Judgment :- Common Order: Originally, W.P.No.15877/2003 was filed for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to process the application for affiliation in respect of B.Sc (Nursing) Course and grant affiliation with effect from the academic year 2002-2003 by holding necessary inspection and observing other formalities. Subsequently,the prayer has been amended. As per the amended prayer, the relief sought for is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent University dated 18.2.2003 issued in Ref.No.PU/ASI/Aca-8/26/2002/VMCP/200, dated 11.4.2003 issued in Ref.No.PU/AS-I/Aca-8/26/2002/VMCP/247 and dated 10.6.2003 in Ref.No.PU/AS-I/Aca-8/26/2002/VMCP/274 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent University to consider and grant affiliation for the B.Sc (Nursing) Course offered by the petitioner for the academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 in the light of the permission granted by the Government of Pondicherry, the recognition granted by the Indian Nursing Council and the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council Etc. to enable the students to continue the course and undertake all examinations until the completion of the course. In this order, the parties will be referred in the same rank as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 15877/2003. 2. The following facts are necessary to decide the issue in question: The R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences was established by the Al-Islamic Trust for imparting education in Physiotherapy, Prosthetics & Orthotics, Pharmacy, Optometry, Speech Therapy, Radiography, Nursing and M.L.T. The Government of Pondicherry, by proceedings dated 27.3.1998 had also granted No Objection Certificate for starting the said institution subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, when the petitioner Trust approached the 1st respondent University for grant of No Objection Certificate to establish the said institute, it was also considered and granted by proceedings dated 17.6.1999 for the academic year 1999-2000 only for the following courses (i) B.Pharm (ii) B.P.T (iii) Nursing and (iv) M.L.T. But, when the Al-Islamic Education Trust approached the 1st respondent University for grant of affiliation of the R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences, the University, by letter dated 21.1.2000, rejected the same on the ground that the requirements, as contemplated, in the Academic Ordinance of the University were not satisfied. Consequence of this, the erstwhile Trust filed W.P. Nos. 19646 and 19647 of 2000 challenging the applicability of the provisions of the Pondicherry University Academic Ordinance on the ground that the Trust is a minority Trust. Consequence of this, the erstwhile Trust filed W.P. Nos. 19646 and 19647 of 2000 challenging the applicability of the provisions of the Pondicherry University Academic Ordinance on the ground that the Trust is a minority Trust. Pending the above writ petitions, the said R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences was taken over by the petitioner Trust by name, Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust and the name of the college was changed as Vinayaka Mission’s College of Para-Medical Sciences and by letter dated 11.6.2002, the 2nd respondent herein, when permission was sought for the merger of the R.M. College of Paa-Medical Sciences with the petitioner Trust, specifically stated that it does not have any role to play in this regard. But, at the same time, in the said order, it was also clearly stated that the interest of the students already admitted and studying in various courses should be protected. Subsequent to this, by letter dated 5.7.2002, the petitioner applied for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2002-2003, but, in the meanwhile, by proceedings dated 4.12.2002, the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai has granted temporary recognition to the above said institution subject to the following conditions: “1. Admission of candidates should not exceed 50 per cent during the year 2002-2003 and admission must be made only once a year in July for the academic year commencing therefrom. 2. Proposals for development of infrastructure for Iind year in 2003-2004, III year in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 for a total students of 200 have to be sent by the institution immediately to this council. 3. First batch of admission of students in the new premises is permitted for July 2002-2003 only. 4. List of candidates admitted during the year together with their age and qualification should be submitted by the institution. 5. The institution should follow the syllabus, curriculum and standard clinical staffing pattern for the hospital and community health areas strictly as per Indian Nursing Council regulations. 6. That the institution should not charge any capitation fee or donation for admission of candidates except the regular tuition and special fees as laid down in the prospectus/regulations. 7. They should obtain affiliation from the Pondicherry University and submit a copy of the same to this council. 8. Failure to maintain the prescribed requirements will result in de-recognition. 9. 6. That the institution should not charge any capitation fee or donation for admission of candidates except the regular tuition and special fees as laid down in the prospectus/regulations. 7. They should obtain affiliation from the Pondicherry University and submit a copy of the same to this council. 8. Failure to maintain the prescribed requirements will result in de-recognition. 9. Deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report have to be rectified before applying for continuation of recogntion for 2003-2004 and report sent to this Council without fail. 10. Rectification report and application for II batch of admission be sent sufficiently in advance to enable this Council to take further action for recognition of the II batch of programme in 2003-2004. 