to the Registrar on or before October 31, 1993. The application for affiliation should, in the case of Government Colleges, be filed by the Head of the Department and in the case of private colleges, by the educational agency. Statutes 6" to 9 in Chapter 24 of the First Statutes deal with the procedure to be adopted by the Syndicate on receipt of application for affiliation. All the applications seeking affiliation shall be considered by the Syndicate not later than 31st May. That is, an application filed by the educational agency before 31st October, 1993 seeking affiliation to a college should be considered by the Syndicate on or before 31st May, 1994. For the purpose of considering the application, the Syndicate may call for any further information. It may advise the educational agency that the application is premature. It may decline to proceed with the application if it is satisfied that the arrangements made or likely to be made before the beginning of the academic year in which the courses are to be started for the conduct of the courses are not sufficient or suitable. So also the Syndicate can refuse to proceed with the application if the College has failed to observe any condition laid down by the Syndicate in respect of any previous affiliation. If the Syndicate intends to proceed with the application, then it shall direct a local enquiry to be made by a competent person or persons appointed by it in that behalf. If the Syndicate intends to proceed with the application, then it shall direct a local enquiry to be made by a competent person or persons appointed by it in that behalf. Syndicate has the power to dispense with such enquiry if it considers it not necessary. But, when it dispenses with the enquiry, it has to record special reasons for the same. Thereupon after considering the report of the local enquiry, if there is any, and after making any further enquiry as the Syndicate may deem necessary, it shall decide whether the affiliation be granted or refused either in whole or in part. Before taking this final decision, it is mandatory on the part of the Syndicate to ascertain the views of the Government as to whether affiliation be granted or refused. 11. From the above provisions of the University First Statutes, it is evident that the following conditions are to be satisfied for according affiliation to a private college. The educational agency must put in an application before the Registrar of University on or before 31 st October of the previous academic year it intends to start the college. On receipt of that application, Syndicate of the University must direct a local enquiry to be made by a competent person or persons. After considering the report of the local enquiry and such other matters as they deem necessary, it has to take a decision as to whether the affiliation has to be granted or refused. This decision of the Syndicate must be after ascertaining the views of the Government on the question as to whether affiliation has to be granted or refused. Such a consideration by the Syndicate should be not later than 31 st May of the year. 12. Invoking the provisions contained in Statute 3 (xxx) of Chapter 6 of the University First Statutes, the Syndicate can relax the rigour of the time schedule fixed in Chapter 24 of the First Statute for receipt of application for affiliation, If the Syndicate exercises that power of relaxation invoking the above statutory provision, then an educational agency will be justified in submitting an application for affiliation even beyond 31st October of the preceding year. The consideration of that application even in such situation must be before 31st May, because the time for consideration of the application cannot be extended by the Syndicate. 13. The consideration of that application even in such situation must be before 31st May, because the time for consideration of the application cannot be extended by the Syndicate. 13. Section 56 of the Kerala University Act, which deals with affiliation of colleges, empowers the Chancellor to extend the period within which the Syndicate shall consider any application for affiliation by notification. Clause (1) of S.56 inter-alia states that an application for affiliation to the University of any college shall be sent by the educational agency to the Registrar within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. Clause (2) provides that the terms and conditions of affiliation of a college and the procedure to be followed by the Syndicate in granting such affiliation, including the period within which the Syndicate shall consider the application, shall be prescribed by Statute. So, if such a period for consideration of an application by the Syndicate is prescribed by the Statute, this clause makes it mandatory for the Syndicate to consider it within that time. But, that clause has a proviso. It reads: - "Provided that the Chancellor may, by notification in the Gazette, for reasons to be specified in the notification, extend the period within which the Syndicate shall consider any application under sub-section (1), whether such period has already expired or not, by such further period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in such notification". The proviso thus empowers the Chancellor to extend the period fixed in the Statute for the consideration of the application by the Syndicate. The extension so granted can be even for a period of one year. Invoking this provision if Chancellor extends the period for one year, the affiliation cannot