Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Lalit Narain Mithila University against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4166/2001 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the notification dated 14.4.2001 was quashed and the University was directed to make all necessary arrangements to hold all due examinations for Bachelor of Dental Surgery (here-in-after referred to B.D.S.) course for the students of the petitioner-college in accordance with law without any delay and within a period of three months. The results of such examinations must be published at the earliest and in any case within two months of holding of the concerned examinations. 2. The facts relevant to this appeal are that Mithila Minority Dental College, Darbhanga was established in the year 1989. The College was granted provisional affiliation by Lalit Narain Mithila University vide letter dated 31.10.1996 with effect from session 1989-90 allowing to take admission of 60 students in each session, copy of which was communicated to the State of Bihar and Dental Council of India (here-in-after referred to D.C.I.). The D.C.I. vide letter dated 25.11.1997 granted permission to impart education to sixty students in each session to the college in question with effect from 1989-90 on the basis of joint inspection report, copy of which was also sent to the University and the University vide letter dated 1.12.1997 granted permanent affiliation to the college with effect from 1989-90. The examinations of B.D.S. course of some sessions were also held and results were published. The examinations of 3rd B.D.S. session 1989-93, 1991-95, 1993-97, 1994-98, 1995-99 and 1st B.D.S. of session 1997-2001 were also held but results of aforesaid examinations were not published. The students of 2nd year B.D.S. course 1996-2000 and 1st year B.D.S. course of 1998-2000 also completed their courses but no date of examination was announced. In this back drop the students of the college filed C.W.J.C. No. 2583/2000 for issuance of direction to the University and its authorities to conduct examinations with respect to the remaining period and publish results. In the said writ petition the college was also made respondent. The said writ petition and C.W.J.C. No. 6633/2000, Kumar Sarad Bhushan & Ors. In this back drop the students of the college filed C.W.J.C. No. 2583/2000 for issuance of direction to the University and its authorities to conduct examinations with respect to the remaining period and publish results. In the said writ petition the college was also made respondent. The said writ petition and C.W.J.C. No. 6633/2000, Kumar Sarad Bhushan & Ors. V/s. L.N. Mithila University and Ors., in which similar questions were involved, were heard together and were allowed vide judgment and order dated 5.12.2000 holding that so long the colleges have necessary approval of D.C.I. and affiliation of the University, merely pendency of a vigilance enquiry or even a criminal case alone will not be sufficient justification for the University to withhold pending results of the otherwise eligible students of such colleges and/or not to hold further examinations which are already due for such students, as on date these colleges have been found to have sufficient infrastructure to conduct B.D.S. course and although there are still many things lacking in the area of adequate teaching facility but in the opinion of expert body, D.C.I. those shortcomings can be allowed to be removed in coming months, the court directed the University to perform its duties and functions and publish pending results of the petitioners and other similarly situated students of the concerned college and also to hold due B.D.S. examination for such students strictly in accordance with law as per intake capacity prescribed for these colleges by the D.C.I. with utmost expedition and at the earliest possible time. However, we are not concerned with C.W.J.C. No. 6633/2000. 3. The directions issued, as indicated above, were not complied with by the University. The Mithila Minority Dental College filed C.W.J.C. No. 4166/2001 for issue of direction to comply the order and hold entire pending examinations in the light of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2583/ 2000 and publish the result. In the writ petition statement was made that on 14.9.2000 an order was passed by a Bench of this Court directing the University to take examination of the students and accept fee and form of the students. Ultimately examination was held of only theory and a few practical papers. However, C.W.J.C. No. 2583/2000 was disposed of on 5.12.2000. The petitioner filed a petition along with judgment and order dated 5.12.2000 requesting the University to comply the order of the Court. Ultimately examination was held of only theory and a few practical papers. However, C.W.J.C. No. 2583/2000 was disposed of on 5.12.2000. The petitioner filed a petition along with judgment and order dated 5.12.2000 requesting the University to comply the order of the Court. However, the University published all pending results on 21.12.2000. After publication of result a three man-committee was constituted vide letter dated 23.12.2000 for inspection of the college. Vide letter dated 27.12.2000 the University issued a letter appointing internal and external for practical examination for the session B.D.S. 1995. The result was published but examination of many sessions was not held. The petitioner also filed representation but nothing was done. Vide letter dated 5.3.2001 the college was directed to keep office open for inspection. The petitioner obeyed the direction and ultimately on 12.3.2001 a five man-committee was constituted for thorough inspection of the college and inspection was made. Final order was passed on 5.12.2000 but till date the University has not taken any step to comply with the order of the Court. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of University it has been stated that pursuant to the order of the Court the University conducted some pending examinations and declared pending results. The present Vice Chancellor examined the record in relation to grant of affiliation to the college in question and found that affiliation granted to the writ petitioner-institution was in total disregard to statutory provision. The matter with regard to affiliation was never placed before the Syndicate of the University nor before the Senate of the University. Provisional as well as permanent affiliation was granted by the then Vice Chancellor without placing the matter before the Syndicate and Senate which was necessary under the provision of Bihar State University Act, 1976. More-over, affiliation granted was never approved by the State Government. The Vice Chancellor vide order dated 14.4.2001 declared the affiliation granted to the petitioner-institution illegal, void ab initio and the action on the basis of said affiliation to be deemed void ab initio, Annexure-A, and as such remaining examination could not be held. The D.C.I. vide letter dated 28.3.2001, Annexure-B, also found deficiency with respect to teaching staff of the petitioner-institution. The D.C.I. vide letter dated 28.3.2001, Annexure-B, also found deficiency with respect to teaching staff of the petitioner-institution. Accordingly, the college was directed to furnish required information along with compliance report on the deficiency pointed out by D.C.I. The deficiency pointed out by the D.C.I. may be removed before 30.4.2001 failing which admission in B.D.S. course of the said college would be stopped. 5. In the rejoinder/supplementary rejoinder to the counter-affidavit stand of the University was denied and it was stated that the college in question was granted permanent affiliation in accordance with law which is evident from the fact that in the annual report of the University published under section 44 of the Bihar Universities Act, Annexure-13, the name of the petitioner-institution has been entered in the column of permanently affiliated college of the University. The petitioner after permanent affiliation also deposited Rs. 2.55 lac as requisite fee for permanent affiliation fixed by the University. The University has misconstrupd the letter of D.C.I. The D.C.I. has pointed out some deficiency and directed to remove the deficiency within certain time but the permission granted to the petitioner-college was not cancelled. The University knowingly did not comply the direction of the Court. In support of his case the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Minority College, namely, S.N.Naqvi has been annexed as Annexure-P/8 to the supplementary rejoinder whereby the Apex Court directed to recognise the degrees granted to the students which were de-recognised by the authority. Against certain college there was vigilance enquiry but the University out of fear is not taking examination even of the institution against whom there was no vigilance case. In the supplementary rejoinder prayer was also made for quashing the order contained in letter dated 14.4.2001 whereby affiliation granted to the petitioner-college was declared void ab initio. 6. The Court after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order, dated 1.5.2001 and the notification dated 14.4.2001 declaring affiliation granted to the petitioner-college void ab initio was quashed. The University was directed to forthwith make all necessary arrangements and hold all due examinations for B.D.S. course for the students of the petitioner-college in accordance with law without any delay with in a period of three months. The University was directed to forthwith make all necessary arrangements and hold all due examinations for B.D.S. course for the students of the petitioner-college in accordance with law without any delay with in a period of three months. The results of such examinations must be published at the earliest and in any case with in two months of holding of the concerned examination. The aforesaid judgment and order has been impugned in this appeal. 7. It is relevant to mention herein that the order impugned was also challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 13709/2001 and 14141/2001. The Apex Court considered the fact that L.P.A. against the order impugned is pending before the High Court and disposed of S.L.P. holding that it would be appropriate for the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months and if for any reason such course could not be adopted it would be appropriate for the High Court to consider granting or modifying the interim relief in the matter. So far as the S.L.P. filed by the students is concerned, it would be appropriate for them to intervene/implead themselves before the High Court and seek for appropriate reliefs. The matter was placed before this Bench on 21.5.2002. However, on the request of the parties the case was adjourned twice. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that affiliation to the institution was granted without complying the provisions of Section 4(19) read with section 21(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The matter was neither placed before the Senate nor approved by the State Government and as such affiliation granted to the institution was cancelled by the Vice-Chancellor vide order dated 14.4.2001. He pointed out that C.W.J.C. No. 6388/2001 was filed for quashing the order passed by the University withdrawing the affiliation granted to S.M.Naqui Imam Dental College and Hospital. A Division Bench of this Court refused to quash the order of the University withdrawing the affiliation and held vide judgment and order dated 25.6.2002 that the University has power to withdraw the affiliation and as such the order impugned to the aforesaid extent is bad in law. In the circumstances the University is not obliged to conduct due B.D.S. examination of the college in question. In the circumstances the University is not obliged to conduct due B.D.S. examination of the college in question. He also pointed out that this bench being coordinate Bench cannot go beyond the judgment delivered by an earlier Division Bench. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the order aforesaid has been challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12282/2002 and the Apex Court issued notice and stayed the order impugned. In support of the submission, learned counsel produced a photo copy of the order dated 22.7.2002 passed by the Apex Court. 