Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed by Maa Saraswati Educational Society through its President (hereinafter called the society) along with 25 students of M.Ed., who were admitted by the college at their own, without counselling having been conducted by the University and against the norms/ procedure prescribed for admission by the University. 2. In the present writ petition, prayer has been made that Kurukshetra University-respondent No. 1 be directed to register students admitted by petitioner- society for M.Ed, course for the session 2007-08 and further that students be permitted to undertake the examination scheduled to commence from 2nd June, 2008 onwards. It has further been prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and letter dated 15th February, 2008 (Annexure P-25), whereby petitioner- society has been directed to cancel the admission of petitioner No. 2 to 26, be quashed. 3. A perusal of impugned communication of the University (Annexure P- 25) reveals that respondent-University has conveyed to the society that the petitioner-Society had made admission to M.Ed, course in violation of University rules and directions. It was further expressed therein that it should be noted by the society that sufficient period is not left to meet the requirement of minimum 200 teaching days in the session for instructions, field work for dissertation etc., which is exclusive of period of examinations and admissions, as per National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) norms, as the University examinations are scheduled to take place in the first week of June, 2008, for the session 2007- 08. This letter further informs that the request of the Society cannot be considered as University had conveyed on 10th January, 2008 and 17th January, 2008 that students should not be admitted as request of the Society had been declined to made admission for M.Ed, course for the session 2007-08 by State Fee and Admission Committee. 4. The impugned letter (Annexure P-25) also sought clarification from the Society as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the college as per Kurukshetra University Ordinance for violation of University directions. 5. Petitioner-Society is one of those errant colleges, who had opted not to follow the academic discipline and had made admissions at their own, despite University warning it various times not to proceed with the admission. 5. Petitioner-Society is one of those errant colleges, who had opted not to follow the academic discipline and had made admissions at their own, despite University warning it various times not to proceed with the admission. It has been generally noticed by this Court that the colleges, without adhering to the rules & regulations of the University and standards of merit, have been making admissions, enrolling students and at the fag end of the academic session, approach this Court solely on the ground of equity that since the career of students is involved, this Court should condone their lapses and direct the University to allow the students to undertake examination. As a result, academic excellence has become a casualty. This Court in various writ petitions, where colleges, without adhering to the common entrance test and counselling conducted by the University, after the cut off date without ensuring academic calendar and fulfillment of lectures, have made admissions, has declined the relief as sought by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has to meet the same fate, i.e., dismissal of the writ petition as in case of other colleges, this has been done. 6. Now, we proceed to give brief facts and enumerate our reasons for declining the relief sought. It is the case of the petitioner that they formed the educational society on 21 st October, 2005 to run schools and colleges in the State of Haryana, which included various educational courses, such as B.Ed., Diploma in Elementary Teacher Training. The College run by the societies is stated to have been imparting education since 2001. College is alleged to have been granted recognition by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide Annexure P-2 for intake of 200 students in B.Ed, course of one year. It is further stated that the petitioner-college run by the society applied for permission to the State of Haryana for running M.Ed, course. The application to this effect (Annexure P-3) was submitted on 29th December, 2006. Commissioner Higher Education Haryana, on behalf of the State Government informed vide letter dated 8th March, 2007 (Annexure P-4) that the processing fee has not been deposited by the college. It is stated by the society that on 24th March, 2007 vide Annexure P-5, demand draft was sent. Commissioner Higher Education Haryana, on behalf of the State Government informed vide letter dated 8th March, 2007 (Annexure P-4) that the processing fee has not been deposited by the college. It is stated by the society that on 24th March, 2007 vide Annexure P-5, demand draft was sent. It is further submitted that after processing, on 4th June, 2007, State of Haryana brought to the notice of the society certain deficiencies in the proposal. It also called upon the petitioner-society to furnish proof of funds of Rs. 20.00 lacs in the name of the society along with no-lien certificate of the Bank. They were also called upon to furnish various documents which included progress report, site plan, building plan, structures stability and provisions of safety measures etc., details of which has been given in letter (Annexure P-6). It has been averred that desired documents were sent to the State Government on 12th June, 2007. It has been further stated that NCTE gave recommendation for recognition vide letter dated 22nd October, 2007 (Annexure P-9). It is further stated that thereafter, affiliation was sought from the University on the basis of Jhe recognition given by NCTE, since the Government and the University were processing the case, CWP No. 13841 of 2007 was filed seeking directions to the State and the University to grant recognition and affiliation. In the above said writ petition, notice of motion was issued and this Court vide Annexure P-11, on October 18,2007. directed the