be for the academic year applied for. This we make it clear by giving an example. An educational agency, if applies for affiliation during 1994-95, should file the application on or before October 31, 1993. That application should be considered by the Syndicate on or before May 31, 1994. If this period is extended by another one year, it means that the Syndicate need consider it on or before May 31, 1995. Such a consideration of an application by the Syndicate cannot be in relation to an affiliation for the academic year 1994-95. It can only be for 1995-96. If this period is extended by another one year, it means that the Syndicate need consider it on or before May 31, 1995. Such a consideration of an application by the Syndicate cannot be in relation to an affiliation for the academic year 1994-95. It can only be for 1995-96. This is so because academic year 1994-95 should expire by May 31,1995. So, it is to be seen whether the power exercised by the Chancellor under the proviso to Clause (2) of S.56 can be effective in relation to affiliation sought for 1994-95. When the extension of the time granted by the Chancellor will make it impossible for the college to carry on its function during the academic year 1994-95, then the extension of time will certainly be against the other statutory provisions regarding the course of study for the year 1994-95. 14. An argument has been advanced by the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the appellant in W. A. 1489/1994, and the other learned counsel representing the respondents in the Original Petitions that this Court, in exercise of the powers under Art.226 of the Constitution, is not to interfere with the decisions taken by the Syndicate and the Chancellor in academic matters. This argument may appear to be quite attractive. But under the guise of taking decision in academic matters if the specific statutory provisions of the University Act and the Statute are violated, the then this Court is not to keep its hands away and allow those violations to be continued. If this Court is to shut its eyes against the clear violation of the statutory provisions by the University or by the Chancellor who occupies the exalted position in academic matters, the consequence will be disastrous. It will result in breach of rule of law. It will undermine the basis of our democratic set up. Dealing with this aspect, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking on behalf of a Bench of three judges in J.P. Kulshrestha v Allahabad University, A.I.R 1980 SC 2141, observed: -. "The fine line of distinction between internal autonomy for educational bodies and insulation of their operations from judicial interference on the one hand and the constitutional obligation of the court to examine the legality of academic actions and correct clear injustices on the other is jurisprudentially real and the present appeal illustrates the demarcation between the two positions. "The fine line of distinction between internal autonomy for educational bodies and insulation of their operations from judicial interference on the one hand and the constitutional obligation of the court to examine the legality of academic actions and correct clear injustices on the other is jurisprudentially real and the present appeal illustrates the demarcation between the two positions. While legal shibboleths like "hand-off universities" and meticulous forensic invigilation of educational organs may both be wrong, a balanced approach of leaving universities in their internal functioning well alone to a large extent, but striking at illegalities and injustices, if committed by however high an authority, educational or other, will resolve the problem raised by counsel before us in this appeal from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Once we recognise the basic yet simple proposition that no islands of insubordination to the rule of law exist in our Republic and that discretion to disobey the mandate of the law does not belong even to university organs or other authorities, the retreat of the Court at the sight of an academic body, as has happened here, cannot be approved". We feel that the said observation, which is binding on us as per the provisions in Art.141 of the Constitution of India, is sufficient answer to the contentions raised by the learned Advocate General and the other learned counsel appearing in the case that we should keep away from the decisions taken by the Syndicate and the Chancellor. If the actions of the Syndicate are in clear violation of the statutory provisions contained in the University Act, First Statutes and Regulations, it is the duty of this Court to interfere with those illegal actions. 15. Now the question that is to be considered is whether the Syndicate of the three Universities acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Regulations in according affiliation to private institutions for the academic year 1994-95. Some of the educational agencies among those impleaded as respondents in O.P. 15032/1994, applied for affiliation during the academic year 1994-95 prior to. October 31, 1993 as fixed by the Statute. Some of those applications were enquired into by the Syndicate. They referred the matter to Government prior to 31-5-1994. B ut, the Government slept over the matter. Some of the educational agencies among those impleaded as respondents in O.P. 15032/1994, applied for affiliation during the academic year 1994-95 prior to. October 31, 1993 as fixed by the Statute. Some of those applications were enquired into by the Syndicate. They referred the matter to Government prior to 31-5-1994. B ut, the Government slept over the matter. In spite of various reminders from the Universities, no reply was given by the Government as to whether they are agreeable for giving affiliation to those institutions. 