Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This L. P. A. has been filed by the Magadh University, and is authorities impugning the judgment dated 20th May, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in c. W. J. C. No.10734 of 1995. By the said judgment, the Learned single Judge directed the University authorities to allow the students of respondent No.1 to appear in the examination of B. Ed. provided forms of the students are duly forwarded by the authorities of respondent No.1 and their fees are duly paid. 2. By an interim order issued in this appeal filed at the instance of the university the operation of the impugned order has been stayed. 3. The Learned Judge while delivering the said judgment relied on the fact that the State Government has granted temporary recognition in B. Ed. Course to respondent No.1 for the Sessions 1987-88 to 1994-95. Therefore, relying on the said fact the Learned judge came to the conclusion that the students of the said institution are eligible to appear in the B. Ed. Examination conducted by the said university since the college is situated in a place which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the said University. The learned Judge further states that previously also under the orders of the court students of respondent No.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the Magadh University and at that point of time no recognition was granted. Now a temporary recognition has been granted and the students have attended their Classes and paid their fees. On these facts the Learned Single Judge held that it becomes incumbent upon the respondent-University to allow the students to appear in the examination. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the said judgment primarily contended that the said University is not bound to allow the students of a college to appear in the B. Ed. Examination held by it unless the college is an affiliated unit of the University. Apart from that Learned Counsel further submitted that the temporary recognition of respondent No.1 given by the State government is not a valid recognition in the eye of law and in any event the said recognition does not bind the university. Examination held by it unless the college is an affiliated unit of the University. Apart from that Learned Counsel further submitted that the temporary recognition of respondent No.1 given by the State government is not a valid recognition in the eye of law and in any event the said recognition does not bind the university. Previously, the students of the said college were allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the said University under the orders of the court and the said orders were not challenged by the University authorities. Therefore, by allowing the students of respondent No. ] to appear in the examination conducted by the said university under orders of the Court the University authorities have not conceded anything. It has been further contended that the University is not in any way estopped in law from refusing the students of respondent No.1 which is not affiliated with the University, to appear in the examination conducted by it. 5. One of the grounds taken by the said University before this Court was that the respondent-institution which purports to be a teachers training institute is completely a non-existent institute in the eye of law. The same institute does not function properly as a valid educational institute. 6. As the aforesaid stand was taken by the Learned Counsel before this court, a Division Bench of this court by an order dated 9th August, 19% deputed an officer of the Court to inspect the institute in question and report whether a genuine institution exists or not. Pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench, an inspection took place of the said institute on the next day, i. e.10th August, 19%. 7. From a perusal of the notes of inspection, copy of which was made available to the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, it appears that the respondent No.1 was allegedly established on the basis of the resolution in a public meeting of the local people held on 25th June, 1985, and subsequently, admission of the students for the Sessions 1985-86 started. In so far as the building strength of the institution is concerned, the report shows a dismal picture. 8. In so far as the building strength of the institution is concerned, the report shows a dismal picture. 8. From the report it appears that out of four rooms of the building of the said training college, one is meant for office of the Secretary, one is made the office of the Principal and third room, which is kept under lock and key and was not opened for inspection, was supposed to be the library, and the fourth room was used as the residence of one ram Narain Singh, secretary who was living there with his family. There was also a thatched small building consisting of two small rooms and one narrow room which was also claimed to belong to the college. It was found on inspection that in the narrow room straw was stored. From the report it appears that a claim was made that another building was taken over by the College, but on enquiry by the officer it was found that the inmates of the said building stated that they were the tenants of the landlord and the same is a purely residential building. The Inspecting Officer was introduced with two persons who claimed as students of the said institution. It has also been stated