Judgment 1. This matter has been heard on several occasions. The petitioners raise a question of discrimination inasmuch as the institution has not been recognised whereas similarly situated institutions have been recognised in absence of the Rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inslitution in question applied for its recognition on 22.12.1997 and the institute was inspected by Three-Men Committee and the institute fulfils all the criteria for granting recognition but till date recognition has not been granted by the State whereas other institutes were considered for recognition though they applied subsequent to the petitioner-institute and they have been recognised by the State of Bihar but in the instant case, a plea is being taken that Rules are being framed and in absence of the Rules, recognition cannot be granted to the petitioner. 3. The facts, as alleged in the writ application, more or less are being admitted in the counter affidavit. It appears that other institutes similarly situated were granted recognition even when Rules were not framed and in the case of the petitioners, it is stated that in absence of the Rules, recognition cannot be granted to the petitioner-institute. 4. On 31.3.2003 when this matter was again heard, learned Additional Advocate General No. II stated that steps are being taken to derecognise such institutions which have been recognised in absence of the Rules and for that, show cause notices have been issued. Accordingly, this matter was heard on 18.4.2003. On that date, learned Additional Advocate General No. II stated that necessary decision will be taken to derecognise the similarly situated institutions within a period of fortnight. This Court, however, directed as follows: "Under the circumstances, the State respondents, particularly respondent no. 2, are directed to dispose of the matters relating to withdrawal of the temporary recognition of the similarly situated institutions within a period of fortnight from today. In case, temporary recognition given to the similarly situated institutions is not withdrawn/cancelled, respondent no. 2 will consider to grant-even temporary recognition to the petitioner institution. as it had applied for the same earlier to those institutions." 5. Today, when this matter was taken up, J.C. to Additional Advocate General No. II has prayed for some more time. Dr. In case, temporary recognition given to the similarly situated institutions is not withdrawn/cancelled, respondent no. 2 will consider to grant-even temporary recognition to the petitioner institution. as it had applied for the same earlier to those institutions." 5. Today, when this matter was taken up, J.C. to Additional Advocate General No. II has prayed for some more time. Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the authorities are delaying (he matter unnecessarily and when the petitioner-institute was inspected by Three-Men Committee and the application of the petitioners was submitted prior to other institutions for recognition, temporary recognition may be granted to the institution in question. 6. It is not in dispute that some of the institutes have been granted recognition in absence of the Rules and the case of the petitioners stands on similar footing. According to the stand of the State, recognition cannot be granted to such institutions in absence of the Rules but at the same time, it appears that some of the institutions have been recognised in absence of the Rules. The recognition granted to such institutions, therefore, cannot be said to be valid. However, the illegality which has been committed by the State should(s/c-not?) be allowed to perpetuate. In that view of the matter, I am hesitant to issue necessary direction to the State authorities to grant recognition to the petitioner-institute. 7. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for this Court to consider the case of other similarly situated institutions which have been recognised in absence of the Rules. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to add such institutions as party respondents. 8. Issue notice to newly added respondents under registered cover with acknowledgment due for which requisite etc. must be filed within one week, failing which this application, as against them, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. 9. Rule, in the admission matter, is made returnable within four weeks. 10. Put up this matter at the same position after four weeks.