JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Chancellor, dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition). In that order, it has been mentioned that an enquiry was made about the institution of Respondent No. 4 (The Allama Iqbal Unani Medical College, Muzaffarnagar) and it was found that it did not fulfil the norms set by the Central Council of Indian Medicines. The Chancellor, after detailed consideration, has rejected the prayer for provisional affiliation of the College for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. 3. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the Rao Educational Society is a registered society and its aim and object is to establish a Unani Medical College. Accordingly, the society established a Medical College called Allama Iqbal Unani Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, which is said to be a minority institution. 4. The Petitioner applied for affiliation of the college to the Kanpur University u/s 37 of the U.P. State Universities Act. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that inspection was made by the representatives of Central Council of Indian Medicines (C.C.I.M.), and a letter dated 10.10.1993 was sent by the Secretary of the C.C.I.M. to the State Government vide Annexure-2. It is alleged that the C.C.I.M. accorded permission for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The college admitted 50 students in October 1993 in 1st professional but these students could not appear in the examination as the College was not affiliated. Again 50 students were admitted in October 1994 in 1st professional, but they also could not appear in the examination for the same reason. It is alleged in para 12 that these students have completed their studies in 3 professional tests. 5. In para 15 it is alleged that the Chancellor granted previous sanction to the affiliation of the College for 1st year from 1.7.1995 (wrongly mentioned as 1.7.1994 in the order) vide Annexure-3. The University has also granted affiliation for 1st year, vide Annexure-4. 6. It is alleged in para 22 that the society has donated land and constructed buildings, libraries, etc. for the Medical College. 7. In para 23 of the petition it is alleged that the University appointed 3 visitors who made an inspection on 13.5.2000 and submitted a report vide Annexure-7. 6. It is alleged in para 22 that the society has donated land and constructed buildings, libraries, etc. for the Medical College. 7. In para 23 of the petition it is alleged that the University appointed 3 visitors who made an inspection on 13.5.2000 and submitted a report vide Annexure-7. In para 24 it is alleged that for the first time in the year 2000 the University appointed a committee for making inspections. 8. Certain writ petition were filed in this Court, as stated in paras 28 and 30 of the writ petition, in which interim orders were passed permitting the students to appear in the examination. 9. The C.C.I.M. made further inspections of the College and submitted reports, copies of which are Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ petition. Several shortcomings were pointed out. By the letter of the Assistant Registrar (Unani) vide Annexure-11 the C.C.I.M. agreed to grant permission to the College to take admission in 1st professional for the session 1999-2000 with intake capacity of 25 students subject to affiliation by the University. For the session 2000-2001, 30 students were permitted subject to affiliation of the University and permission of the State Government. 10. By letter of the Chancellor dated 8.11.2000 provisional affiliation was granted to the College from 1.7.1996 to 30.6.2000 vide Annexure-13. It is alleged in paras 38 and 40 that some Unani and Ayurvedic Colleges have been granted retrospective affiliation. 11. It is alleged in para 46 that the claim of the College for affiliation in the years in question has been rejected on the ground that the institution did not fulfil the norms laid down by the C.C.I.M. It is alleged that the C.C.I.M. has itself accorded permission on 10.10.1993 for 2 years (1993-94 and 1994-95) with a finding that the institution fulfils the standards. It is alleged in para 48 that the C.C.I.M. has itself recommended grant of retrospective affiliation. It is alleged that there is discrimination against the Petitioners and pick and choose. It is alleged that the students will suffer huge loss. 12. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 7' it is stated that the College was not entitled to admit any student prior to the grant of affiliation with the University. It is alleged that the students will suffer huge loss. 12. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 7' it is stated that the College was not entitled to admit any student prior to the grant of affiliation with the University. This fact is also mentioned in statute 13.10 of the First Statutes of the University wherein it is clearly mentioned that without obtaining a certificate from the Vice-Chancellor, the College cannot admit any student and further the College has not fulfilled any norms and formalities as required for affiliation. In paragraph 8' it is stated that the Management of the College is responsible for admitting the students without grant of affiliation. In paragraph 10' it is stated that the University has not permitted any student amongst the Petitioners to appear in the examination conducted by the University for the bona fide students. It is further stated that the University has never permitted any batch of the students, who are related to unaffiliated year/period unless they have obtained interim orders from this Court. In para 16 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the C.C.I.M. wrote the letter (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) against the provision of the U.P. State Universities Act. 13. In our opinion, there is no merit in this petition. The College had no right to grant admissions prior to grant of affiliation by the University. If it does so, it does so at its own risk, and the students also take admission at their own risk. It is indeed unfortunate that many colleges have admitted students although they are not affiliated. This kind of practice cannot be permitted to continue. No doubt hardship may be caused to some students, but as is said 'dura lex sed lex' which means, 'the law is hard, but it is the law'. In respect of the years in question, i.e., 1993-94 and 1994-95, the College had no affiliation with the Kanpur University. Hence, it had no right to admit students. The letter of the C.C.I.M. is only a recommendation, and is not binding on the University. The provisional affiliation granted to the College was only from 1.7.1995. Hence, all admissions made by the College prior to 1.7.1995 were clearly illegal. This Court cannot direct retrospective affiliation. 14. In C.B.S.E. and Another Vs. Hence, it had no right to admit students. The letter of the C.C.I.M. is only a recommendation, and is not binding on the University. The provisional affiliation granted to the College was only from 1.7.1995. Hence, all admissions made by the College prior to 1.7.1995 were clearly illegal. This Court cannot direct retrospective affiliation. 14. In C.B.S.E. and Another Vs. P. Sunil Kumar and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2235 , the Supreme Court, following its own decision in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, AIR 1986 SC 1490 , observed that the Court will not be justified in issuing directions to the University to protect the interest of students who had been admitted to a medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of the Act and regulations. The Court referred to several other decisions including State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others, AIR 1992 SC 1926 and held that students of unrecognised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court to appear in the examination. In Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another, AIR 1993 SC 2412 , the Supreme Court disapproved of interim orders of the High Court of such nature. The Court observed that sympathy in such cases does more harm than good. The Court should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in K.S. Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2002 SC 444 . The Court in that case observed. It is no doubt true that a large number of students who were already admitted in the Colleges and incurred a lot of expenditure in taking admissions were to be dislodged. However, compassion and sympathy have no role to play where a rule of law is required to be enforced. 15. In the present case, statute 13.10 of the Kanpur University Statutes (quoted in para 13 of the counter-affidavit) forbids admissions in a College unless (1) affiliation is granted, and (2) the Vice-Chancellor has issued a certificate that the conditions imposed by the University are fulfilled. In the present case, both these conditions are absent, and hence admissions in 1993-94 and 1994-95 were wholly illegal. 16. The writ petition is hence dismissed and the interim order, if any, is vacated.