JUDGMENT Honble Vineet Saran, J.—Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri Jagdeo Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-State of U.P. and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2-the Chhatrapati Sahu Jee Maharaj University, Kanpur and have perused the record. 2. Time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Neeraj Tiwari for obtaining instructions, which they state that they have received, and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. 3. Admitted facts of this case are that for the Session 2002-03, the N.C.T.E. granted recognition to the petitioner-institution for conducting B.Ed. course of one year duration with an intake of 100 students. The Chancellor of the University also granted such affiliation in the year 2003 and in compliance thereof Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut also passed orders granting affiliation. Then on 2.2.2008, on an application moved by the petitioner-institution, the N.C.T.E. further granted recognition for intake of additional 100 students in B.Ed. course of one year duration. The State Government granted its approval for the additional 100 seats on 25.4.2008. Pursuant thereto on 22.8.2008 the Meerut University also accorded affiliation for 100 additional seats of B.Ed. to the petitioner-institution. 4. The dispute now is with regard to allotment of students to the petitioner-institution. In the facts of this case, out of 100 students which were to be allotted initially, only 83 had been allotted out of which 78 have joined and thus there is a shortfall of 22 students in the initial quota of 100 seats, besides the 100 further seats which are to be filled up after the approval/affiliation granted for 100 additional seats. Thus, it is contended that the total intake of students in the petitioner-institution should be 200 and they should be allotted full 200 students for the current Session 2007-08. 5. Admittedly, the State Government has appointed respondent No. 2 University for conducting counselling for admission to the B.Ed. Thus, it is contended that the total intake of students in the petitioner-institution should be 200 and they should be allotted full 200 students for the current Session 2007-08. 5. Admittedly, the State Government has appointed respondent No. 2 University for conducting counselling for admission to the B.Ed. course of all the recognized/affiliated institutions in the State of U.P. Although the counselling had been held earlier but in view of certain directions issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4172 (MB) of 2008 the special counselling is now going on from 20.11.2008 to 23.11.2008 for allotting students to only 5 institutions. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that an advertisement has been published in today’s (i.e. 20.11.2008) newspapers, one of which has been produced before me (and has not been disputed by Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 or Sri Tomar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P.) by which two more institutions have been included for such counselling. Sri Tomar has, however, submitted that the said two institutions have been included because of certain orders passed by this Court in some other writ petitions. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner-institution has approached this Court with the prayer for a direction to the respondents to include the petitioner-institution in the special counselling of B.Ed. Course to be held from 20.11.2008 i.e. today. 7. The direction passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition on 14.8.2008 was as follows : “ ..... we provide that in case the students are available in the select list prepared by the Kanpur University, Kanpur itself, the counselling may be held so that the institutions, which are eligible either under the orders of the court or otherwise, may be given opportunity of the counselling and students as per the sanctioned strength of the institution by the N.C.T.E. be allotted, to such institutions. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The aforesaid directions of this Court were absolutely clear that the counselling should be done as per the sanctioned strength of the institutions by the N.C.T.E., whether they were eligible under orders of the Court or otherwise. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the N.C.T.E. has sanctioned the strength of the petitioner-institution for an intake of 100 students plus additional 100 students i.e. total 200. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the N.C.T.E. has sanctioned the strength of the petitioner-institution for an intake of 100 students plus additional 100 students i.e. total 200. The recognition/affiliation for the same has also been accorded by the State Government as well as concerned University. As such, it is not understood that when the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner-institution has a sanctioned strength of 200 students for B.Ed. Course then why the State Government did not act on its own and issue necessary instructions to the respondent No. 2 University to hold counselling for all such institutions including the petitioner, which fulfilled the conditions and were otherwise eligible, and would thus be covered by the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court. This is so especially when the Court had itself mentioned that such benefit should be given to all such institutions which were found eligible under the orders of this Court or otherwise. Undoubtedly the petitioner falls in the category of such eligible institutions. The State Government ought to have considered this aspect and should not have waited for orders from the Court for including all such eligible institutions (including the petitioner) for the conduct of counselling for allotment of seats to such institutions. Such inaction on the part of the State Government is a cause due to which there is increase of litigation before this Court. Had the State Government acted promptly and responded to the representations made by the petitioner-institution, they could themselves have considered the matter relating to inclusion of the petitioner-institution for counselling, and because of such inaction on the part of the State Government the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court. Now, before this Court, the respondents have not raised any objection and have fairly accepted that the exercise of counselling ought to be done for providing students to the petitioner-institution also. 9. The only difficulty expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents is that since the counselling has already begun in the 7 institutions from today, it will not be practically possible to include the petitioner-institution or any other such institutions which are otherwise eligible, for the conselling which has already started from today. They, however, have no objection for conducting another special counselling for the petitioner-institution and other such institutions which are otherwise eligible. 10. They, however, have no objection for conducting another special counselling for the petitioner-institution and other such institutions which are otherwise eligible. 10. On the other hand, the concern of the petitioner is that in case if the petitioner-institution and other such eligible institutions are not included in the counselling, the candidates would be deprived of their choice of the institutions which are otherwise eligible for being allotted students and have wrongly not been included in the counselling. 11. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 University)’ which is conducting counselling has very fairly stated that in the aforesaid facts, although the University is not at fault in any manner whatsoever, they will make every effort to hold the counselling at the earliest, and as for the counselling which is going on, the University will apprise all the students appearing for such counselling of the fact that subsequent counselling will be held for petitioner-institution and other eligible institutions, and in case if they so desire, they may opt for appearing in that counselling also. He has suggested that such information would be pasted on the notice board as well as other prominent places where the present counselling is taking place. Besides this, an advertisement giving this information will also be issued in the Newspapers having wide circulations all over the State, if possible, by tomorrow. 12. Sri Tiwari further stated that the next counselling for the petitioner-institution as well as other such eligible institutions shall be held preferably within one month from today, but in any case not later than 31st December, 2008. For this, the State Government should intimate the names of all such eligible colleges with the number of seats allotted for them, within two weeks from today so as to enable the respondent No. 2-University to undergo the process of counselling within the time granted by this Court. 13. In this view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed with the directions given below : (i) The State Government shall, within two weeks from today, intimate the respondent No.2-the Chhatrapati Sahu Jee Maharaj University, Kanpur, of the seats which remain unfilled in the petitioner college for which counselling is to be conducted by the respondent No. 2. 13. In this view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed with the directions given below : (i) The State Government shall, within two weeks from today, intimate the respondent No.2-the Chhatrapati Sahu Jee Maharaj University, Kanpur, of the seats which remain unfilled in the petitioner college for which counselling is to be conducted by the respondent No. 2. Besides this, within the same period, the State Government will also provide information to the University regarding the other eligible colleges with the number of seats to be filled in such colleges. (ii) The respondent No. 2-Chhatrapati Sahu Jee Maharaj University, Kanpur shall ensure that the special counselling for allotment of colleges to the students be held preferably within one month from today but not later than 31st December, 2008. (iii) The candidates appearing in the counselling to be held from 20.11.2008 to 23.11.2008 shall be given option that even if they be allotted college from amongst the 5 or 7 colleges for which counselling is going on, they would also have an option of appearing in the next counselling, and in case if subsequently they get admission in the college of their choice (out of the one for which fresh counselling is to be conducted), they will be permitted to take admission in such college. 14. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, within 24 hours, on payment of usual charges. ————