11. Subject the institution to an inspection before starting II-batch of programme in 2003-2004 under Rule (38) of the rules framed under Section 11(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Act, 1926. 12. Annual recognition fee of Rs.7000/- (ie. for the year 2002-2003 only) in the form of Demand Draft favouring Registrar, Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, chennai -4 must be paid on receipt of this order and before June every subsequent year. 13. To submit annual report with prospectus. 14. The college and the qualification granted by it will be recommended for Indian Nursing Council recognition ony after this Council grants permanent recognition, the stage of which arises only after this Council observes the functioning of the institution till the first batch passes the qualifying exam and the college is found equipped with all the necessary infrastructure as per Indian Nursing Council norms without any deficiency thereof. 15. The institution should develop its own clinical and community area (150 bedded hospital and a community centre of its own) within a period of three years before July, 2005).� Subsequent to this, by letter dated 9.1.2003, the 1st respondent University herein has brought to the notice of the petitioner that admission of students and commencement of the courses have to be made only after granting of affiliation for the concerned courses by the University and admission of students and commencement of the courses prior to getting affiliation would be illegal. Subsequent to this, the University, by order dated 18.2.2003, has rejected affiliation for B.Sc (Nursing) Course on the ground that for starting a new college, a proposal should have been sent to the University on or before the 13th of August of the preceding year i.e., 13.8.2001. Apart from this, as per the said order of the University, which is under challenge in this writ petition, the Trust has not informed or obtained prior concurrence from the University for taking over R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences before 13.8.2001 for considering the same for the academic year 2002-2003. According to the impugned order, since the request with regard to grant of affiliation was received only on 3.7.2002, while the cut-off date was 13.8.2001, the petitioner’s request was rejected. After the receipt of the said order, the petitioner herein submitted a representation dated 25.2.2003, in this regard. But, again, the same was rejected by order dated 11.4.2003 referring the earlier rejection order dated 18.2.2003. Further, by proceedings dated 10.6.2003, quoting the earlier orders of rejection of affiliation, the affiliation fee was also returned. Now, challenging these orders, W.P. No. 15877 of 2003 has been filed. 3. As far as W.P. No. 36847/2004 is concerned, it has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to allow the petitioners who have been admitted in the B.Sc (Nursing) Course in the 3rd respondent institution during the academic year 2002-2003 and who have been permitted to undertake the 1st and 2nd semester examinations by orders of this Hon’ble Court to undertake the 3rd and 4th semester examinations commencing on 15.12.2004 or on any other date by issuing necessary examination application form, registration form accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. 4. W.P.No.36849/2004 is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directingthe 1st respondent University to allow the students who have been admitted in the B.Sc (Nursing) Course in the 3rd respondent institution during the academic year 2003-2004 both under Government quota and Management quota to undertake the 1st and 2nd semester B.Sc (Nursing) degree course examination commencing on 15.12.2004 or on any other date by issuing necessary examination application form, registration form accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. 5. 5. W.P.No.39362/2005 has been filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to permit the petitioners therein, who have been admitted in the 2nd respondent institution during the academic year 2003-2004, both under the Government quota and Management quota to undertake the 4th semester in B.Sc (Nursing) degree course examination commencing from 14.12.2005 or any other date by issuing necessary application form, registration form, accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. 6. W.P.No.19032/2005 has been filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to permit the petitioners who have been have been admitted in the 2nd respondent institution during the academic year 2003-2004 both under Government quota and Management quota to undertake the 1st and 2nd semester B.Sc (Nursing) degree course examination commencing on 15.12.2004 or on any other date by issuing necessary examination application form, registration form accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. 7. During the pendency of W.P.No.15877/2003, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 7.2.2006 by which, it had recommended the 2nd respondent to allot the students of the petitioner college (1st & 2nd batch) to INC and TNC recognised institutions within Pondicherry jurisdiction. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.5080 of 2006. 8. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences, now renamed as Vinayaka Mission’s College of Para-Medical Sciences was taken over only on 26.6.2002. Hence, the reason basing on which the affiliation has been rejected by order dated 18.2.2003 i.e, proposal for starting the said college by the petitioner institution was not forwarded before 13.8.2001 for considering the same for the academic year 2002-2003 is totally unsustainable. Since, the merger itself had taken place only on 26.6.2002, the question of sending the proposal prior to that does not arise. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, the 1st respondent University, by letter dated 11.6.2002 has granted No Objection Certificate for the merger and that apart, when the college was functioning under the name and style as R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences, the 1st respondent University itself had granted No Objection Certificate, by letter dated 17.6.99. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, the 1st respondent University, by letter dated 11.6.2002 has granted No Objection Certificate for the merger and that apart, when the college was functioning under the name and style as R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences, the 1st respondent University itself had granted No Objection Certificate, by letter dated 17.6.99. Besides, according to the learned senior counsel, the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai, which is a statutory body, by proceedings dated 4.12.2002, granted temporary recognition. As such,the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2002-2003 on the ground that the proposal for starting a new college was not forwarded on or before 13.8.2001 is unreasonable. According to the learned senior counsel, after inspection, the statutory body has granted temporary recognition specifically stating that temporary recognition has been issued after satisfying itself with the infrastructure available in the new premises. The learned senior counsel relied on the judgment rendered in H.E.T.C. Educational Society V. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2003 3 CTC 1 ) and contended that when two authorities have granted the relevant permission, namely, the Government of Pondicherry and the Nursing Council of Tamil Nadu, the 1st respondent University herein ought not to have rejected the affiliation for the petitioner institution for the nursing course for the academic year 2002-2003. Learned senior counsel has further contended that, in similar circumstances, this Honourable Court, in W.P. No.10850/2004, taking into consideration, the permission granted by the Government of Pondicherry and the recognition granted by the statutory body, issued a direction directing the respondents to grant affiliation. Even in the writ appeal also, which was filed challenging the order passed in the above said writ petition, a Division Bench of this Honourable Court, has taken the view that once provisional affiliation is issued, it is open to the respondent institution to apply to the University for holding supplemental examination for the 1st year students, which shall be considered by the University, based on the provisional affiliation issued to it fixing the necessary schedule for holding such examination. Basing on this, the learned senior counsel has contended that as far as the petitioner institution is concerned, the 2nd and the 3rd respondents have granted No Objection Certificate as well as temporary recognition. Basing on this, the learned senior counsel has contended that as far as the petitioner institution is concerned, the 2nd and the 3rd respondents have granted No Objection Certificate as well as temporary recognition. Hence, prima facie, the reason basing on which the petitioner’s request has been rejected is unsustainable and therefore, the same has to be set aside. Learned senior counsel further contended that even the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai, by order dated 4.6.2003, has granted temporary recognition for the annual intake of 60 students for the year 2002-2004. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, even as per the judgment of this Honourable Court, dated 22.03.2002, rendered in W.P.No.23925/2001, (Aarupadai Veedu Medical College V. Pondicherry University) once the Government has granted permission to admit students, it is not right on the part of the University to prescribe a different reason for rejecting the application for affiliation. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the students, who have impleaded themselves as party respondents R4 to R52, has contended that by proceedings dated 07.02.2006, the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai has issued directions transferring the students from the petitioner institution to INC and TNC recognised institutions. According to the learned counsel, the students have suffered for the past 4 years for no fault of them and that apart, learned counsel has contended that after having spent so much of money, for not fault of them, the education of the students has been affected and having regard to the interest of the students alone, the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council has passed the proceedings dated 07.02.2006 allotting them to INC and TNC institutions. That apart, according to the learned counsel, even as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 4 Supreme 572 (C.B.S.E. & Another Vs. P.Sunil Kumar and Others), the students of a non-affiliated educational institution cannot be permitted to appear in the examination conducted by the authority and that apart, according to him, permitting students of the institution for which no affiliation has been granted will amount to subversion of law. P.Sunil Kumar and Others), the students of a non-affiliated educational institution cannot be permitted to appear in the examination conducted by the authority and that apart, according to him, permitting students of the institution for which no affiliation has been granted will amount to subversion of law. Even as per the order of the Nursing Council dated 07.02.2006, according to the counsel, due to lack of physical infrastructure, faculty and clinical facilities, the strength of the students has been reduced from 60 to 40 and after conducting inspection and after considering the grievance of the students only, the order of allotment of students to INC and TNC has been passed, to safeguard the interest of the students. Certainly, according to the learned counsel, the order dated 07.02.2006, which is in challenge in W.P.No.5080/2006 has to be upheld. That apart, according to the learned counsel, unless the students pass through the course from an institution for which affiliation has been granted by the University, they cannot get a degree or diploma, the permission for recognition will be either from the Indian Nursing Council or by Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council. As such, the learned counsel has prayed for upholding of the order dated 7.2.2006. Further, according to the learned counsel, the order passed by the 1st respondent University with regard to refusal to grant affiliation for the academic year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 is valid. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University has contended that admittedly, as per the statute, the petitioner institution should have sent a proposal for starting new college on or before 15.8.2001. But, the request for affiliation was sent by the petitioner institution only on 5.7.2002. According to the learned counsel, as per the ordinance, which has been passed under Section 5(17) of the Pondicherry University Act, 1985 r/w statute 32(5)(a), any application for affiliation has to be submitted by the concerned institution in the prescribed format, not later than 15th August of the preceding year, in which it is intending to start the college. According to the learned counsel, on receipt of the application for affiliation, the committee constituted by the Academic Council shall scrutinise the application and if any further particulars, clarification is needed, they have to seek the same and after the report of the affiliation committee, the Academic Council has to appoint a committee for inspection. According to the learned counsel, on receipt of the application for affiliation, the committee constituted by the Academic Council shall scrutinise the application and if any further particulars, clarification is needed, they have to seek the same and after the report of the affiliation committee, the Academic Council has to appoint a committee for inspection. The said committee has to examine the request, inspect the site and submit its report to the University on the facility of the proposed college, the suitability of the site, the adequacy of the physical facilities and financial resources and then make specific recommendations. Subsequent to this, the University shall make necessary arrangements to complete the process of intimating the decision to the sponsoring body the Government Department concerned and since, according to the learned counsel, for processing the application, as per the procedure contemplated under the ordinance, the 1st respondent University is in need of time. Basing on this alone, a specific condition has been imposed that any application for affiliation has to be submitted on or before the 15th August of the preceding year in which the concerned institution intends to start a new college. Further, the learned counsel, relied on the judgment of this Honourable Court in 2003 Writ L.R. 536 (S.Manikandan & 5 Others Vs. The Secretary, Selection Committee and Others) and contended that by the impugned order, the 1st respondent University had rejected the petitioner’s application for affiliation for the academic year 2002-2003 that it was not submitted before the cut-off date. According to the learned counsel, basing on the reasoning that the students were permitted to writ the examination and results have been published, the 1st respondent University cannot be compelled to grant affiliation and that will amount to directing the 1st respondent University to act contrary to the rules and regulations. That apart, according to the learned counsel, the 1st respondent University had informed the petitioner on 9.6.2003 itself, that without getting affiliation, the admission of students and commencement of courses should not be done. Even as per the averment of the petitioner in the affidavit also, for the academic year 2002-2003, the students were admitted only in July, 2002. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek any protection relying on the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2002. Even as per the averment of the petitioner in the affidavit also, for the academic year 2002-2003, the students were admitted only in July, 2002. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek any protection relying on the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2002. Even the temporary recognition has been granted by the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai subject to certain conditions and basing on such recommendation, the 1st respondent University is not duty bound to grant affiliation. Further, the learned counsel submitted that as far as the academic year 2003-2004 is concerned, though the 1st respondent University sent a communication to the petitioner fixing the date of inspection by letter dated 14.09.2004, the 1st respondent University has been informed by the petitioner that the date on which the inspection is proposed to be conducted is a holiday. According to the learned counsel, though the date was fixed for inspection for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2003-2004, the petitioner was not ready and as such, the 1st respondent University is yet to conduct inspection of the petitioner institution with regard to grant of affiliation for the academic year 2003-2004. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following rulings: (i) 1986 2 SCC 667 (A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society V. Government of A.P.) and (ii) The order passed in W.P. Nos.33933/2005 and 1163/2006 dated 23.2.2006. (iii) 2004 6 SCC 76 (Medical Council of India V. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health, Science &Others) (iii) 1995-1-L.W. 348 (Maheswari R. V. Secretary, Selection Committee etc.) (iv) 2005 Writ L.R. 395 (The University of Madras V. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust and another) (v) 1998 4 Supreme 572 (C.B.S.E. & Another V. P. Sunil Kumar & Others) (vi) 1995 Writ L.R. 203 (R. Vinothkumar V. Secretary, Selection Committee, Sabarmathi Hostel, K.M.C. Etc.) 11. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, the petitioner institution has not complied with any of the conditions to be satisfied and after the inspection, which was conducted on 6.12.2005, it is seen that the petitioner is lacking in many areas. According to the learned counsel, as the conditions have not been complied with, the students cannot be permitted to continue their course in the petitioner institution. That apart, not even affiliation has been granted by the 1st respondent University. 