JUDGMENT P.V.KAKADE, J. 1. Both these petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal together as the issues involved therein are identical, pertaining to question of approval to the petitioners - students to appear for D.Ed. examinations conducted by the concerned respondents. . The petitioners in both the petitions are students of first year D.Ed. course for the year academic year, 2006-07 of two independent institutions namely, Priyadarshani Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Kallamb, Taluka Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad and Adhyapak Vidyalaya Kotul, Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar, affiliated under the Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha Kotul, Taluka Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. Both the institutions are established and run by Respondent No.7 in both the petitions. Both the institutions are also established by those persons belonging to minority community people. So far as other respondents are concerned, they are controlling authorities in the matter of examinations, declaration of results and other matters in relation thereto. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they sought admissions in the college of respondent no.7 as per the advertisements published in the newspaper. The petitioners have completed their syllabus and they were ready for appearing for the ensuing first year D.Ed. course examination which was scheduled to be held from 23rd October, 2007 but, subsequently, the petitioners came to know from respondent no.7 that their examination forms and fees were not considered / accepted by concerned respondent -District Institute of Education and Training (for short, D.I.E.T.) and, therefore, they would not be allowed to appear for ensuing examination and, therefore, further enquiry was made and they came to know that their examination forms and fees were not accepted at the instance of the competent authority -respondents concerned and as a result of which, they would not be permitted to appear for the first year D.Ed. course examination which was scheduled to be held from 23rd October, 2007. The petitioners have submitted their examination forms duly filled in all respect and have paid necessary fees. The examination forms were also allegedly forwarded for necessary compliance to respondent -D.I.E.T. However, the said respondent - D.I.E.T. refused to accept the examination forms and fees. course examination which was scheduled to be held from 23rd October, 2007. The petitioners have submitted their examination forms duly filled in all respect and have paid necessary fees. The examination forms were also allegedly forwarded for necessary compliance to respondent -D.I.E.T. However, the said respondent - D.I.E.T. refused to accept the examination forms and fees. This aspect created apprehension in the minds of the petitioners and they realised that they would not be allowed to appear for examination, which was to be held from 23rd October, 2007, without any fault of theirs and hence, the petitions came to be filed seeking relief to the extent of directions to the competent authorities of the respondents to accept the examination forms of the petitioners for the first year D.Ed. course and permit them to appear for the said examination which was to be held from 23rd October, 2007. 3. It may be noted at this juncture that as both the petitions were filed at the last moment, this Court was not inclined to issue interim relief with directions to the respondents to take / accept the forms and fees, as it was found not possible to make preparation at the last moment to hold examinations under the orders of the Court and hence the matters were kept pending with observation that if at all the petitioners succeed in the petitions, then suitable directions could be contemplated from this Court to the concerned respondents. Subsequently, we were also of the view that it would not be proper to dispose of the petitions as infructuous only on the ground that examinations were over. 4. On this background, it is to be noted that Advocate Mr. Bora for respondent -National Council for Teachers’ Education (for short N.C.T.E.) has categorically made a statement that both these institutions are recognised institutions and their recognition is apparent from the brochure as well as order passed by the N.C.T.E. in this regard and there is no dispute about the same. 5. The State has come with a reply that advertisements issued by the institutions concerned was without seeking any approval from the competent authority i.e. D.I.E.T. It was further submitted that all the students were admitted by respondent no.7 from the management quota being minority institutions, without taking any approval from the authorities i.e. Deputy Director of Education, Pune. 5. The State has come with a reply that advertisements issued by the institutions concerned was without seeking any approval from the competent authority i.e. D.I.E.T. It was further submitted that all the students were admitted by respondent no.7 from the management quota being minority institutions, without taking any approval from the authorities i.e. Deputy Director of Education, Pune. There was no approval and required staff for teaching students as per the norms of N.C.T.E. and therefore, the management has violated the authority of the State as well as guide-lines issued by N.C.T.E. The petitions were further challenged on behalf of the State stating that the students were required to submit their forms through the concerned respondents i.e. D.I.E.T. In latter petition, instead of submission of forms, they have directly filed writ petitions but, till the date of filing petition, they had not submitted their examination forms, which were already complete. In other words, it was submitted that the petitions were rendered infructuous. According to the State, the institutions never submitted any proposal for approval of petitioners’ admissions. Respondent No.5 Deputy Director of Education, Pune communicated rejection of approval due to irregularities and the fact that the students were admitted without seeking approval from the authorized and, therefore, the petitions do not deserve any indulgence. 