Judgment 1. This petition seeks a direction to quash order dated 22.1.2007, Annexure P.15 requiring the petitioner No. 1-Institute to inform 23 students i.e. petitioners 2 to 24 admitted by it to the M.Ed. course for Session 2006-07 that their admissions were illegal. 2. Case of the petitioner-Institute is that it was running a B.Ed. college since the year 2004-05. It applied for starting M.Ed. course in the same college and made an application dated 13.9 2006. Annexure P.6 for the purpose. It also applied for affiliation vide letter dated 14.9.2006, Annexure P.7. On 2.12.2006, petitioner No. l was granted permission by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) with intake of 25 seats for the session 2006-07 vide Annexure P.9. The respondent-University vide letter dated 4.12.2006, Annexure P.10 informed the petitioner-Institute that inspection of the college will be carried Out. Inspection was carried out and the petitioner understood that affiliation will be granted. On 11.12.2006. Annexure P.12, the petitioner- Institute gave advertisement for admissions and gave admission to 24 students who started attending classes from 16.12.2006. The petitioner-Institute informed the University about the admissions but vide impugned letter, the University took the stand that the admissions were illegal. On 29.1.2007, vide Annexure P.16, a notice was also published in the newspaper that the petitioner-Institute had not been given affiliation. 3. In the reply, filed, the stand taken by the University is that approval granted by the NCTE was subject to certain conditions and the admissions were made by the petitioner-Institute without affiliation which was not legally permissible. Advertisement for admission was illegal by wrongly mentioning that NCTE approval was for the session 2006-07 but in the letter of the approval, Annexure P.9, session 2006-07 was not mentioned. As per norms laid down by NCTE for M.Ed. course, Annexure R.4, atleast 200 working days for instructions/field work for dissertion and internship were required to be completed. Conduct of the Chairman of the petitioner-Institute in exchanging hot words with the inspection team also dis-entitled the petitioner Institute for any relief. Making of admissions in the middle of December was in the mid session and it was impossible to achieve minimum requirement of 200 working days. 4. The petitioner-Institute filed a rejoinder, inter-ailia, stating that it had the requisite infrastructure and had been granted approval by the NCTE in its 111th meeting and refusal of affiliation by the University was biased. Making of admissions in the middle of December was in the mid session and it was impossible to achieve minimum requirement of 200 working days. 4. The petitioner-Institute filed a rejoinder, inter-ailia, stating that it had the requisite infrastructure and had been granted approval by the NCTE in its 111th meeting and refusal of affiliation by the University was biased. The University itself admitted students to the M.Ed. course upto 24.12.2006. 5. The University filed a further reply reiterating its stand that admissions were illegal and the course could not be completed as per the norms and guidelines laid down by then NCTE. Admissions could not have been made till the petitionerInstitute obtained unconditional letter of recognition and affiliation from the University. Inspection report dated 2.7.2007 has also been placed on record with the observation that the students were not allowed contract with the Inspection Committee and the relevant record is not shown to which the petitioner has filed a reply to the effect that the appointment of Faculty stood approved by the University vide letters dated 26.6.2007, Annexures P.22 and P.23. 6. On 8.5 2007, following order was passed by this Court. "Notice of application. On the asking of the Court, Shri Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Shireesh Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent University. Perusal of records indicates that there is some lapse on the part of the Management of petitioner-college, in not complying with the terms and conditions, as laid down by the University for affiliation. It has also come on record that the petitioner-college has granted admission to the students in M.Ed. Course, on 15.12.2006. Counsel for the petitioner states that all the students have acquired/undergone the requisite number of lectures, to appear in the annual examination. Counsel further states that infrastructure, to get affiliation for the college, is complete and the University may inspect the premises at any time, after giving notice to the management. Lest career of the students may suffer, due to fault, which exclusively lies on the part of the Management, we direct that subject to proving eligibility of the students, with regard to attending requisite number of lectures, which the petitioner will show to the respondent-University tomorrow i.e. 9.5.2007 by 2 PM. Lest career of the students may suffer, due to fault, which exclusively lies on the part of the Management, we direct that subject to proving eligibility of the students, with regard to attending requisite number of lectures, which the petitioner will show to the respondent-University tomorrow i.e. 9.5.2007 by 2 PM. the University, on being satisfied, will issue roll numbers to the students to appear in the examination, which is tentatively, going to start on 10.5 2007. We further direct that Shri Roshan Lal Jindal, Chairman of the petitioner-Society, shall tender an unqualified apology to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University, with regard to anything, which may have happened in the past. On apology being so tendered, the respondent-University will send a team of experts to look into the infrastructure of the college. The team be sent after notice in writing, to the petitioner. The process of inspection be completed on or before the next date of hearing. It is made clear that permission granted to the students, to appear in the annual examination, is provisional and they shall not be entitled to claim any equity on account of the same. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary. C W P No. 1762 of 2007. 7. On request made by counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to 2.7.2007." It has been informed that the course was of one year and the students, completed the course and have appeared in the examination. 8. The question for consideration is whether admissions made by the petitioner-Institute even before unconditional recognition by the NCTE, without affiliation by the University, in the mid session, when the requisite period of 200 working days was not available before the examination, could be held to be valid. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners justified the admissions on the ground that affiliation was being wrongly denied and that admissions were being made by the University or other colleges upto December 2006. 10. Learned counsel for the University opposed the submission by submitting that there were valid reasons for refusal of affiliation and in any case, without the issue being adjudicated, the affiliation could not be dispensed with nor could the petitioner seek parity with admissions made by other institutes already having affiliation. 10. Learned counsel for the University opposed the submission by submitting that there were valid reasons for refusal of affiliation and in any case, without the issue being adjudicated, the affiliation could not be dispensed with nor could the petitioner seek parity with admissions made by other institutes already having affiliation. In any case, the admissions made few months before the examination, without there being requisite period of (- sic-) available, could not be upheld. It was also submitted that in the interim order, it was made clear that no equity could be claimed only on account of the students having appeared in the examination. 11. We find that conduct of the petitioner-Institute in seeking admissions cannot be approved. If the Institute was aggrieved by refusal of affiliation, it could challenge the same but could not make admissions till affiliation was granted. The requisite period of 200 working days not being available, provisional recognition itself having been granted only on 2.12.2006, admission of the petitioners was iIlegal on that account also. At the same time, the fact that admissions were made upto December 2006 in other institutes, though may not be a valid ground to condone the admissions of the petitioners, there being no right to seek parity with any illegality, cannot be ignored and the students having appeared in the examination without any right to claim equity - is also a hard fact. We are conscious of the law that to sympathy can be shown to the illegal admissions made but having regard to all the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that it may not be practical or advisable to annul the admissions made at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that admissions to the petitioner-Institute are being made in the centralised counselling by the Admission Committee of the University for the next session. 12. Accordingly, even though, we have not approved the validity of admissions made, having regard to the fact situation, we direct that the petitioners be treated to have validly taken the examination. 13. The petition is disposed of. Petition allowed.