16. While the argument was in progress, we requested the learned Advocate General to make available the files of the Government which led to the issue of Ext. P1, for us to know what the three letters of the three Universities referred to therein were. Learned Advocate General, with all fairness to this Court, made available the said file to us. We are very happy to note that the learned Advocate General acted very fairly as is expected of his august office and produced the files before us. From the files now made available to us by the learned Advocate General, it is seen that the Cabinet took decisions to sanction colleges at its meetings held on 4-8-1994 and 17-8-1994. Decision No. 14 of the Cabinet, which met on 4-8-1994, was to sanction a Government Arts and Science College at Munnar in Idukki district, subject to the approval of the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. On the same day, the Cabinet took decision No. 15 to sanction 23 Arts and Science Colleges in private sector, subject to the approval of the concerned Universities having jurisdiction over the respective areas. Among the 23 colleges so sanctioned, 7 colleges were directed to be self-financing unaided recognised colleges. Decision No. 17 taken by the Cabinet at its meeting held on 17-8-1994 was in relation to sanction of 4 Arabic Colleges, subject to the approval of the Universities concerned. On the same day, by decision No. 18, the Cabinet accorded sanction for 13 unaided recognised Arts and Science Colleges. Decision No.19 taken at the meeting held on 17-8-1994 was for sanctioning 30 unaided recognised educational training colleges in the State, subject to the approval of the Universities concerned. The Cabinet in this decision has also ordered 6 to be selected by Chief Minister in consultation with Education Minister out of the 30 to be made aided colleges. Decision No.19 taken at the meeting held on 17-8-1994 was for sanctioning 30 unaided recognised educational training colleges in the State, subject to the approval of the Universities concerned. The Cabinet in this decision has also ordered 6 to be selected by Chief Minister in consultation with Education Minister out of the 30 to be made aided colleges. Pursuant to these decisions taken by the Cabinet on 4-8-1994 and 17-8-1994, to have 71 colleges started during the academic year 1994-95, letters were addressed to the Universities. It appears that approval of the Government regarding some of the colleges, which were recommended by the University, was communicated to the Universities for further action. Since Government have not finalised the terms and conditions of unaided colleges, Universities were directed to take decision on the details of the course, fees to be collected and other connected matters. Regarding the Government's intention to start the college at Munnar, Government directed the University to accord sanction. In the case of Government Colleges, as per Statute 4 of Chapter 24 of the First Statutes, application for affiliation should have been made by the Head of the Department. There is nothing on record to show that any such application was filed by the Head of the Department and the files now show that University has not sought the advise of the Government on the issue relating to the college at Munnar. The sanction accorded by the Cabinet is thus seen to be one without reference to the University. 17. A letter from a Member of Legislative Assembly addressed to the Minister for Education dated 7-7-1994 is seen at page 67 of the files. In that letter, the M.L. A. requested sanction to start a new college at Kallikkandy in Kannur district. He suggested the courses to be started in the college. Presumably on the basis of this request made by the Member, Cabinet sanctioned the college as item No.2 in decision 15 taken on 4-8-1994. This was without reference to the University. The Calicut University, within whose territorial limits the college was to be established, was "hot consulted earlier. The procedure that was adopted by the Government appears to be highly irregular and illegal. 18. Immediately after the Cabinet's decision referred to earlier, Government sent Ext. P1 communication, i.e. No.7531/B3/94/H.Edn. dated 26-9-1994, to the Registrars of the three Universities. Para. The Calicut University, within whose territorial limits the college was to be established, was "hot consulted earlier. The procedure that was adopted by the Government appears to be highly irregular and illegal. 18. Immediately after the Cabinet's decision referred to earlier, Government sent Ext. P1 communication, i.e. No.7531/B3/94/H.Edn. dated 26-9-1994, to the Registrars of the three Universities. Para. 3 of that communication is in the following terms: - "Taking all these into account, Government approve private aided and unaided colleges as appended in the lists "A' &'' B' respectively. Details regarding fee structure and other terms and conditions of service in the unaided colleges to be started may be fixed by the Universities concerned under intimation to Government. However Government desire that guidelines on the fees, terms and conditions enclosed may be taken into consideration by the University so as to ensure that the welfare of students and teachers is properly safeguarded". All colleges mentioned in lists 'A' and 'B' referred to (herein are not shown to have been recommended by the Universities. 