12. According to the learned counsel, as the conditions have not been complied with, the students cannot be permitted to continue their course in the petitioner institution. That apart, not even affiliation has been granted by the 1st respondent University. 12. Learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the 2nd respondent will carry out the directions issued in these writ petitions. 13. I have heard the submissions of the respective counsel. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner institution was started originally in the name “R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences� by the Al-Islamic Trust in the year 1999, basing on the No Objection Certificate granted by the 1st respondent University as well as by the 2nd respondent. But, in the year 2000, the Trust filed W.P. Nos. 19646 & 19647 of 2000 for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent therein ending with its letter No.PU/ASI/Aca-8/33/99/RCMPS/275 dated 9.10.2000 and to quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to grant affiliation to the college run by the petitioner therein, without reference to clause B(iii) of Appendix-I of the First Ordinance Governing Academic Matters of the 1st respondent. Pending the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has taken over R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences and the Government of Pondicherry, the 2nd respondent herein, by its proceedings dated 16.2.2002 has clearly stated that it does not have any role to play in the matter of merger and made it clear that the institution must protect the interest of students, who were already admitted and who were studying in various other courses. Admittedly, as contemplated in clause 5 Chapter VII of First Ordinance Governing Academic Matters, any application for affiliation has to be submitted on or before the 15th August of the preceding year, in which the sponsoring body is intending to start a college. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, since the merger itself has taken place only on 26.6.2002, the question of applying for affiliation on or before 13.8.2001 does not arise at all. As far as the petitioner institution is concerned, even according to the averment in the affidavit also, running of colleges is not a new factor to them as already they are running colleges, both at Salem as well as at Pondicherry. As far as the petitioner institution is concerned, even according to the averment in the affidavit also, running of colleges is not a new factor to them as already they are running colleges, both at Salem as well as at Pondicherry. As such, they are well aware of the fact that the application seeking affiliation should be submitted on or before 15th of August of the preceding year. As per Section 5(17) of the Pondicherry University Act, 1985, r/w statute 32(5)(a), any application for affiliation has to be submitted on or before 15th of August of the preceding year in which the sponsoring body intends to start the college. Knowing fully well that the time is over, the petitioner institution has taken over R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences on 20.6.2002 and hence, referring the date on which the merger has taken place, the petitioner cannot plead that since, the merger itself has taken place in June, 2002, the application for affiliation could not have been submitted prior to 20.6.2002. The Nursing Council has granted temporary recognition by proceedings dated 4.12.2002 subject to certain conditions. Even as per that order also, the petitioner institution had not complied with all necessary requirements. Hence, specifically holding that temporary recognition to the above said institution is granted to conduct the basic programme in B.Sc. (Nursing) for the academic year 2002-2003, on condition that the institution should obtain affiliation from Pondicherry University namely, the 1st respondent University. Therefore, relying on the recognition given by the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, the petitioner institution cannot contend that since the statutory authorities have granted necessary permission, basing on the Division Bench’s Judgment, they are entitled for affiliation, when the Nursing Council has specifically stated in its proceedings that the petitioner institution should obtain affiliation from the Pondicherry University and that apart, failure to maintain the prescribed requirements will result in de-recognition as per the said order. In other words, in the academic year 2002-2003, since affiliation was not granted by the 1st respondent University, as per the conditions laid down by the Nursing Council, the recognition granted will be deemed to have been cancelled and the institution will be de-recognised. 15. In other words, in the academic year 2002-2003, since affiliation was not granted by the 1st respondent University, as per the conditions laid down by the Nursing Council, the recognition granted will be deemed to have been cancelled and the institution will be de-recognised. 15. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent University, after receiving the application for affiliation, the same is subject to scrutiny by the affiliation committee constituted by the Academic Council and after getting the report from the affiliation committee, the Academic Council has to set up an inspection committee and the inspection committee must examine and inspect the site and submit its report to the University on the need and feasibility of the proposed college, the suitability of the site, the adequacy of the physical facilities and financial resources and then make suitable recommendations. Subsequent to this alone, the University shall make necessary arrangements to complete the process and intimate the decision to the sponsoring body. But, in this case, the application form itself has been submitted only in the 1st week of July, 2002. Hence, the contention of the counsel that it is only a technical