SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. The petitioner is an Educational Institution well recognised by the competent authority. It runs the High School and Intermediate Classes. High School Classes are well recognized. To upgrade the Institution to the Intermediate level the petitioner submitted an application to the opposite parties for granting recognition for running the Intermediate classes in Arts Group in Hindi, English, Sanskrit, Economics, Sociology & Political Science subjects alongwith the proof of deposit of a requisite fee of Rs. 10,000/- by way of Challan. Before dealing with the matter it would be relevant to have a look at a glance on the relevant provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The provisions for recognition of an Institution in any new subject or for a higher class are provided under Section 7-A of the Act, which are reproduced hereunder : 7-A. Recognition of an Institution in any new subject or for a higher class.- Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4) of Section 7 – (a) the Board may, with the prior approval of the State Government, recognise an Institution in any new subject or group of subjects or for a higher class; (b) the Inspector may permit an Institution to open a new section in an existing class. " 2. The under Section 9 of the Act the State Government has a supervisory power over the action of the Board of High School and Intermediates Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board), which is reproduced hereunder: "9. Powers of State Government.- (1) The State Government shall have the right to address the Board with reference to any of the works conducted or done by the Board and to communicate to the Board its views on any matter with which the Board is concerned. (2) The Board shall report to the State Government such action, if any, as it is proposed to take or has been taken upon its communication. (3) If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the State Government the State Government may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue such directions consistent with this Act as it may think fit, and the Board shall comply with such directions. (3) If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the State Government the State Government may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue such directions consistent with this Act as it may think fit, and the Board shall comply with such directions. (4) Whenever, in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action, it may, without making any reference to the Board under the foregoing provisions, pass such order or take such other action consistent with the provisions of this Act as it deems necessary, and in particular, may by such order modify or rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly. (5) No action taken by the State Government under sub-section (4), shall be called in question. " 3. The State Government has framed the Regulations and Chapter VII of the Regulations relates to the recognition of Institutions by the Board. Regulation 3 of the Chapter VII provides that in order to take recognition for High School and Intermediate the Institution has to submit an application on the prescribed proforma under the signatures of the Manager of the Institution and the form shall be submitted in the office of the District Inspector of Schools concerned till 31st December of the year prior to the year of which classes are to be started. List of the applications for recognition of the Institutions received by the District Inspector of Schools shall be forwarded to the Regional Secretary of the concerned Regional Office by the dates mentioned Regulation 3 (kha ). The form shall be supported with a Treasury Challan for rupees mentioned in Regulation 3 (ga) Regulation 4 (ka) provides that the District Inspector of Schools concerned shall submit its report till 15th March with its recommendation to the Secretary of the Regional Office. Regulation 4 (kha) provides that the District Inspector of Schools shall accept the forms only for those Institutions which are in consonance with the provisions of the Regulations, standards and conditions framed by the Board. Regulation 20-A provides that by 31st May of the each year all matters relating to recognition of the Institution shall be get disposed of by the Board. 4. Regulation 20-A provides that by 31st May of the each year all matters relating to recognition of the Institution shall be get disposed of by the Board. 4. That facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application for recognition of Intermediate Classes on 13-12-2002 after completing all the formalities alongwith the Challan of the requisite fee. Thereafter by means of letter dated 1-8-2003 the State Government asked certain information from the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. Regional Office, Allahabad i. e. opposite party No. 3 on the matter of granting recognition to the petitioners Institution. The opposite part No. 3 also provided all the information asked by the opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 did not take any steps to grant approval under Section 9 (4) of the Act and ultimately the State Government took a decision to grant the approval to the petitioners Institution through its letter dated 27th April, 2005 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) in exercise of power provided under Section 9 (4) of the Act, but the dispute is that the said recognition has been granted to the petitioners Institution with effect from the examination year 2007 while the petitioner has submitted its application in the month of December, 2002 for granting approval with effect from the examination year 2006. The petitioner submits that the action of the opposite party No. 1 in granting the recognition to the petitioners Institution with effect from examination year 2007 is wholly, arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable in the eye of law. A later dated 6th September, 2005 issued by the State Government in favour of Daya Nand Inter College, Indira Nagar, Lucknow has been brought on record by the petitioner as Annexure No. 2 the writ petition, which was earlier granted recognition from the examination year 2007, however, subsequently the same was modified and the recognition was granted from the examination year 2006. The petitioner submits that the petitioners case is identical to the case of the said Daya Nand Inter College and thus the respondents action is wholly discriminatory as well. 5. The petitioner submits that the petitioners case is identical to the case of the said Daya Nand Inter College and thus the respondents action is wholly discriminatory as well. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27th April, 2005 issued by the State Government granting approval to the petitioners Institution with effect from the examination year 2007 the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 5041 (MS) of 2005 before this Honble Court which was disposed of by this Honble Court vide order dated 14-9-2005 with the direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioners representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court the State Government had proceeded and decided the petitioners matter of recognition on 26th October, 2005 which is impugned as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The petitioners request for granting recognition with effect from the examination year 2006 has been turned down by the State Government on the ground that the last date for submitting the examination forms with late payment fee was fixed as 21-9-2005, which has now expired and thus, since there is no chance to accept the examination forms, there is no reason to accept the petitioners request to grant recognition with effect from the examination year 2006 in place of 2007. By deciding the petitioners matter the State Government has also taken into consideration the fact that in pursuance of the petitioners application dated 26-8-2005 the matter was placed before the Regional Recognition committee. Since some shortcomings were there, the recognition of the Institution was withheld. Thereafter the petitioners Institution submitted a request to recognize it under Section 9 (4) of the Act, upon which a report from the Regional Office was obtained and there has been found shortage of one alternate room, one art room and two trained teachers, inspite of that after due consideration the State Government has granted it the recognition with effect from examination year 2007. According to the petitioner 120 students are studying in class 12 in its Institution. The list of the students has been placed on record as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. Intermediate examination is to be conduced by the Board in the month of March, 2006. According to the petitioner 120 students are studying in class 12 in its Institution. The list of the students has been placed on record as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. Intermediate examination is to be conduced by the Board in the month of March, 2006. The petitioner had already deposited the requisite fee of the aforesaid 120 students with the District Inspector of Schools within the time i. e. before 21-9- 2005. 6. The petitioner has placed before this Court the orders of this Court passed in writ petition Nos. 4141 (MS) of 2004 and W. P. No. 4502 (MS) of 2004 (Annexed as Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition) in identical matters relating to the examination year 2005 in which this Court issued directions that the District Inspector of Schools concerned shall furnish the requisite examination forms to the petitioners Institution for being filled up by the students who have taken admission in the petitioners Institution in Class IX in 2003 and have opted for said subjects which were not earlier recognized in the said Institution and the Government Order dated 25-2-2004 was modified by this Court with the direction to allow and permit the students for the final examination of Intermediate for the examination year 2005. In view of the facts and circumstances stated here-in-above the petitioner sought the relief for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order impugned dated 26th October, 2005 passed by the State Government as well as to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue the examination forms to the petitioner for filling up of the same in order to enable the students for appearing in the Intermediate examination of the year 2006. Through the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has brought on record an order issued by the Additional Secretary, Secondary Education, Regional Office, Allahabad in which the Board has permitted the students of the Institution in question for the examination year 2006 while their matter for recognition is still under consideration before the Recognition Committee. The said action has been taken by the authority concerned in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 9-9-2005 in writ petition No. 5000 (MS) of 2005. The said action has been taken by the authority concerned in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 9-9-2005 in writ petition No. 5000 (MS) of 2005. The said judgment is also on record as Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition, whereby this Court issued a direction to the Recognition Committee of the Board to decide the controversy in accordance with law. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it has been admitted that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of recognition to run the Intermediate Classes on 13-12- 2002 and the same was put up before the Recognition Committee on 26-8-2003, but due to deficiency the Recognition Committee has not granted the recognition. However, again the petitioner approached to the State Government and the State Government called a report from the Secretary, Regional Office through its letter dated 6-1-2004. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Additional Secretary of the Board on 23-2- 2004, which has been brought on record as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter-affidavit, in which several shortcomings had been shown. It has been submitted in the counter-affidavit that considering the report of the Secretary, Regional Officer the recognition was granted to the petitioners College under Section 9 (4) of the Act with the condition that if the management submits a proposal as mentioned in Section 7-A of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1987 then the recognition will be effective with effect from the examination year 2007. 8. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the facts of the counter-affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has submitted that it had already sent all the information as was required by the opposite party No. 1 and the matter delayed at the level of the State Government itself. In support of the contention, that the petitioner has already furnished all the information, the petitioner has brought on record the documents furnished before the authority concerned through the rejoinder affidavit and it has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has completed all the formalities as required. In support of the contention, that the petitioner has already furnished all the information, the petitioner has brought on record the documents furnished before the authority concerned through the rejoinder affidavit and it has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has completed all the formalities as required. So far as the Annexure No. 4 annexed with the counter-affidavit is concerned, through which some shortcomings have been pointed out by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted that this report was never supplied to the petitioner and for the first time the petitioner came to know in respect of the same by means of the counter-affidavit filed in the present writ petition on the one hand and on the other hand vide letter dated 19-5-2005 the opposite parties have written the letters that the petitioner has not completed the formalities, which were required to be completed by him while granting the recognition for the examination year 2006. In reply to which the petitioner submitted a letter dated 24-6-2005 informing the respondents that the petitioner had completed all the necessary formalities. The said letter of the petitioner is on record as Annexure No. R-3 to the rejoinder affidavit. 9. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 10. The order impugned states two grounds for rejection of the request of the petitioner for granting it recognition for the examination year 2006. One is that there is a shortage of one alternate room, one art room and two trained teachers and despite of that the recognition has been granted for the examination year 2007. The second ground is that sine the last date for submitting the examination forms i. e. 21-9-2005 has been expired on account of which there is no reason to allow them to fill up the forms and for permitting the Daya Nand Inter College to fill up the forms for the year 2006 it has been taken the ground that to that Institution the recognition was granted on 1-9-2005 for examination year 2006. From a perusal of Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, which is a letter dated 27th April, 2005, whereby the State Government has granted recognition to the petitioners Institution with effect from the examination year 2007, it is obvious that on that date the standard of the Institution in question was found to the satisfaction of the State Government and on being satisfied the recognition has been granted to the petitioner. So far as the ground of expiring the last date for filling up the forms taken by the respondent No. 1 is concerned, from the records it is very much obvious that the application was submitted well within time as has been provided under the Regulation itself but the respondents do not care to take a decision within the time as framed by the Regulation itself and thus it is the fault of the respondents, who have committed delay in taking the decision and by their inaction the time for filling up the forms has been allowed to be expired. On the petitioners averments that one College, namely, Daya Nand Inter College has been granted recognition with effect from the examination year 2006 by modifying the order dated 6th September, 2005 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), the respondents in reply have taken a stand that to withdraw the recognition of that Institution for the year 2006 a proposal has been sent to the State Government and the same is pending for decision so there is no discrimination under the Act. In support of this contention the respondents have failed to submit any proof nor they have indicated the date of the letter submitted to the Government, but it appears that only to justify their action they have taken a contrary stand. The submission of the petitioner that it submitted application alongwith the requisite fee has not been denied by the respondents. 11. Regulation 20-A provides that the Board shall dispose of all the matters of recognition till 31st of May of each year. The submission of the petitioner that it submitted application alongwith the requisite fee has not been denied by the respondents. 