19. When the Cabinet took decision to grant 71 colleges, many of the educational agencies, who got the benefit of that decision, had not put in applications before the University. In order to get over that difficulty, it appears that the Syndicate of the Mahatma Gandhi University took a decision at its meeting held on 4th October, 1994 authorising the Vice-Chancellor to receive late applications for affiliation by condoning the delay. The Syndicate of the Kerala University at its meeting held on 19-9-1994 decided to accept applications for starting new colleges during 1994-95 in exercise of the power under Statute 3(xxx) of Chapter 6 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977. According to the Vice-Chancellor of the Calicut University, the Syndicate of that University at its meeting held on 25-6-1994 authorised him to receive late applications by condoning the delay Thereafter the Universities approached the Chancellor to extend the time for consideration of the late applications by invoking the provisions contained in S.56 of the Calicut University Act and Kerala University Act and S.58 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. The Chancellor then issued notifications, Exts. P2 to P4 marked in O.P. 15032/1994. The Chancellor then issued notifications, Exts. P2 to P4 marked in O.P. 15032/1994. Among the reasons recorded in those notifications for extending the time for consideration of the applications by the Syndicate, it has been stated: - "AND WHEREAS the University has to send Inspection Commission for local enquiry on the facilities provided for the starting of new colleges and has also to ascertain the views of the Government before granting affiliation to new colleges". The period has been extended till October 18,1994 for Mahatma Gandhi University, till October 5, 1994 for Calicut University and till October 31,1994 in the case of Kerala University. These notifications issued by the Chancellor would make it abundantly clear that they were issued only for giving effect to the decision taken by the Cabinet at its meeting held long prior to the date of these notifications. Government decided to sanction 71 colleges during the academic year 1994-95. In order to give effect to that decision, Universities and the Chancellor have taken steps to enlarge the time fixed by Statutes invoking the provisions contained in Statute 3(xxx) of Chapter 6 of the University First Statutes and S.56 (Section 58 in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University) of the Act. By no stretch of imagination can this action of the Syndicate and the Chancellor be treated as one in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. Consultation with the Government by the University to ascertain their views as to whether affiliation has to be granted or not, should have been preceded by application to the University and consideration Of that application by the Syndicate. Instead of following the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Statute, what has been done in the instant case is, Government took decision to start 71 colleges and directed the Universities to take steps to accord sanction to those institutions. Such a procedure is clearly violative of the statutory provisions. The action of the Government is like putting the cart before the horse. We find it very difficult to persuade ourselves to agree with this action. 20. Registrar of the University of Calicut has sworn to a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 9,10 and 11 in O.P. 15032/1994. Such a procedure is clearly violative of the statutory provisions. The action of the Government is like putting the cart before the horse. We find it very difficult to persuade ourselves to agree with this action. 20. Registrar of the University of Calicut has sworn to a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 9,10 and 11 in O.P. 15032/1994. After dealing with the extension of time granted by the Syndicate for receiving the application and the notification of the Chancellor extending the time within which the Syndicate is to consider the application counter proceeded to state: - "So also the applications received after the due date have been processed and considered within the extended period as per Ext. P3 notification and forwarded the same to the Government to ascertain its views and affiliation in all cases have been granted by the Syndicate of Calicut University after due process and local enquiry and therefore the allegation that affiliation was granted by the University on the basis of Ext. P1 letter is totally incorrect....". From this, it appears that the Syndicate forwarded the applications to the Government to ascertain its views and only thereafter the Syndicate processed the applications and conducted the local enquiry. This is in clear violation of the provisions of the First Statute relating to the process of the applications for affiliation. The above averment would go to show that the Syndicate of the University of Calicut virtually abdicated all its functions. The Syndicate was acting at the dictates of the Government. This was not what was expected of the Syndicate, the supreme administrative body of the so-called autonomous University. 