L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions, the question of granting equivalence to the course known as Uttara madhyama conducted by the Board of Adult education and Training is involved. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 15506 of 2002 viz. , Board of Adult Education and training (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Board), claims that it has been established with a view to promote education, particularly, to cater the needs of the drop outs, etc. It claims to be having branches all over India and alleges that the course of Uttara Madhyama has been treated as equivalent to 10 + 2 course by various agencies and Universities and another course Uchacha Madhyama is treated as equivalent to Secondary Certificate. It alleges that the Board of Intermediate education, Osmania University and several other Universities have issued certificates from time to time treating the Uttara madhyama course imparted by it as equivalent to two years intermediate course, conducted by the Board of Intermediate education. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 15563 and 16007 of 2002 by name City Educational society and KLR Educational Society respectively are said to be the institutions imparting these courses. In all other writ petitions, the students who are alleged to have undergone the said courses and issued the certificates by the petitioner-Board, figured as petitioners. The individual petitioners (students) claim that they have sought for admission in several courses having obtained the Uttara Madhyama certificate. It is their case that on the ground that the Board of Intermediate Education has not issued the certificates of equivalence, their cases are not being considered for admission. While the relief claimed by the individual students is personal to them, the relief claimed by the petitioner-Board and the two institutions referred to above is general in nature. ( 3 ) THE Board of Intermediate education filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is their case that in the year 1996, a certificate of Equivalence of Uttara madhyama examination was issued by it as regards the Commerce Group, on the basis of a resolution passed by the Evaluation committee. It is stated that the subsequent certificates said to have been issued during the years 2001-02 by one Mr. It is their case that in the year 1996, a certificate of Equivalence of Uttara madhyama examination was issued by it as regards the Commerce Group, on the basis of a resolution passed by the Evaluation committee. It is stated that the subsequent certificates said to have been issued during the years 2001-02 by one Mr. A. S. Ramachandra Murthy, an official of the board of Intermediate Education, was not on the basis of any evaluation. It is further stated that on verification from the central Government, they have received communication dated 4-5-2002 from the director of School Education Branch. Ministry of Human Resources, New Delhi, to the effect that the petitioner-Board is not a recognised one and that it is a fake agency. It was further stated that the government of India has given public notice in January, 1999 clarifying the position and still the petitioner-Board is going on misrepresenting the people. It is also stated that after receiving the information from the Central Government, the Board of Intermediate Education has got notification published in various leading News Papers in the State to the effect that the petitioner-Board and the certificates issued by it are fake and are not recognised. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the certificates issued by the petitioner-Board were reco gnised by the Board of Intermediate Education as late as in January 2002, by the Osmania university in 2001, Potti Srinimulu Telugu university and B. R. Ambedkar Open university in 2002, apart from other institutions in the State. They also placed before this Court the judgment of the principal Bench of the Central Administrative tribunal, New Delhi, in OA. Nos. 2564/90 and batch dated 22-2-1994 as well as the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Paramjit Kaur Dahela v. State of punjab, AIR 1997 Pandh 84. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, on the other hand, submits that under the Intermediate education Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder, the Board is conferred with the powers of recognising the courses conducted by other educational institutions as well as granting equivalence to certain other courses. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, on the other hand, submits that under the Intermediate education Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder, the Board is conferred with the powers of recognising the courses conducted by other educational institutions as well as granting equivalence to certain other courses. He submits that the stray letters issued to few individuals declaring uttara Madhyama courses equivalent to intermediate cannot be treated as a general decision and such letters do not confer any right on the petitioners to seek equivalence as of right. ( 6 ) THE petitioner-Board claims to be imparting education and conducting courses by name Uttara Madhyama and Uchacha madhyama. Even on persistent queries, it is not able to place before the Court, the nature of its origin, it is not able to satisfy that it was conferred any status of an education institution or was accorded recognition, by the Central or the State agencies. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Board of Intermediate Education, it was categorically stated that the Government of india, Ministry of Human Resources, has informed it stating that the so-called Board of Adult Education and Training is a bogus agency and it was not recognised by any competent authority. No reply affidavit is filed contradicting this statement. In the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi, relied upon by the petitioners, a letter dated 18-8-1989 and Official Memorandum dated 1-6-1989 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources are extracted. The same read as under:"the undersigned is directed to say that it has come to the notice of the Government of india, Ministry of Human Resource development (Department of Education), new Delhi and a few other ministries and departments of Government of India that a society registered under the Societies registration Act at Delhi by the name of the board of Adult Education and Training (Prodh Shiksha Sansthan), New Delhi, 110903, are styling themselves as recognised board for conducting the Uchhatar madhyamik Examination (Matriculation standard Examination) and are awarding certificates equivalent to class X of the secondary Board of Education, Delhi. Several thousand innocent and ignorant young men have been allured by the said bogus Board who have taken examination of the said Board and have been awarded certificates stated to be equivalent to class X of Delhi Board of Secondary Examination. Several thousand innocent and ignorant young men have been allured by the said bogus Board who have taken examination of the said Board and have been awarded certificates stated to be equivalent to class X of Delhi Board of Secondary Examination. In several cases, the ministries/departments of Government of India and their subordinate offices and public undertakings have provided jobs to several candidates on the basis of the certificates issued by the so called Board of Adult Education and training. 2. It is brought to the notice of all the ministries and departments of Government of India that the said Board and the certificates issued by it are not recognised for any purposes whatsoever either by the Ministry of Human Resource development (Department of Education) and delhi Administration. The ministries and departments of Government of India are. therefore, advised not to give any cognizance/ recognition to the certificates issued by the said board for purposes of initial appointment in the Government of India and for further promotion of the candidates holding certificates of the Board. All the Ministsies/ departments of Government of India may kindly bright the contents of this office memorandum to the notice of their subordinate offices and public undertakings for information and compliance. p. M. dated 1-6-1989 the undersigned is directed to refer to your O. M. No. A-12022/7/89-Estt. II, dated 29-5-1989 on the above subject and to say that the Board of Adult Education and training is not a recognised institution and its certificates are not recognised for the purpose of employment under the Central government. "it is not the case of the petitioner-Board that subsequent to these letters, they were conferred with any recognition. It was rather sad that the petitioner-Board and its branches were permitted to continue to lure the students to obtain certificates. ( 7 ) THE Board of Intermediate education, Osmania University and various other Universities have issued various letters equating the certificates issued by the petitioner-Board to 10 + 2 examinations. It is not known as to whether such equation was undertaken after ascertaining the origin of the petitioner-Board or the course contents of the same. But for these certificates, there would not have been occasion for the individual students, who figured as petitioners before this Court, to be lured to undergo the course in question. It is not known as to whether such equation was undertaken after ascertaining the origin of the petitioner-Board or the course contents of the same. But for these certificates, there would not have been occasion for the individual students, who figured as petitioners before this Court, to be lured to undergo the course in question. ( 8 ) IN University of Delhi v. Ram nath, AIR 1963 SC 1873 , the Supreme court held that education, in its true aspect, is more a mission and a vocation rather than a profession or trade or business, however wide may be the connotation of the words profession, trade or business. This view was reaffirmed in various subsequent decisions including the one in unni Kris/man v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 (1) SCC 645 . ( 9 ) THE A. P. Education Act regulates the regular education institutions as well as the tutorial institutes. The Intermediate course, which is 10+2 in the State is governed by the provisions of A. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971. The board, which is constituted under the intermediate Education Act, is conferred with the power of regulating the courses by undertaking recognition of colleges, prescribing the contents of the courses, conducting the examinations, etc. As a collateral activity, it is conferred with the power of recognising equivalences as is evident from the rules framed under the act and published in G. O. Ms. No. 539 dated 9-4-1975. A separate agency by name evaluation Committee is constituted for this purpose. ( 10 ) THE facts referred to above clearly indicate that despite the notifications issued by the Government of India, the petitioner- board continued its activities. It has virtually converted the education into a trade and has exploited the students, particularly, those who are not in a position to get themselves admitted into the regular institutions. Unfortunately, not only the vulnerable sections, but