Judgment 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Governing Body of Patliputra Inter College, Gardanibagh, writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14276 of 2003 which along with other analogous cases, were disposed of by order dated 5.2.2004 [reported in 2004(2) PLJR 320 ]. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed challenging the press communique being advertisement no. 40 of 2002 published in National Hindi daily newspaper "Hindustan" dated 24.12.2002 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as the Council) whereby recommendation of 14 affiliated Intermediate colleges including that of the petitioners college has been withdrawn for the sessions 2002-2004. The aforesaid recommendation had been withdrawn as the colleges in question did not fulfil the requisite condition as required under the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Establishment and Examination) Rules, 1994. From perusal of the order of the learned writ court it would transpire that the aforesaid communique has been issued in view of direction of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 5511 of 2003. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that though the Council was fully empowered to grant approval to an institution imparting Intermediate education and no such institution could be established or run unless prior approval of the Council is obtained, as has been clearly envisaged in section 41 of the Bihar Intermediate Council Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). It has further been accepted that certain conditions were also required to be fulfilled by a college, approval for which was sought and though it is a fact that the college in question did not fulfil all the conditions as envisaged nor the establishment of college has been approved by the State Government, but as awaiting the aforesaid approval, the college was allowed to continue and as similarly situated colleges which also did not fulfil the entire condition were allowed to function, the action of the Council in withdrawing the recommendation of the petitioners college was arbitrary and the writ court ought to have interfered in the same. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Chairman in himself cannot be construed to be the Council as the order has not been passed by the Council, the same was bad otherwise also. 5. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Chairman in himself cannot be construed to be the Council as the order has not been passed by the Council, the same was bad otherwise also. 5. In nutshell these are the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant assailing communication of the Council withdrawing the recommendation of the petitioners college. Lastly, submission has been made that even if the order of withdrawal of recommendation was held to be valid, directions were required to be issued for taking the examination of the students who had already joined the Intermediate course prior to passing of the aforesaid order and were at the verge of completing the course and they without any laches on their part as they had joined the course when the college was recognised would be debarred from appearing in the examination. 6. Learned writ court while considering these aspects of the matter and taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act, also relied on section 41 of the Act which provides that no institution imparting Intermediate education shall be established or run unless prior approval of the Council has been obtained for the purpose. Sub-section 4 of section 41 of the Act contains that the institution other than the recognised institution imparting Intermediate education shall not send up students in the examination conducted by the Council. The Council may give approval for establishment of the institution imparting Intermediate education having regard to the conditions prescribed by the Council. Sub-section (7) of section 41 of the Act lays down the guidelines for recognition to an institution, which may be granted by the Council with prior approval of the Government. Prior approval of the government is a must for granting recognition to an institution. 7. Admittedly, the said approval has not been obtained. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is, that the prevalent procedure which was being followed was that awaiting approval, the institutions were allowed to run. This perhaps is not the mandate of the Act. The Act clearly lays down that prior approval of the State Government was a must. 7. Admittedly, the said approval has not been obtained. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is, that the prevalent procedure which was being followed was that awaiting approval, the institutions were allowed to run. This perhaps is not the mandate of the Act. The Act clearly lays down that prior approval of the State Government was a must. Sub-section 7(b) of section 41 of the Act also provides that if the Council refuses to grant recognition to any institution imparting education of Intermediate standard, any person or institution dissatisfied with the decision may appeal to the State Government within 30 days and the decision of the State Government shall be final. 8. Learned writ court while considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, came to the conclusion that a clear distinction between the recognition of an institution and permission to establish an institution was there. For establishing an institution prior approval of the Council was required, but for grant of recognition the Council has to take approval of the State Government before granting recognition. 9. Taking these aspects into consideration, learned writ court came to the conclusion that the Council has also declared the college as proposed college, meaning thereby the permission was granted to establish the college which in no way would amount to grant recognition and as recognition has not been granted ever to the college in question, the submissions of the petitioners counsel were not accepted. 10. This court does not find any error in the aforesaid interpretation given by the writ court as the provisions of the Act are quite clear in this regard. 11. As far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to Chairman exercising the power of the Council and the order being bad inasmuch as the same was not passed by the Council but by the Chairman is concerned, the learned counsel for the Intermediate council has drawn the attention of the court towards the provision of section 22 of the Act. Section 22 of the Act relates to the power of the Chairman. Section 22 of the Act relates to the power of the Chairman. Sub-section 5 of section 22 of the Act envisaged that if at any time except when the Council is in session and it becomes absolutely necessary, takes a decision on any matter, the Chairman may exercise any power vested in the Council, which is not contrary to the decision of the Council and shall obtain the approval of the Council giving reasons for the Act, at its next meeting. 12. According to learned counsel, said provisions take care of the period when the Council is not in session and the Chairman is vested with all the powers which is vested in the Council under the provisions of the Act. As the Council was not in session, the order according to learned counsel for the Intermediate Council could have been and rightly been passed by the Chairman. This court has no difficulty in accepting the aforesaid submission. 13. As far as the last submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding taking of examination of the students who had already joined the Intermediate course in the institution is concerned, the writ court had already taken the aforesaid aspect into consideration and relying on the judgment in the case of Moulana Mazharul Haque Primary Teachers Training College vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [1992(2) PUR 321] came to the conclusion that as the aforesaid students had managed to get their admission in an institution which has not been recognised, no relief can be granted to them under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. In view of decision in the case of Veer Kunwar Singh College vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [1996(1) PUR 393], in our considered opinion the writ court rightly did not grant any relief or interfere in the order issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, by which recommendation of 14 affiliated colleges had been withdrawn. The ground that as other similarly situated colleges have been allowed to continue, this court cannot allow any illegality to be perpetuated specially in view of submission of the counsel for the Intermediate Council that actions were being taken against all such colleges also. 15. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any error in the order of writ court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14276 of 2003 requiring interference in the appeal. 15. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any error in the order of writ court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14276 of 2003 requiring interference in the appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.