formality and basing on this, rejecting the affiliation is unsustainable cannot be accepted since, as far as educational institutions are concerned, as it is concerned with the welfare of students, unless and until the authority concerned, who has to grant affiliation is given sufficient time to go through the process as prescribed under the relevant rules, ordinances and statutes, certainly, it cannot complete its process in the manner in which it should have been done. In spite of the order of the 1st respondent, petitioner had admitted students. Hence, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong and claim relief. The conditions imposed by the 1st respondent University on the sponsoring body, who seeks affiliation, unless such condition is held to be illegal, the Court cannot direct either the amendment of the condition or consideration of the claim of the sponsoring body in a manner otherwise than provided under the concerned rules. Even as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1995 Writ L.R. 203 (cited supra), “the stipulation in this regard, to my mind, is more a matter of condition, which also operates as a condition precedent for the very entertainment and consideration of the application itself. Even as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1995 Writ L.R. 203 (cited supra), “the stipulation in this regard, to my mind, is more a matter of condition, which also operates as a condition precedent for the very entertainment and consideration of the application itself. Unless the applicant concerned also ensures the delivery of the application within the stipulated time to the concerned authority, whatever may be the mode of such delivery which the candidate himself has chosen to adopt or avail out of the alternatives available to him, the applicant forfeits his right to have his application considered by the Competent Authority...The receipt of the application within the stipulated time being a condition for the very exercise of power by the competent Selection Authority, there is neither any scope for such Authority, even if it so desires, to exercise the power in respect of such an application belatedly received nor could this Court compel the exercise of power by such Authority notwithstanding the non-fulfilment of the condition precedent for its exercise.� Even as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 (2) SCC 667 (cited supra), “the Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. That would be destructive of the rule of law.� That apart, the University has got certain reputation which it only wants to be protected and upheld. It is for these reasons that before grant of affiliation, the University makes an inspection, enquiry, etc. about the college seeking affiliation. In the judgment reported in 2005 Writ L.R. 395 (cited supra), this Court held as follows: “18. We are of the opinion that any college or institution admitting students for a degree in a University even before the University accords it affiliation is really committing fraud on those students and is cheating those students who are given admission, because those students can be left in the lurch if ultimately affiliation is not granted. 19. In our opinion, no college can claim affiliation as of right. It is only for the University in its discretion to grant affiliation or not. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers to grant affiliation nor can it direct the University to grant affiliation. 19. In our opinion, no college can claim affiliation as of right. It is only for the University in its discretion to grant affiliation or not. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers to grant affiliation nor can it direct the University to grant affiliation. An act which the statutory authority has to do cannot be done by this Court and this Court must exercise restraint in this connection.� That apart, as rightly contended by the counsel for the 1st respondent University, the Government of Pondicherry, in its order dated 11.6.2002, has specifically stated that the Government does not have any role to play in the case of merger of R.M. College of Para-Medical Sciences with that the petitioner’s Trust. That apart, according to the said order, the institution has to protect the students, who were already admitted and undergoing the course. But, as per the averment of the petitioner, the students for nursing course for the academic year 2002-2003 were admitted only in July, 2002. As such, they cannot take shelter under the Government Order dated 11.6.2002. As contended by the learned counsel for the Nursing Council, who is the third respondent herein, even as per the inspection report, dated 6.12.2005, the petitioner institution had not complied with a number of conditions and deficiencies in a number of matters have been pointed out. The deficiencies which have been pointed out are lack of physical infrastructure, faculty, clinical facilities and also other deficiencies. The findings of the said inspection report are as hereunder: Physical Facilities: School: There is no land and unitary building available to run three programmes. However, the hospital building is being shared. On the day of inspection, school name board was not found and the existing building was converted into Interns quarters and hospital for the purpose of MCI inspection. Even though, the available classrooms allotted for these nursing programmes are inadequate to meet the requirements. All the lab equipments were dumped into one room. Auditorium is combined with Medical College. Transport: Vehicle: 50 seater capacity, 2- Bus available, Van 1, for three Programmes (B.Sc.,(N), DGNM & MPHW(F)) Hostel: Rental 10 students are staying in the hostal whereas admission capacity per year is 25. (Total 50) 40 students are day scholars. Furnitures not provided to the students as per INC norms. Hostel facilities provided to the students are not satisfactory as per INC norms. (Total 50) 40 students are day scholars. Furnitures not provided to the students as per INC norms. Hostel facilities provided to the students are not satisfactory as per INC