21. Along with the counter affidavit, documents showing the grant of provisional affiliation to various institutions have been produced as Exhibits R9(e) and R9(f). Various institutions which are given provisional affiliation as per these documents are not having even the basic requirements for starting the college. A large number of institutions, which are given provisional affiliation, are directed to provide permanent buildings, make arrangements in the present buildings to suit the requirements of various offices and for teaching, procure books, provide necessary furniture, Laboratory equipments, Library books, electronic equipments and so on. Even institutions which are given provisional affiliation and are to provide instruction on electronics, are not having the required electronic equipments like T.V. set, V.C.R.,V.C.P., etc. Even institutions which are given provisional affiliation and are to provide instruction on electronics, are not having the required electronic equipments like T.V. set, V.C.R.,V.C.P., etc. Exhibits R9(e) and R9(f) show that provisional affiliation was given to the institutions as a matter of course without making any enquiry as to whether these institutions are in a position to guide the students in the various courses to which instruction is to be imparted. The University, which should have taken care to improve the standard of education, should not have granted provisional affiliation to institutions which do not have the barest minimum requirements even. 22. Section 3 of the respective University Acts constitute the Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor if any, and the members of the Senate, Syndicate and the Academic Council as a body corporate, known as the University of Kerala, Mahatma Gandhi University or the University of Calicut as the case may be, So, for constituting the University, members of the Academic Council are essential. In the case of Mahatma Gandhi University, it is conceded before us by their counsel Mr. Isaac M. Perumpillil that at no point of time had the Mahatma Gandhi University an Academic Council. So, we are having genuine doubt as to whether the Mahatma Gandhi University has been properly constituted as provided by the Act. It is the Academic Council which is to advise the Senate and Syndicate on all academic matters. It is that body to make Regulations and to prescribe course of studies in the institutions affiliated to the University. It is that body which is to prescribe qualifications of teachers. The Academic Council is, as per the Act, to prescribe the qualifications for admission of students to various courses. It should make provision for admission of students as well. Such a body, it is rather unfortunate to note, has not been constituted in so far as the Mahatma Gandhi University is concerned. Without such a body, the academic excellence, which is claimed to have been maintained by the University, is to be guessed and not to be realised. We leave the question there because it is not necessary for the disposal of these cases to pursue the matter further. 23. Counsel representing some of the respondents in O.P. 15032/1994 submitted that the colleges applied for by their clients are having courses other than the conventional degree courses. They are job oriented vocationalised courses. We leave the question there because it is not necessary for the disposal of these cases to pursue the matter further. 23. Counsel representing some of the respondents in O.P. 15032/1994 submitted that the colleges applied for by their clients are having courses other than the conventional degree courses. They are job oriented vocationalised courses. They are to follow semester system. In the case of semester system, the provisions of the Ordinance relating to academic year and term are not applicable. So, no harm will be done to the students or the teachers if the course is allowed to be started. In support of this, the Regulation promulgated by the Mahatma Gandhi University was relied on. As per the Act, Regulations are to be promulgated by the Academic Council. University, which has no Academic Council, has now come forward with a new Regulation. The Regulation, which has been brought into existence by someone which'is not an Academic Council under the Act, cannot be relied on for contending that the said course is not governed by the First Ordinance. 24. Academic year, as per the First Statute, means a period of twelve months commencing from 1st day of June of the year. Each University has got its First Ordinances. The Ordinance inter-alia fixes academic year and terms. Academic year, as per the Ordinance, begins on the 1 st of June every year and ends on 31 st of March every year. Academic year should consist of three terms. The first term is from June to September, closing with Onam holidays. Second term begins on re-opening after Onam holidays to the commencement of Christmas holidays. The third term is from January to March and the term ends by closing the institution with the long vacation. Long vacation is the period between the end of the third term and the beginning of the first term of the next academic year. An academic year should have not less than 180 working days of five hours duration. From these provisions, it is evident that an academic year must be spread over three terms and must have a total number of 180 working days of five hours duration. This is provided for maintaining excellence in education. An academic year should have not less than 180 working days of five hours duration. From these provisions, it is evident that an academic year must