University to pass an appropriate order on the application of the society, in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It has been pleaded that on 30th October, 2007, necessary fee by way of demand draft towards application fee was sent to the University vide Annexure P-12. The University granted provisional affiliation on 6th December, 2007 with a rider that the same will be subject to fulfillment of the conditions imposed by Inspection Committee and other allied conditions, which were to be conveyed separately to the petitioner- society. Instead of waiting for the response of the University and the Inspection Committee, the college at its own, issued notice for admission and fixed 24th December, 2007 as the last date for admission. This fact is evident from Annexure P-15. Instead of waiting for the response of the University and the Inspection Committee, the college at its own, issued notice for admission and fixed 24th December, 2007 as the last date for admission. This fact is evident from Annexure P-15. Vide Annexure P-16, Dean of Colleges, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra was informed that the petitioner-Society has given an advertisement and copy of advertisement was also enclosed. Since the petitioner-Society was in the process of recruiting faculty, vide Annexure P-17 the University approved the selection of few members of the faculty. In response to the society communication dated 17th December, 2007 that they have given advertisement in the newspaper. University immediately responded that for making admissions, society may approach the State Fee and Admission Committee and warned the Society that any student admitted without prior consent of the State Fee and Admission Committee and without following proper procedure will not be registered for the course and will not be allowed to appear in the University examination. The society decided to pay no heed to this warning of the University. On 7th January, 2008, vide Annexure P-19, the college was informed that request made in their representation cannot at all be accepted by the State Fee and Admission Committee. Vide Annexure P-21, on 10th January, 2008, respondent- University informed the college that their request to supervise the admission schedule cannot be accepted and the same was declined. Vide speed post, Dean of the Colleges. Kurukshetra University informed the college vide Annexure P- 22 that the M.Ed, annual examinations for current academic session 2008 are scheduled to be held in first week of June, 2008, therefore, admission to M.Ed, course for the current academic session cannot be allowed to the college at belated stage. 7. Having ignored the warning, communications and request of the University not to make admissions to M.Ed, courses, petitioner-Society at its own proceeded to make admissions and at eleventh hour has approached this Court that their misconduct be ignored because career of the students is involved. 8. Last date for submission of admission forms was 24th December, 2007 as per Annexure P-15. Examination has to commence from 2nd June, 2008. College society wants to rush through and comptete the course of one year duration within five months. 9. 8. Last date for submission of admission forms was 24th December, 2007 as per Annexure P-15. Examination has to commence from 2nd June, 2008. College society wants to rush through and comptete the course of one year duration within five months. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Swami Devi Dyal and others vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, CWP No. 1762 of 2007 to contend that on equity, petitioner- students are entitled to undertake examination. In the judgment of Swami Devi Dyals case (supra), it has been held that there is no valid ground to condone the irregularities of admissions made by the petitioner-Society. It will be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment, which is as follows : "We find that conduct of the petitioner-Institute in making 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 illegal 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 no 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." 10. A perusal of the above judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner will show that it was in the peculiar facts of that case that equity, discretion was exercised in favour of the petitioner-students. In the present case, such equity cannot be invoked by the petitioner-College. 11. In view of the facts given above, we find that the petitioner-College has flouted the mandate of the University given from time to time. They have chosen not to adhere to academic discipline. In the present case, such equity cannot be invoked by the petitioner-College. 11. In view of the facts given above, we find that the petitioner-College has flouted the mandate of the University given from time to time. They have chosen not to adhere to academic discipline. Simply motivated by profit, they have enrolled the students. We are conscious that various colleges in the region have mushroomed as commercial shops. University has rightly pointed out that as per Annexure P-15 as the admission process of the college had not concluded upto 24th December, 2007, necessary lectures could not be imparted, field work and dissertation could not be concluded. Without adhering to the academic calendar and requirements of the University to follow curriculum, syllabi, college wanted us to issue directions to the University to permit the students to appear in the examination. We cannot be a party to the breach of academic excellence. We are of the view that academic autonomy is to be ensured as required by the University. It is for the University authorities to take decision whether students of the college are entitled to be registered or not. While exercising writ jurisdiction, we cannot direct the University to ignore various lapses on the part of the educational society and conduct examination of the students, whose preparation to appear in the examination is half-way, especially when the University has specifically pointed out the lapses from time to time. 12. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to respondent university.