11. Regulation 20-A provides that the Board shall dispose of all the matters of recognition till 31st of May of each year. Admittedly the petitioner submitted the form for recognition to run the Intermediate classes on 13-12-2002 and as per aforesaid Regulation the decision was to be taken by the Board till 31st May, 2003 but from the averments made in the counter-affidavit it is clear that the matter was put up before the Recognition Committee on 16-8-2003 but due to deficiency the Recognition Committee could not grant recognition to the College for Intermediate classes. Subsequently, when the petitioner approached the State Government to call a report from the Secretary of the Regional Office, the report was submitted by the Additional Secretary of the Board on 23-2-2004. After perusing the report annexed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter-affidavit it appears that the following shortcomings were found in the details submitted in the application and the matter was considered for the examination year 2005 as is evident from the report itself; (1) The High School was recognized with effect from 2004 but the result of last two years was not provided; (2) two untrained teachers are working; (3) the land under ownership of the Institution is not as per standard, shortage of two lecture Rooms, on alternate room, one art room, thus total 4 rooms. Against which three rooms were found but since they were small they were not found to the standard of recognition, (4) Shortage of Rs. 2000/- in the security found; (5) The condition of pre-recognition are incomplete; (6) The District Inspector of Schools has not recommended for recognition. 12. On the date of providing the approval for examination year 2007 i. e. 27th April, 2005 no such shortcomings have been mentioned and by way or order impugned dated 26th October, 2005 only it has been stated that there is a shortage of one alternate room, one art room and two trained teachers. However, the petitioner through its RA-3 filed with the rejoinder affidavit has submitted the details regarding these shortcomings and has stated that the trained teachers have been appointed and the standard rooms have been constructed. However, the petitioner through its RA-3 filed with the rejoinder affidavit has submitted the details regarding these shortcomings and has stated that the trained teachers have been appointed and the standard rooms have been constructed. It has not been refuted so far and thus this ground was not available for the respondent No. 1 to reject the request of the petitioner. Only the reason as shown by the State Government in its order dated 26th October, 2005 is that since the last date for submitting the examination forms has been expired there is no reason to allow to fill up the examination forms. For which the petitioner is at no fault as the respondents are under obligation to take action under the statutory period provided under the Regulations and thus it is due to inaction or omission on the part of the respondents the last date for filling up the forms had expired, for which the students are at no fault and they cannot be subjected for a punishment depriving them for appearing in the examination, which is going to be held in the month of March, 2006. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act has the statutory force. In this regard he has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 . The relevant paragraph of which is reproduced hereunder: "there is no substantial difference between a rule and a regulation inasmuch as both are subordinate legislation under powers conferred by the statute. A regulation framed under a statute applies uniform treatment to everyone or to all members of some group or class. The Oil and natural Gas Commission, the Life Insurance Corporation and Oil and Industrial Finance Corporation are all required by the Statute to frame regulations inter alia for the purpose of the duties and conduct and conditions of service of officers and other employees. These regulations impose obligation on the statutory authorities. The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violations of rules and regulations. The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violations of rules and regulations. The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory regulations in the cases under consideration give the employee a statutory statue and impose restriction on the employer and the employee with no option to vary the conditions. " 14. The aforesaid judgment has been followed subsequently in a case of Vidya Dhar Pandey v. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti & Ors. , (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 734 by the Supreme Court and in the fight of the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has held that there is no escape from conclusion that Regulations have force of law. 15. The learned Counsel for the respondents has brought to the knowledge of the Court one fact that now the students have been allowed to appear in the examination 2006, but as a private students. The learned Counsel for the petitioner disputes that the submits that the students of the petitioners Institution are entitled to appear in the examination year 2006 as the regular students and they should be permitted as such. 16. The petitioner has placed a letter dated 15th December, 2005, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, which indicates that for the candidates who are appearing in the High School and Intermediate Examination 2006 the last date for submitting the applications had been extended to 31- 12-2005, thus the cut of date fixed as a last date for submitting the examination forms has already been extended. There is no reason at all to reject the petitioners request on this ground. Hence, this plea taken by the respondents to reject the petitioners request is not accepted and the students of the Institution of the petitioner in question shall be allowed to appear in the examination 2006 as a recognized Institutions students. However, that would be subject to the conditions laid down under order dated 27th April, 2005 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the State Government. 17. However, that would be subject to the conditions laid down under order dated 27th April, 2005 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the State Government. 17. In view of the aforesaid observations the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26th October, 2005 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners Institution students to appear in the Intermediate Examination, which is going to be held in the month of March, 2006 as regular students. 18. Wit the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed. RAJESH .