even the statutory agencies, like the Board of Intermediate Education and the various Universities, became the prey to the petitioner-Board. All these agencies appear to have been guided by the name of the petitioner-Board, which has assumed to itself, and they do not appear to have verified its origin and contents of the course, etc. But for the certificates issued from time to time, the individual students would not have been encouraged or persuaded to take the course of Uttara madhyama. But for the certificates issued from time to time, the individual students would not have been encouraged or persuaded to take the course of Uttara madhyama. One important development which has taken place recently is that the board of Intermediate Education has verified the matter from the Central Government and having realised that the petitioner-Board is a bogus agency, has warned the students about the activities of the petitioner-Board and its other branches, by issuing public notice in the news papers in the State. ( 11 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner-Board or its other agencies were accorded permission or approval by any authorities of the Central or State government under the relevant enactments. On the other hand, the Central Government has issued notifications one after the other declaring that the petitioner-Board is a bogus organisation. It is only on account of failure to verify the matter or indifference exhibited by some of the educational agencies, such as, Board of Intermediate education or Universities, that the certificates of Equivalence came to be issued. Such stray certificates by themselves do not confer any right on the petitioner- board to claim equivalence as regards the course conferred by it, more so, when its very existence was declared illegal. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioners in WP Nos. 15506, 15573 and 16007/2002 cannot be granted. Further any activity by them by imparting the said course in the State has to be treated as misrepresentation to the innocent students and the concerned Government agencies shall be entitled to prosecute them for it. ( 12 ) SO far as the individual students are concerned, it is evident that they have become the easy targets for the unscrupulous activities undertaken by the petitioner-Board and its branches. This court is aware of the judgment of the supreme Court in Nageshwaramma v State of A. P. , AIR 1986 SC 1188 , wherein it was held as under:"the students who have undergone training in private teacher training institutes established without permission cannot be permitted to appear at the examinations under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the Court the Government is directed to permit them to appear at the examination, Court will practically be encouraging the condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Article 32 of the constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. "while the above principle applies squarely to all such institutions, the distinguishing feature of the present case is that the Board of Intermediate Education as well as the osmania University continued to issue certificates of equivalence till recently and it is only after filing of the writ petitions or thereabout that the Board of Intermediate education got issued notification in the press about the bogus nature of the petitioner-Board. In the meanwhile, the individual students have undergone the course with the fond hope that the certificates obtained by them will be equated to Intermediate. The Intermediate board of Education as well as the universities has played an important though passive role, in making the students to believe that the certificates issued by them will be treated as equivalent to intermediate certificates. The realisation of the Board of Intermediate Education, which took place in 2002, cannot be pushed back to the time when the individual students got admitted into the course. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in paramjit Kaur Dahela case (supra) did not take into account the notification issued by the Central Government on 18-8-1989. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petitions filed by the Board of Adult Education and training (WP No. 15506/2002), City educational Society (WP No. 15563/2002) and KLR Educational Society (WP no. 16007/2002) are dismissed, holding that in view of the notification issued by the central Government on 29-1-1999, their activity of conducting various educational courses is illegal and that they are liable to be prosecuted for undertaking the same. These petitioners shall notify to the students on their roll that they are not entitled to get equivalence to Intermediate. 16007/2002) are dismissed, holding that in view of the notification issued by the central Government on 29-1-1999, their activity of conducting various educational courses is illegal and that they are liable to be prosecuted for undertaking the same. These petitioners shall notify to the students on their roll that they are not entitled to get equivalence to Intermediate. ( 14 ) SO far as the individual students are concerned (including the one who figured in WP No. 15563/2002) are concerned, the writ petitions filed by them are disposed of directing the Board of Intermediate Education to consider their cases for grant of equivalence provided that the said certificates were issued before commencement of the present academic year. It is also observed that no one shall be entitled for such consideration on the ground that they have already joined the course before the Board of Intermediate Education issued notification. There shall be no order as to costs.