in the report that even though the inspection was taken-up at 10.30 A. M. , but nobody turned-up either on behalf of the staff of the said College or on behalf of the students. The inspecting officer stayed there till 3 P. M. 9. The picture which emerges from the inspection report and which was not factually controverted shows that the institute cannot claim that it can validly run as an educational institution where the students are taught by the teachers. It may be that the said institution functions only on paper and there are some records to show that the students are appearing from the said College. The records of respondent No.1 show that some teachers were appointed, and some students have been enrolled but in fact the respondent No.1 cannot lay any claim that it is bonafide running as an education institute. Any reasonable person after going through the said report will come to the conclusion that the said institute (the respondent No.1) is a fake one. 10. Any reasonable person after going through the said report will come to the conclusion that the said institute (the respondent No.1) is a fake one. 10. The Learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the state submits that previously another writ-petition was filed (C. W. J. C. No.4720 of 1994) by respondent No.1 impugning an order dated 29th September, 1993, issued by the Additional secretary, Government of Bihar, rejecting the application of respondent No.1 for grant of recognition. That writ-petition was disposed of by an order dated-13th September, 1994 by a Division bench of this Court. In that writ-petition it was urged before this Hon ble high Court that the said order was passed by the authorities without affording an opportunity of hearing to the said institute, namely, respondent No.1. On such a case being made out, the learned Judges of the Division Bench directed respondent No.1 to appear before the Director, Research and training Institute with a copy of the judgment of this Hon ble High Court on or before 9th September, 1994, and the director was to hear the petitioner on the same day or fix suitable date for hearing and shall then pass order in accordance with law. It is also made clear that final order in the matter be passed by 30th November, 1994. 11. After the said order was passed, the matter was considered by the State government and temporary recognition was granted in the year, 1994 for the sessions 1987-88, 1988-89 and for the sessions 1994-95. 12. The Learned Advocate-General, however, submitted that the said temporary recognition was granted under the provisions of the Act. The said Act is called as "bihar ARAJ-KIYE SHARIRIK PRASHIKSHAN mahavidayalaya TATHA ARAJ-KIYE SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN mahavidayalaya AWAM ARAJ-KIYE PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SIK-SHA MAHAVIDYALAYA (NIYANTRAN AWAM BINIYAMAN)ADHINIYAM-1982 BIHAR AD-HINIYAM-29,1982. " Under Sec.5 of the Act there is rule-making power. 13 Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State Government says that the said 1992 Act does not contain any provision for recognition. Section 2 (ka) of 1982 Act merely provides that without prior permission of the State government no college can be established, managed or administered. Relying on that section. " Under Sec.5 of the Act there is rule-making power. 13 Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State Government says that the said 1992 Act does not contain any provision for recognition. Section 2 (ka) of 1982 Act merely provides that without prior permission of the State government no college can be established, managed or administered. Relying on that section. The Learned advocate-General submitted that under the said provisions of the said Act of 1982 there is no scope for grant of recognition with retrospective effect as has been done by the State Government in its order dated 16-12-1994, on the basis of which the Learned single Judge has passed the order under appeal. The learned Advocate-General also submitted that such grant of so-called recognition by the State Government by its order dated 16-12-1994 is ultra vires the provisions contained in 1982 Act. 14. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has also placed its case on 1982 Act. Placing reliance on the said Act, Learned Counsel submitted that once recognition has been granted under the said Act, no affiliation is required to be taken by respondent No.1 from the appellant-University. The Appellant-University is merely an examining centre. Since the appellant-University has territorial jurisdiction over respondent No.1, the appellant-University ought to allow the students of respondent No.1 to appear in the B. Ed. examination of the appellant-University. Learned Counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 is not coming within the meaning of a college as defined under Sec.2 (f) of the bihar State Universities Act, 1976, nor it comes within the meaning of an education Institution under Section 2 (k)of the Act 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that respondent No.1 is not an affiliated college within the meaning of section 2 (c) of 1976 Act nor the said institution has received any recognition of the University within the meaning of section 2 (a) and (g) of the 1976act. 16. In that view of the matter, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the said institute, not being an affiliated college to the said university, its student cannot be allowed to appear from the appellant-University appears to be the correct position in law. 17. On a consideration of the rival contentions advanced by the parties, this Court is of the view that 1982 Act merely gives permission to establish the said institute. 