A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE issue that arises for adjudication in all the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, it is felt expedient to dispose of them by this common order. ( 2 ) RESPONDING to the notification issued by Andhra Pradesh State Council of higher Education (APSCHE) inviting applications for establishment of Degree colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh including Nizamabad District, the petitioner-AL Murtaza educational and Charitable trust, Nizamabad (for short "the petitioner-Trust") applied for establishment of "golden jubilee Evening Degree College" in nizamabad District for the academic year 2003-2004. APSCHE rejected the application of the petitioner-Trust by its order dated 23-4-2003 stating that the proposal for starting new private degree college in the afternoon session cannot be considered as per the policy of the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Trust made a representation to the Government seeking permission for starting Evening Degree college. The Government through G. O. Rt. No. 515 higher Education (CE. II. 2) department dated 30-6-2003 accorded permission to the Management of petitioner-Trust for starting New Private Un-aided evening Degree College with the title "golden Jubilee Evening Degree College" with four groups (2-Science and 2-Arts) for the academic year 2003-2004 as a special case and Secretary, APSCHE was called upon to take necessary action accordingly. It is stated that the petitioner-Trust made all necessary arrangements including appointment of 15 Lecturers and also equipped with library, furniture and lab and other requirements for running the Degree college and also deposited a sum of rs. 8,73,536/- towards financial resources, apart from constructing a new building with 25,000 sq. feet and admitted students as per the schedule announced by the Osmania university for B. A/b. Sc/b. Com. , for the academic year 2003-2004, which prescribes the last date for submitting the list of candidates admitted as 8-9-2003. Since apsche has not accorded necessary permission, the petitioner-Trust filed WP no. 18176/2003. On issuance of G. O. Rt. No. 515 dated 30-6-2003, APSCHE brought to the notice of the State Government the policy decision taken by it in G. O. Ms. No. 436 Education (C. E. I) Department, dated 14-10-1988, wherein the Government has decided not to permit any new evening colleges. Based upon the representation made by the Secretary, APSCHE, the Government through G. O. Rt. No. 813 Higher Education (CE. II. No. 436 Education (C. E. I) Department, dated 14-10-1988, wherein the Government has decided not to permit any new evening colleges. Based upon the representation made by the Secretary, APSCHE, the Government through G. O. Rt. No. 813 Higher Education (CE. II. 2) Department, dated 30-9-2003 cancelled the orders issued earlier in G. O. Rt. No. 515 dated 30-6-2003. Questioning the said cancellation order, the petitioner-Trust filed WP No. 22128/2003, in which the said G. O. was suspended by this Court in WPMP No. 27654/2003 by order dated 1-12-2003. On suspension of the said GO, the petitioner-Trust made an application dated 4-12-2003 to the Registrar, Osmania university, Hyderabad, seeking affiliation of the University. The said application was neither considered nor rejected by the university and when the University refused to receive the examination fee as no affiliation is granted to the college, students who were admitted into the college filed WP No. 3392/2004. ( 3 ) THE substratum of the grievance of the writ petitioners is that the Government once accorded permission for starting new private un-aided evening degree college at nizamabad, APSCHE is under obligation to issue necessary permission and cancellation of the permission accorded by the government through G. O. Rt. No. 813 dated 30-9-2003 is in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner-Management before cancelling the permission granted to it. Since the University already announced the academic schedule for the year 2003-2004, the college of the petitioner-Trust admitted students into B. Sc. , and BA. , courses and classes were also commenced from 7-7-2003. If the permission granted earlier is cancelled students who are admitted will not only deprive of their one precious academic year but also the arrangements made including recruiting staff and construction of the buildings will go waste. ( 4 ) THE Government and APSCHE filed separate counters stating that in view of the policy decision taken by the State government that no Evening Degree college will be permitted, granting permission to the petitioner-Trust to start an evening Degree College is not in accordance with the policy decision. ( 4 ) THE Government and APSCHE filed separate counters stating that in view of the policy decision taken by the State government that no Evening Degree college will be permitted, granting permission to the petitioner-Trust to start an evening Degree College is not in accordance with the policy decision. When the same was pointed out by APSCHE, the government cancelled the permission granted earlier since no Management was permitted to establish the college in the evening session; after advent of open university system the evening college system found irrelevant; even during the time when evening colleges were functioning only Arts and Commerce Courses were permitted but not the Science courses which require laboratory, teaching