Judgment 1. Heard Dr. Sada Nand Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the intervener petitioners, Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel for Lalit Narayan Mithiia University and Mr. M.M.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Dental Council of India. 2. The writ petitioner and the intervener petitioners by this writ application have approached this Court for issuance of a direction upon the respondent- University to hold all due examinations of the students of petitioner-college and to publish results thereof and also for recall of the notification dated 3.5.2001 as contained in Annexure-18. 3. The prayers made on behalf of the petitioners virtually, is based upon the directions issued by this Court from time to time and particularly in view of the order/direction of this Court as contained in Annexure-17 to the writ application whereby and whereunder respondent- University and its authorities were directed to conduct all pending examinations and to publish all pending results of the students. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the direction of this Court as contained in Annexure- 17 some examinations were held and some were kept pending as a result of which examinations schedule could not be completed nor the results have been published. The grievance of the petitioners, now, is that the authorities should have acted pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court as contained in Annexure-17 and the University authorities were bound by the direction of this Court and the examinations of the students of the institution could have been held in time and results could have been published. 5. From Annexure-17 it would appear that this Court directed the University authorities to publish the results of concerned B.D.S. examination and also to hold examinations of the students of the institution in question in accordance with law and a further direction was also issued to the University to publish the schedule of examination at an early date so that the due and pending examinations for B.D.S. course may be held at an early date preferably within three months from the date of production/communication of a copy of the order before the Registrar. This order as contained in Annexure-17 was passed by this Court on 10-5-2000. It would further appear from Annexure 17 that during the pendency of C.W.J.C. nos. 10568/99 and C.W.J.C. no. This order as contained in Annexure-17 was passed by this Court on 10-5-2000. It would further appear from Annexure 17 that during the pendency of C.W.J.C. nos. 10568/99 and C.W.J.C. no. 1767 of 2000 this Court had issued similar directions which were finally issued while disposing of the writ applications on 10-5-2000. It appears that despite several directions of this Court the University authorities have cared not to comply the same and the same necessitated the petitioners to approach this Court again for the same self relief. 6. The stand of the University and also the Dental Council of India in this case is similar to the stand taken by them in the earlier writ petitions disposed of by the order as contained in Annexure-17. 7. Manifold arguments have been made by learned counsel for the parties in support of the writ appiication and in opposition thereto. On one hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that question of recognition/affiliation of the college is subjudice before a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 2194 of 1996 and order for maintenance of status quo is continuing till date. Emphasis has been made on the earlier directions of the Apex Court issued in Civil Appeal No. 2194 of 1996 and pursuant thereto, writ applications are being filed one after another in this Court for the same self relief. 8. The stand of the parties, however, have already been noticed by this Court while disposing of a batch of writ application and M.J.C. applications vide order as contained in Annexure-17 and this Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the students of the college in question should not suffer for the laches of the authorities and accordingly issued directions as referred to above. Prima facie, it appears to me that the direction issued by this Court as contained in Annexure-17 has not been carried out and, therefore, the writ petitioner and the intervenor petitioners have again renewed their prayer before this Court. It further appears that during the pendency of the Civil Appeal aforesaid in the Apex Court, directions have been issued by this Court from time to time as contained in Annexure-17 and 22 to the writ application. This Court while disposing of the two writ applications viz. C.W.J.C. nos. It further appears that during the pendency of the Civil Appeal aforesaid in the Apex Court, directions have been issued by this Court from time to time as contained in Annexure-17 and 22 to the writ application. This Court while disposing of the two writ applications viz. C.W.J.C. nos. 3606 and 3607 of 2001, in the identical circumstances, directed the authorities to hold pending examination and to publish results without any delay and before parting with the order, observed: Before concluding the order, it may be recorded that in these two writ petitions as well this court had demanded an undertaking from the petitioners exactly in the same terms as given before the Supreme Court. Following the order, dated 21.3.2001 an undertaking was given by the petitioners on affidavit stating that they were fully aware and they fully realised that their admission to the college was provisional and subject to the final result of the appeal of the college pending before the Supreme Court. This order and directions contained herein are, therefore, are naturally provisional. This order will not confer any equities on the petitioners and their rights will abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 2194 of 1996. 9. It would be manifest to mention here that orders passed by this Court as contained in Annexure-22 was upheld by this Court in L.P.A. nos. 630 and 633 of 2001. 10. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court I need not reiterate the facts and the pleas of the parties as already noticed by this Court from time to time and having faced with a situation where several orders were passed by this Court as referred to above and the matter being subjudice in the Apex Court, I have no option but to direct the University authorities to hold all pending examinations of the students who had taken admission in the college concerned when the college had valid affiliation/recognition under the statute and publish their results forthwith as already directed by this Court as noticed above and it is accordingly directed. 11. So far the notification as contained in Annexure-18 is concerned, it appears that the Stage Government has issued this notification saying that approval of the Chancellor vide letter dated 19-4-86 was never approved by the Government of Bihar rather vide order dated 30-1-93 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. 11. So far the notification as contained in Annexure-18 is concerned, it appears that the Stage Government has issued this notification saying that approval of the Chancellor vide letter dated 19-4-86 was never approved by the Government of Bihar rather vide order dated 30-1-93 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. Department of Health, medical education and family welfare, Government of Bihar reiterated refusal of approval and refused to grant recognition to Sarjug Dental College, Darbhanga. Since the matter substantially is subjudice in the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 2194 of 1996 in my opinion, no interference is required with regard to the notification as contained in Annexure 18 by this Court. 12. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this application is disposed of but without costs. 13. Before parting with this order, I would like to observe that this order should not be interpreted as a direction for holding examinations of the students who have taken admission in the college in question after its derecognition/disapproval/by the competent autnorities.