17. On a consideration of the rival contentions advanced by the parties, this Court is of the view that 1982 Act merely gives permission to establish the said institute. Without such permission, no institute can be established. But the institute merely armed with such per-mission cannot demand that its student must appear in the examination conducted by the University to which it is not affiliated. This Court is unable to accept the said contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. It further appears from section 14 (19) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 that it lies within the domain of the university to affiliate or dis-affiliate a college according to statute subject to the prior approval of the State Government. 18. Here it is nobodys case that the said institute ever got affiliation with the said University. As such, the said institute cannot ask for any mandamus from this Court calling upon the appellant-University to allow its student to appear in the examination conducted by the appellant-University. 19. Some submissions have also been made on the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education act, 1993, which is a Central Act. The said Act has come into operation with effect from 1st day of July, 1995. Therefore, at the relevant point of time when the order dated 16-12-1994 was issued by the State Government purporting to grant the so-called recognition to respondent No.1 the said Central Act was not in operation, and as such, the provisions of the Central Act will not apply. Apart from that, the provisions of recognition under the Central Act are quite different and no such recognition under the Central Act has been obtained by respondent No.1. 20. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order dated 16th December, 1984, cannot be called strictly speaking an order of recognition of the said institute. The said order is merely a permission under 1982 Act for the establishment of the said institute. This court is further of the view that the submission of the Learned Advocate-General is correct that the order dated 16th December, 1984, purporting to grant the so-called recognition to respondent No.1 with retrospective effect is ultra vires the Act. Such order is not authorised under the 1982 Act. This court is further of the view that the submission of the Learned Advocate-General is correct that the order dated 16th December, 1984, purporting to grant the so-called recognition to respondent No.1 with retrospective effect is ultra vires the Act. Such order is not authorised under the 1982 Act. In any event, on the strength of the said order, respondent No.1, not being an affiliated institute with the appellant-University, cannot ask this Court to issue a direction on the appellant-University to allow its students to appear in the examination conducted by the appellant-University. This aspect of the matter, namely, statutory provisions of 1982 Act, and 1976 Act unfortunately has not been considered by the Learned single Judge while passing the order under appeal. 21. This Court also cannot shut its eye to the report submitted by an officer of this Court in the course of this proceeding. The report, which has been referred to previously, shows that in the name of advancing the cause of education the authorities of respondent No.1 are doing what has been categorically frowned upon by the Apex Court in various judgments. The respondent No.1 is an instance of such mushroom growth of educational institutions without having the necessary infrastructure and the minimum facilities for teaching. Such institutions in most of the cases after some how obtaining the so-called temporary recognition from the State Government, approach this Hon ble court for a mandamus upon the university to allow its students appear in the examination. This possibly explains why the educational scenario in this State of Bihar is so gloomy. 22. The respondent No.1 is one such ill housed, ill-staffed and ill-I equipped institution as observed by chinnappa Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then was) in N. M. Nageshwaramma V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1986 (2) S. C. C. page 166. 23. So the direction given by the learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal cannot be upheld. In this, connection the observations in judgment of the Apex Court in A. P. Chris-tians Medical Education Society V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 1986 (2) S. C. C.667 i, at page 673 are very pertinent and quoted below: "we cannot by our fiat direct the university to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws. " 24. The writ jurisdiction is primarily meant to be exercised for advancement of fairness, honestly and just causes (See in the case of Shangrua food Products Ltd and another V/s. Life insurance Corporation of India and another, reported in 1996 (5) Supreme court Cases 54. Therefore, in the facts of this case, the Learned single Judge erred in law by allowing the writ-peti-tion. 25. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed, and the judgment passed by the Learned single Judge is set aside. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.