Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22nd January, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby he has quashed the advertisement dated 15.5.1999 published in the newspaper including Hindustan by the appellants inviting applications from the candidates belonging to Sikh Community and NRI/Foreign students for admission to the first year MBBS course in the College, and directed the College authority not to take admission in the MBBS Course in the College on the basis of any spearate entrance examination of its own; instead, to take admission on the basis of common entrance examination conducted by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. Learned single Judge further directed the State Government to constitute a Committee to decide the fee structure for professional colleges/courses and also entrust the work of holding entrance examination for admission to different courses in the professional colleges. 3. Admitted fact is that the appellant is a minority Institution run by a Minority Community. It moved the State Government for grant of affiliation which was not granted. The matter came to this Court and this Court also dismissed the writ application. Thereafter, the appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 2194 of 1996 before the Apex Court. While the matter was pending before the Apex Court, it passed interim order dated 25th March, 1996 for management of the college and admission of students on the undertaking given by the management that in case the appeal before the Apex Court is dismissed, the institution and its students will not claim any equity. The operative portion of the interim direction issued by the Apex Court in the said order is as follows : "1. In the event of the appeal being decided against the appellant, the appellant shall nor claim any continuance of the institution by spending any amounts required in expanding the institution etc. 2. The students admitted prior to or hereafter will not claim not entitled to claim any equities for their undergoing the course of study in the institution. They were/are admitted with eyes wide open that they would lose the career. 3. 2. The students admitted prior to or hereafter will not claim not entitled to claim any equities for their undergoing the course of study in the institution. They were/are admitted with eyes wide open that they would lose the career. 3. Every year when admissions are to be made, it should be published in the newspaper that the admissions sought for by the students will be subject to the result of the pending appeal and if the appeal being decided against the institution, the students have to forego their course of study they have undergone in the institution. 4. In the event of the appeal being decided against the institution, all persons who are admitted shall not claim any equities that they have undergone the course of study and their career is in jeopardy on account of non-grant of affiliation to the appellants institution. 5. The State Government and the Universities are directed to grant provisional affiliation to the appellants institution within a period of five weeks from today pending disposal of the appeal and such provisional affiliation is subject to the result in the appeal. 6. The admissions made will be subject to the law declared by this Court in Unnikrishnans case and all other cases connected therewith." 4. Thereafter it appears that the Institution issued advertisement inviting application for admission mentioning therein that the admission is subject to final decision of the matter by the Apex Court. 5. The said appeal has been finally disposed of by the Apex Court by judgment dated 12th December, 2002. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and directed the State Government to grant permanent affiliation to the institution which has not been granted because of pendency of the matter in the Apex Court. The operative portion of the order of the Apex Court is as follows : "Be it stated that in the case in hand there are materials on record to indicate that both the Medical Council as well as the Central Government had held due inspection of the appellant insitutiton and were fully satisfied about the capability of the institution to impart MBBS course for 60 students annually. After having examined the aforesaid materials on record, we really fail to understand how the State Government can prevent the grant of affiliation to the institution in question. Mr. After having examined the aforesaid materials on record, we really fail to understand how the State Government can prevent the grant of affiliation to the institution in question. Mr. B.B. Singh learned counsel appearing for the State in the course of his arguments has contended that the institution may deteriorate either in its management amounting to mal-administration or even with regard to taking appropriate so far for academic curricular activities and therefore, the State cannot be denuded of its power even to derecognise/deaffiliate the said institution. Such a situation had been considered by this Court in the second case, i.e., (2000) 5 SCC 231 (supra) and it was observed that if, on account of fresh facts which come to light after the institution receives affiliation to the University on the basis of recommendations made by the MCI or any capable body, the State Government can always bring that to the notice of the competent authority and the power of the competent authority to derecognise or deaffiliate is always there in a given case. This being the position and in view of the subsequent events which have happened in the case in hand, while the matter was pending in this Court, in relation to the so called inspection and recommendations made by the MCI as well as by the Central Government, we direct that the appropriate authority, namely, the University may grant permanent affiliation to the institution which has not been granted so far because of the pendency of the matter in this Court. The affiliation would necessarily be in relation to the intake-capacity as recommended and approved by the MCI. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 6. It appears from the order of the Apex Court that while granting permanent affiliation the Apex Court clearly said that the affiliation would be in relation to intake capacity as recommended and approved by the Medical Council of India. Thus, the admission taken by the institution earlier in terms of the interim order passed by the Apex Court and in view of final order passed by the Apex Court, those admissions cannot be said to be against the statutory provisions. However, any admission beyond the intake capacity as determined by the Medical Council of India will not be treated as valid admission. 7. However, any admission beyond the intake capacity as determined by the Medical Council of India will not be treated as valid admission. 7. Thus, the matter of admissions taken prior to December, 2002 cannot be reopened in view of the judgment of the Apex Court. For the year 2003 and onwards, admissions should be taken in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. PAI Foundation V/s. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) PLJR (SC) 1 and the guidelines, if any, issued by the Central Government. 8. In the result, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.