be spread over three terms and must have a total number of 180 working days of five hours duration. This is provided for maintaining excellence in education. An argument was advanced before us that eventhough there will be less than 180 working days during the year 1994-95, the course can be completed by directing the institutions to work seven hours a day and six days a week. So, even if the academic year is not spread over three terms, the number of working days will be satisfied. It is further contended that even in colleges where the academic year started on June 1, 1994, large number of working days have been lost on account of student agitations and other similar causes. So, the 180 working days prescribed by the Ordinance are not available to such institutions also. Therefore this Court should not insist on the above time schedule. We find it difficult to accept this argument. Students and teachers are not to work like daily labourers for seven hours a day and six days a week. Students who get coaching must have sufficient time to assimilate those matters which are taught. If the teachers are asked to deliver lectures as suggested by counsel, we are clear in our mind that it will not in any way go to help the students or advance excellence of education. The work of the teacher in such a situation will be worse than the manual labour carried out by daily labourers. We are not, therefore, inclined to accept the said argument and hold that measures now taken by the University and the Government will in any way go to help the student community. 25. We posed to ourselves the question as to who are the beneficiaries of this exercise taken by the Universities and the Government. The Universities can never be taken to be benefited by the starting of these colleges sanctioned by the Government during the academic year 1994-95. Universities are supposed to stand for improving the standard of education. Their actions must be to achieve excellence in academics. We are very clear in our mind that the present actions of the Universities will not in any way improve the standard of education in Kerala. Universities are supposed to stand for improving the standard of education. Their actions must be to achieve excellence in academics. We are very clear in our mind that the present actions of the Universities will not in any way improve the standard of education in Kerala. We are also of the view that Government is not benefited by this decision. In the case of aided institutions, public money has to be spent. In the case of unaided institutions, higher fee is allowed to be levied by the educational agency. So, Government do not stand to gain by the sanctioning this 71 colleges. Nor can we say that the students will be benefited. If they are taught for seven hours a day and six days a week, it can certainly be taken that they will not be benefited. Same is the case with the teachers. Teachers will have to work like daily labourers engaged in the agricultural operations or in loading and unloading work. That cannot in any way be beneficial to them or advantageous to them. In such circumstances, we are at a loss to understand why these hasty steps for starting these colleges during the academic year 1994-95. On an appreciation of the entire gamut,which led to the impugned actions of the Government and Universities, and on hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on either side, we are tempted to hold that the Universities have adopted the principle of "show me the man,! will show you the law" (Vide Dr. A. Franklin Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., J.T. 1994 (2) SC 103). From what has been stated above, we are clear in our mind that no new college can be given affiliation for starting any course of instruction during the academic year 1994-95, because the first term and more than half of the second term have expired. In this view, we find no merit in the Writ Appeals 1475/1994, 1486/1994 and 1489/ 1994. Writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. For the same reason, O.P.Nos.13051/ 1994,15032/1994 and 15227/1994 have to be allowed. In these original Petitions, the three Universities within the State are directed not to grant any affiliation to any new college or course, for academic year 1994-95. Petitioners in O.P.Nos.13296/1994,13323/1994,13965/1994 and 14501/1994 are persons who applied for affiliation to new colleges during the academic year 1994-95. For the same reason, O.P.Nos.13051/ 1994,15032/1994 and 15227/1994 have to be allowed. In these original Petitions, the three Universities within the State are directed not to grant any affiliation to any new college or course, for academic year 1994-95. Petitioners in O.P.Nos.13296/1994,13323/1994,13965/1994 and 14501/1994 are persons who applied for affiliation to new colleges during the academic year 1994-95. It is their specific case that they had put in their applications in time and Universities addressed the Government to ascertain their views in the matter. The affiliation has not so far been given. So, they seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus. No writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued by this Court directing the Universities to accord sanction to start an educational institution. This is more so in respect of academic year 1994-95, because virtually more than half of the academic year has expired. In the circumstance, petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. These Original Petitions are dismissed.