JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Khanna for the University, Sri Neeraj Tripathi for the Chancellor and Sri Rajiv Joshi for the National Council for Teacher Education. 2. The petitioners’ educational institution has been granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE) for running B.Ed. course. Earlier temporary affiliation was granted by the Chancellor affiliating the petitioners’ institution to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. By the impugned order dated 21st November, 2005, the Chancellor has refused to continue the temporary affiliation granted to the institution, for the academic session 2005-06 on the grounds mentioned in that order, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to this writ petition. We have also examined the recommendation of the University panel enclosed as Annexure-6 to this writ petition. 3. Considering the large number of cases, which are being filed by various educational institutions with regard to the orders passed by the Chancellor refusing further affiliation in the midst of the current academic session, in respect of institutions which had been granted temporary affiliation earlier and which have been granted recognition by the NCTE, we feel it necessary to point out that in respect of running educational institutions, the proper approach while considering continuance of an existing affiliation should be not to find some technical objection or the other for the purpose of refusing to continue the affiliation. What has to be seen in such matters is basically whether the institution will be able to serve the interest of the students by affording proper standards of education by providing requisite number of qualified teachers, proper land and building space, standards of which are already prescribed and whether the institution has in the past committed any such serious misconduct either with regard to admission or with regard to impart of education or with regard to examinations as would make it undesirable in the interest of students to continue the affiliation. 4. 4. Viewed in the above light, we find that the first reason given in the impugned order namely that out of the sanctioned strength of 100 students, the college had admitted 47 students in the management quota, is not a valid reason as the institution claims that it was entitled in the first instance to admit 50 per cent of the sanctioned strength under the management quota and, further if despite request and reminder by the institution, the University fails to furnish a list of students in adequate numbers, the institution is entitled to fill up the remaining seats instead of leaving them vacant. Such filling up of the seats by the institution would be in the interest of students and also in the interest of institution to make it economically viable for the management to run the institution and to improve the same by adding more facilities for the students. 5. Similarly, the reasons No. 2 and 3 also do not spell out any details about the exact violation of the reservation rules or the admission procedure by the institution. If the Chancellor is under the impression or has information about any such violation of the admission process by the institution, a proper notice should be given to the institution regarding the shortcoming or violation of the rules giving an opportunity to the institution to explain the same after which a reasoned decision should be taken by the Chancellor considering the reply of the institution, which is seeking continuance of affiliation. 6. Similarly, the 4th reason given by the Chancellor says that the college has only 4180 square meters of land, which is less than the prescribed standard of 5000 square meters. The petitioners have enclosed copies of two registered lease deeds of the year 1997 and 1998. By the lease deed of 1998, the petitioners’ institution has taken 4180 square meters of land on lease for the purpose of running the institution and by the earlier registered lease deed dated 1997, the petitioners had taken lease of 21,175 square yards of land for the same purpose. This earlier registered lease deed appears to have escaped the notice of the Chancellor. In the same reason No. 4 given in the impugned order, it is also mentioned that the lease has been executed by a Bhumidar, which is not legal. 7. This earlier registered lease deed appears to have escaped the notice of the Chancellor. In the same reason No. 4 given in the impugned order, it is also mentioned that the lease has been executed by a Bhumidar, which is not legal. 7. Neither the bhumidar nor the State has challenged such lease deed. The institution appears to be running peacefully on the land leased out. In the circumstances, this reason appears to be a technical reason for refusing to continue the affiliation. As already mentioned above, in the case of existing affiliation after recognition by the NCTE, the approach should not be to pick out some loop hole for refusing continuation of the affiliation. 8. The 5th reason mentioned by the Chancellor is vague, as it merely says that the undertaking given in the affidavit has not been followed by the institution. Which part of the undertaking has not been followed is not mentioned. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 21st November, 2005 requiring the matter to be reconsidered by a fresh reasoned order with the proper approach in accordance with the above observations, as early as possible. 9. Till such reconsideration, the temporary affiliation granted to the petitioners’ institution will deem to continue but not beyond the current academic session. 10. The writ petition is allowed as above. Petition Allowed. ———