9. It is well established rule of lawthat acoordinate Bench cannot go beyond the decision rendered by an earlier co-ordinate Bench. In the case of Asst. Collector of Estate Duty, Madras V/s. V.Devaki Ammal (SMT) Madras, 1995 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has held that judicial discipline demands that one Division Bench of a High Court should, ordinarily, follow judgment of another Division Bench of that High Court. In extraordinary cases where the latter Division Bench finds it difficult, for stated reasons, to follow earlier Division Bench judgment, the proper course is to order that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for constituting a larger Bench. 10. On consideration, in my view, the appeal can be disposed of without entering into controversy raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and maintaining judicial discipline on the basis of admitted facts. Admittedly, the college was granted provisional affiliation by the University vide letter dated 31.10.1996, copy of which was communicated to the State of Bihar and D.C.I. The D.C.I. vide letter dated 25.11.1997 granted permission to impart B.D.S. education to 60 students in each session on the basis of joint inspection report, copy of which was also sent to the University and the University vide letter dated 1.12.1997 granted permanent affiliation to the college in question. The examinations of B.D.S. course of the students of the college for some sessions were also conducted by the University and results were published. However, for rest of the sessions the examination was not conducted by the University and as such the students of the institution approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2583/2000 for issuance of direction to the University for conducting examinations and publishing results. However, for rest of the sessions the examination was not conducted by the University and as such the students of the institution approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2583/2000 for issuance of direction to the University for conducting examinations and publishing results. The writ petition was allowed and the University pursuant to the order of the Court conducted some pending examinations and declared pending results. However, the University did not conduct all due examinations of the students of the college and as such the college filed C.W.J.C. No. 4166/2001 for issuance of direction to conduct entire pending examinations in the light of order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2583/2000. The writ petition was allowed directing to hold due examinations for B.D.S. course of the students of the college and publish results thereof which has been impugned in this appeal on the ground that the Vice Chancellor cancelled the affiliation granted to the college in question vide order dated 14.4.2001 and also on the ground that D.C.I. has pointed out deficiency vide letter dated 28.3.2001 asking to remove deficiency by certain time failing which the admission in the institution will be stopped. Obviously permission granted to the college by D.C.I. was not cancelled. It appears that prior to issuance of letter dated 14.4.2001 by the University the college had affiliation and the students who have completed their B.D.S. course cannot be put to harassment or their career cannot be allowed to be jeopardised in any manner. They also cannot be held guilty of any of the acts done by the college, University or D.C.I. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that in the matter of technical education governed by A.I.C.T.E. Act the council established under the Act is the sole body authorised to grant approval for technical institution and the State Government or the University is under legal obligation not to have a policy out side the A.I.C.T.E. Act. Any de-recognition by the State Government or de-affiliation by the State University on the grounds which are inconsistent with the Central Act would be inoperative. Any de-recognition by the State Government or de-affiliation by the State University on the grounds which are inconsistent with the Central Act would be inoperative. In the case of State of T.N. and another V/s. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others; (1995)4 S.C.C. 104 , the Apex Court has held that in the case of institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction. To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however, remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant of affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council. The ratio decided in the above mentioned case has also been re-affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V/s. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and another, (2000)5 S.C.C. 231 : 2000(3) PLJR (SC) 159. 12. On consideration, as discussed above, it appears to me that the students of the college who completed B.D.S. course prior to 14.4.2001, the date of the cancellation of affiliation by the University, cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of theirs as D.C.I. had only pointed out deficiency and not cancelled the permission to impart technical education which is the only expert body. The Court is not expressing any opinion with respect to the earlier decision of Division Bench dated 25.6.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 6388/2001 as the said judgment has been challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 12282/2002 in which the judgment has been stayed and the matter is pending before the Apex Court. The notification dated 14.4.2001 would be subject to result of S.L.P. pending before the Apex Court as indicated above. The notification dated 14.4.2001 would be subject to result of S.L.P. pending before the Apex Court as indicated above. Further more, in my view, without expressing any opinion as indicated above this appeal can be disposed of even without touching the order dated 14.4.2001 whereby the affiliation of the college has been cancelled, as students have completed their course prior to issuance of aforesaid notification dated 14.4.2001 when the college had valid affiliation and permission granted by D.C.I. 13. Thus on consideration, as discussed above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment impugned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but without cost. 14. Since the time allowed for holding examination and publishing result in the judgment impugned has expired, the same shall be taken into consideration from the date of this judgment. B.K.Jha, J. 15 I agree.