norms. No recreational facilities. Clinical Facilities: (a) Hospital: Beds are filled during the day of inspection for the sake of MCI inspection. But no students were seen in the clinical areas on the day of inspection. Inadequate supervision in the clinical area. (b) Community Health Centre: PHC order from the year 2003 was not available for three programmes. Records: Subject attendance was not available. Leave record was not maintained properly. Health record is irregular. Curricular Planning: Planned properly. But there is no records of implementation. Student Faculty Development Programme: No Student Nurses Association activity. No development programmes and any other co-curricular activities are being conducted by the School. No Faculty Student welfare Programme. INFERENCES OF THE REPORT: No land and unitary building for the School of Nursing as required by INC. 16 B.Sc., Nursing Tutors with the required experience as per the INC norms need to be appointed Grave Deficiencies found in the faculty position. Therefore no proper supervision in the clinical area. Available Classrooms are not adequate and was converted as intern quarters for the MCI inspection. All lab equipments were empties and dumped in one room. Library No separate library for the nursing programmes. However, latest edition nursing books and journals need to be procured. Records need to be maintained properly. Rental Hostel inadequate. Hospital Beds are filled during the day of inspection since the MCI inspection was conducted on the same day, but no nursing students were found in the clinical area. Staff and Students Welfare Programmes need to be organized. Separate budget for each course need to be provided. The above report was placed in the Council Meeting and the Resolution of the meeting of the Council is as follows: “The Council resolved that GNM Programme at Vinayaka College of Nursing strength may be reduced from 50 to 30 from the year 2006-2007 due to lack of physical infrastructure, faculty and clinical facilities. The above report was placed in the Council Meeting and the Resolution of the meeting of the Council is as follows: “The Council resolved that GNM Programme at Vinayaka College of Nursing strength may be reduced from 50 to 30 from the year 2006-2007 due to lack of physical infrastructure, faculty and clinical facilities. Further, time bound rectification may be allowed (6 months) and re-inspection may be arranged and on the receipt of the re-inspection report, Council may take further action.� This report has been submitted before the Council and basing on this report, the Council has passed a resolution that the students’ strength for the academic year 2006-2007 has to be reduced from 25 to 15. The petitioner makes its claim for grant of affiliation for the Nursing Course for the academic year 2002-2003 basing on the temporary recognition granted by the Nursing council by proceedings dated 4.12.2002 as well as subsequent recognition. But, even the same body, after the inspection on 6.12.2005, has submitted a report pointing out deficiencies in other aspects. Besides, as far as the reliance placed on the Judgment dated 2.9.2004 rendered by this Honourable Court in W.P. No. 10850/2004 is concerned, that order itself states that it should not be cited as a precedent. That apart, there, permission was granted by the AICTE. In the present case, though the Nursing Council has granted permission, it was subject to certain conditions, specifically subject to the affiliation to be granted by the Pondicherry University. If affiliation is not granted, according to the recognition order of the Nursing Council, the institution becomes de-recognised. As such, relying on this, the petitioner cannot seek any protection and it cannot seek affiliation also. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken over the institution on 26.6.2002. When an inspection has been conducted in December, 2005, by the Nursing council, as per the inspection report, the mandatory requirements were not fulfilled. Having not fulfilled the prescribed requirements, the petitioner cannot seek affiliation. That apart, even when a date had been fixed by the 1st respondent University with regard to grant of affiliation for the academic year 2003-2004, the petitioner has replied to the same by letter dated 23.12.2005 to the effect that the date fixed for inspection was a holiday. If the petitioner institution is really concerned about the welfare of the students, it would not have sent such a reply. If the petitioner institution is really concerned about the welfare of the students, it would not have sent such a reply. Consequence of this, the 1st respondent University, till date could not conduct any inspection with regard to affiliation for the academic year 2003-2004. Hence, relying on the admission of students and also relying on the reasoning that the 2nd respondent itself has sponsored 40 students to the petitioner institution and relying on the welfare of students, the petitioner cannot seek any affiliation, since the Nursing Council itself, by order dated 7.2.2006, has recommended for the transfer of the students of the academic year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 to other recognised institutions. As far as educational institutions are concerned, welfare of students is a primary concern. From the order dated 7.2.2006, it is seen that students from petitioner institution have been transferred to other institutions due to lack of physical infrastructure, faculty and clinical facilities and the students’ strength has been reduced from 60 to 40 for the academic year 2006-2007. Apart from this, as per the said order, time bound rectification has been allowed (6 months) and after re-inspection, again, further action will be proceeded with. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the students, in the event of the petitioner institution not complying with the prescribed requirements and in the event of grant of affiliation for the academic year 2002-2003, the ultimate sufferers will be the students. That apart, once, after the Nursing Council withdraws its recognition, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even after the completion of the course, the students cannot get any certificate or degree since affiliation is not granted to the petitioner institution. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of this Honourable Court reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 536 (cited supra). The Honourable Supreme Court of India in 1998 4 Supreme 572 (cited supra) has held thus: “It was also observed that the court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law.� Hence, the orders of the 1st respondent University dated 18.2.2003, 11.4.2003 and 10.6.2003 are upheld and W.P. No. 15877/2003 is dismissed. 16. 16. Now coming to the prayer sought for in W.P.No.5080/2006 wherein the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 7.2.2006 is concerned, the 3rd respondent has recommended for the transfer of the 1st and 2nd batch of students of the petitioner college to INC and TNC recognised institutions. As per the said order, the same has been passed after verifying the grievance of the students in the course of the inspection conducted. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the extraordinary circumstances, though the respondents-students have undergone the Course so far in an unaffiliated institution, keeping in view the time spent by them and the money spent by them and also their welfare and age factor and other circumstances, I am of the view that setting aside the order of the Nursing Council dated 7.2.2006 would cause injustice to the students, who are already forced to run from pillar to post for no fault of them and that apart, in the case of teacher training institute, to which recognition has been cancelled, basing on the orders of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1993 Writ L.R. 604 and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, even after getting through the examination, they are placed in a miserable position. As such, I am of the view that the order passed by the Nursing Council dated 7.2.2006 has to be upheld. 17. W.P.No.36847/2004 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to allow the petitioners who have been admitted in the B.Sc (Nursing) Course in the 3rd respondent institution during the academic year 2002-2003 and who have been permitted to undertake the 1st and 2nd semester examinations by orders of this Hon’ble Court to also undertake the 3rd and 4th semester examinations commencing on 15.12.2004 or on any other date by issuing necessary examination application form, registration form accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. By interim order granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.44221/2004 dated 14.12.2004, the petitioners therein have written the 3rd and 4th semester examination and subsequently, results were also declared. As such, nothing survives in this writ petition. 18. By interim order granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.44221/2004 dated 14.12.2004, the petitioners therein have written the 3rd and 4th semester examination and subsequently, results were also declared. As such, nothing survives in this writ petition. 18. W.P.No.36849/2004 is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to allow the students who have been admitted in the B.Sc (Nursing) Course in the 3rd respondent institution during the academic year 2003-2004 both under Government quota and Management quota to undertake the 1st and 2nd semester B.Sc (Nursing) degree course examination commencing on 15.12.2004 or on any other date by issuing necessary examination application form, registration form accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. By interim order dated 14.12.2004 in W.P.M.P. No.44223/2004, the petitioners therein were permitted to write the examination, but the results were not published. W.P.No.39362/2005 is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to permit the petitioners therein, who have been admitted in the 2nd respondent institution during the academic year 2003-2004, both under the Government quota and Management quota to undertake the 4th semester in B.Sc (Nursing) degree course examination commencing from 14.12.2005 or any other date by issuing necessary application form, registration form, accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. By way of interim order dated 12.12.2005, in W.P.M.P.No.42171/2005, the petitioners were permitted to write the examination, but the results were not published. W.P.No.19032/2005 is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to permit the petitioners who have been have been admitted in the 2nd respondent institution during the academic year 2003-2004 both under Government quota and Management quota to undertake the 1st and 2nd semester B.Sc (Nursing) degree course examination commencing on 15.12.2004 or on any other date by issuing necessary examination application form, registration form accepting the registration and examination fees and by issuing hall-tickets and other materials and declare their results. By way of interim order dated 15.6.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.20575/2005, petitioners therein were permitted to write the 1st and 2nd semester examinations, but the results should not be published. By way of interim order dated 15.6.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.20575/2005, petitioners therein were permitted to write the 1st and 2nd semester examinations, but the results should not be published. Though the petitioners-students in the above three writ petitions have undergone B.Sc (Nursing) Course, so far, in an unaffiliated institution, keeping in view the time spent by them and the money spent by them and also the age factor and other circumstances, in view of the order passed by the Nursing Council dated 7.2.2006, in the event of their transfer to affiliated institutions, their results can be declared. On the above terms, the above three writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.19941/03, 44221/04, 44223/04, 42171/04, 20575/05, 42653/05, 5486/06, 3251 & 3252/06 are closed.