and sharing of accommodation is not allowed as per the existing rules and any permission granted to the petitioner-Trust will amount to reverting to earlier system of co-existence of day and evening colleges, which was dispensed with since 1988 onwards. Whereas the Universities were facing a lot of problems with the students in the matter of sanction of scholarships and allowing them to sit for examinations, moreover evening colleges are not functioning properly and students were not fulfilling the mandatory requirement of 75 % attendance to become eligible to get scholarships or to appear for the University examinations. In view of the hardship faced by the Universities, the government took a policy decision and abolished the evening colleges through G. O. Ms. No. 436 dated 14-10-1988. ( 5 ) THE Osmania University filed its counter-affidavit stating that unless affiliation is granted by it to the Management, admission of students by the Management is with their own free will and they cannot compel the University to permit them to write the examinations. Even the permission sought by the Management was only on 4-12-2003 i. e. , much after closing of the admissions for the academic year 2003-2004. No college can admit students unless affiliation is granted. The University issued, press notification for registration of examination applications from the candidates of affiliated colleges of the University only. ( 6 ) SRI K. Prathap Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that unless there is any prohibition for establishment of evening degree colleges under any statute, the respondents cannot altogether prohibit establishment of the same. The University issued, press notification for registration of examination applications from the candidates of affiliated colleges of the University only. ( 6 ) SRI K. Prathap Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that unless there is any prohibition for establishment of evening degree colleges under any statute, the respondents cannot altogether prohibit establishment of the same. When the apsche rejected the request of the management and Government accorded permission to establish the evening college as a special case, it is not open for the government to cancel the permission granted earlier that too without giving an opportunity to the petitioner-Trust. When this Court suspended G. O. Rt. No. 813 dated 30-9-2003, the petitioner-College made an application to the University seeking affiliation and the action of the University in not passing any orders on the said application will deprive the students from writing the examinations. The application filed by the petitioner-Trust dated 4-12-2003 with Osmania University is still pending without passing any orders. In view of the same, necessary directions may be issued for granting permission and affiliation to the petitioner-College for this year subject to condition that it can convert the same into day college from the next academic year. ( 7 ) THE submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Higher education as well as learned Standing counsel for APSCHE are substantially the same and are overlapping. The sum and substance of the submissions made by them are that even after Government grants permission in G. O. Rt. No. 515 dated 30-6-2003, necessary permission has to be obtained from APSCHE under A. P. Educational institutions (Establishment, Recognition, administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (for short "the rules" ). Without obtaining such permission from the competent authority by submitting a copy of permission accorded to open the institution and lists of teaching and non-teaching staff appointed, list of students admitted as contemplated under rule 9 of the Rules, the petitioner-Trust is not entitled to the relief claimed. ( 8 ) SRI Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for the Osmania University submitted that mere granting of permission by the State Government will not entitle the petitioner-Management to claim affiliation as a matter of right, unless conditions prescribed by the University for affiliation as per the Rules of Affiliation of Colleges or recognition of Colleges or Institutions are fulfilled. ( 8 ) SRI Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for the Osmania University submitted that mere granting of permission by the State Government will not entitle the petitioner-Management to claim affiliation as a matter of right, unless conditions prescribed by the University for affiliation as per the Rules of Affiliation of Colleges or recognition of Colleges or Institutions are fulfilled. As the application filed by the petitioner-Trust was not in the prescribed form and it has not enclosed the permission granted by APSCHE, no affiliation can be granted with retrospective effect from the date it admitted the students. Even without waiting for affiliation the Management undertaken the risk by admitting the students cannot compel the University to grant affiliation. He further submits that as per sub-section 16 of Section 19 of the A. P. Universities Act, 1991, it is prerogative of the University to affiliate colleges to university under the conditions prescribed by the academic senate. As none of the procedure contemplated either under the A. P. Universities Act, 1991 or Rules of Affiliation of Colleges has been followed by the petitioner-Trust, it cannot compel the university to permit the students to write examinations. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments: 1. C. B. S. E. v. P. Sunil Kumar, (1998) 5 scc 377 . 2. Nagarjuna University v. St. Anthony educational Society, 1998 (3) ALD 42 (DB ). ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 436 dated 14-10-1988 took a policy decision not to permit any new evening college in the State and since from 14-10-1988 they have not granted any permission for establishment of evening college that too in Science courses. On granting of permission in G. O. Rt. No. 515 dated 30-6-2003, if petitioner-College admitted the students, it is under obligation to seek permission from APSCHE by producing the copy of the order in which permission to open the institution has been accorded; lists of teaching and non- teaching staff appointed; lists of students admitted into various classes/courses and bank challan in proof of the payment of inspection fee and recognition/affiliation fees as per clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules. On receipt of such an application, apasche is under obligation to make inspection of the institution to find out the extent of fulfilment of the conditions prescribed for grant of temporary recognition/ affiliation on the date notified. Clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 contemplates unless the students are admitted and staff are appointed and other conditions are satisfied, the competent authority shall not accord approval to the staff appointed and accord temporary recognition/affiliation to the private institution and consequently the students shall not be allowed to appear for the public examinations. It is not the case of the petitioners that on issuance of G. O. Rt. No. 515 dated 30-6-2003, the petitioner- trust has applied for permission fulfilling the conditions for grant of temporary affiliation/recognition. ( 10 ) THE Apex Court and this Court in the cases of Mallikarjuna Mudhgal Nagappa v. State ofkarnataka, 2000 (7) SCC 238 , cbse v. P. Sunil Kumar, 1998 (5) SCC 377 , guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder kr. Bansal, 1993 (4) SCC 401 , Nagarjuna university v. St. Anthony Educational society, 1998 (3) ALD 42 , Registrar, O. U. v. Madina Educational Society, 1996 (2) ALD 605 , categorically held that the institution in which students had pursued their studies, if not received any affiliation from the affiliating authority, they cannot be permitted to write examination and the High Court should be slow in extending its equitable jurisdiction and regularizing the illegality committed by such institutions by taking a sympathetic view. Equally granting of affiliation to an educational institution is the sole discretion of the University or Council, as the case may be, who is the best judge whether to grant affiliation or not. The role of judiciary in all such fields is limited. The high Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not exercise appellate jurisdiction with that of University or Council, as the case may be, which passes order either granting affiliation or refusing affiliation. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is expected to see whether the affiliating authority committed any manifest error, while granting affiliation or rejection if any error resulted due to irrelevant considerations weighed with the authorities for such rejection or affiliation. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is expected to see whether the affiliating authority committed any manifest error, while granting affiliation or rejection if any error resulted due to irrelevant considerations weighed with the authorities for such rejection or affiliation. Unless it is established that the refusing to grant affiliation is due to mala fide exercise of power and irrelevant considerations weighed with authorities, it is not for the Courts to grant affiliation de hors the academic standards prescribed by such authorities. Unless such recognition is obtained, it cannot compel the University for permitting the students to appear for the public examinations. In the absence of any affiliation granted by the University, the students are not entitled to write the examinations conducted by theuniversity. ( 11 ) SO far as challenge to G. O. Rt. No. 813 dated 30-9-2003 in Writ Petition no. 22128/2003 is concerned, it has to be seen either in the impugned G. O. Rt. No. 813 dated 30-9-2003 or in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government that before cancelling the permission granted earlier in favour of the petitioner-Trust any notice was issued informing that such permission was granted in ignorance of the policy guidelines issued in G. O. Ms. No. 436 dated 14-10-1988. Since no notice is issued to the petitioner-Trust, issuing G. O. Rt. No. 813 dated 30-9-2003 cancelling the permission granted earlier in G. O. Rt. No. 515, dated 30-6-2003 is in violation of principles of natural justice illegal, the same is accordingly set-aside. In view of setting aside G. O. , it cannot be presumed that the petitioner-Trust is entitled to permission from APSCHE or affiliation from the University and the same has to be considered independently afresh by the authorities. The respondent- university is at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the application said to have been submitted by the petitioner-Trust dated 4-12-2003 and intimate the result of the same to the petitioner-Trust. ( 12 ) WITH the above directions, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.