6. Respondent No.4 -Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune has come with submissions, which are explicitly explained in their affidavit-in-reply, to the effect that the petition is rendered infructuous as the examinations are over. According to them, respondent - Maharashtra State Examination Council which was an autonomous body for the purpose of conducting examination of D.Ed. students, within the State, as per the provisions laid down / procedure, rules and guide-lines prescribed by the respondent no.3 / Examination State Council of admitted without seeking approval from the authorities and, therefore, the petiti ons do not deserve any indulgence. Educational Research & Training, Pune. For conducting the examination for the 1st year D.Ed. for 2006-07, as per the Rule 14.13, it was obligatory on the part of each and every student petitioners, who were securing their admissions from the "management quota", to obtain clarification and confirmation from the office of respondent no.3 i.e. Director of Maharashtra State Council of Education and Research Training to the effect as to whether their admissions from management quota were approved or not, within 30 days from the date of their admissions. It was further submitted on behalf of the said respondent that if the admissions are given by the management from the management or State quota, then the list of such candidates is required to be submitted and got approved by the Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training of the of the concerned District, which was not submitted. Hence, the admissions in question appear to be illegal as the State Government has not allotted any quota of student, which was required to be given and in the absence of the same, the respondent management was not entitled to admit the students. On such and other grounds, the petition was sought to be dismissed. 7. Respondent No.7 - management also has filed affidavit-in-reply, supporting the cause of the petitioners - students. It is the case of both the managements that the N.C.T.E. has granted approval by following due process of law contemplated under the National Council for Teachers Act, 1993 and Rules made thereunder in their favour from the academic year, 2005-06 with an intake capacity of 50 students and in its proper perspective. In view of this statutory permission the Educational Institution of the respondent had started its D.Ed. college to run from the academic year, 2005-06 accordingly and resultantly on 26.12.2005 the said institution after following due process of law i.e. by obtaining required statutory permission from the concerned respondent Educational authority had admitted half of the management quota students by requesting the said respondent concerned Educational authority to allot the remaining State quota students in accordance to law. But, neither the respondent nos.3 to 6 Educational authorities had considered this request of Educational Institutions nor had taken any cognizance of the same and hence, due to non response from them, in the year, 2005, respondent no.7 was left with no alternative but to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.7416 of 2005 seeking direction to these respondents to allot the respondent institution the said 50% State quota students. Unfortunately, despite of all required legal compliance from the respondent institution, merely on the basis of some technical faults said writ petition came to be dismissed on 1.12.2005. Hence, respondent no.7 in Writ Petition No.5943/2007 approached the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.26059/2005 (Civil Appeal No.1802/2006). Unfortunately, despite of all required legal compliance from the respondent institution, merely on the basis of some technical faults said writ petition came to be dismissed on 1.12.2005. Hence, respondent no.7 in Writ Petition No.5943/2007 approached the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.26059/2005 (Civil Appeal No.1802/2006). The Apex Court, after hearing the submissions of the institutions as well as other respondents, was pleased to allow the appeal and directed respondents Educational authorities to allot the State quota students within the stipulated period. A copy of the said order dated 27.3.2006 of the Apex Court is on record vide Exh.R.2. Despite this position, the concerned respondents again failed to comply with the said order and, therefore, the institution was left with no other alternative but to file contempt petition before the Apex Court, which is still pending adjudication. Thereafter, in the month of June to August, 2006, the concerned respondents had allotted the said quota of students to the institution. 8. In fact, the entire record shows that the concerned respondents did not move at all in spite of repeated directions, not only by this Court but, by the Apex Court also and, therefore, contempt petition was required to be moved. We have also perused copies of several orders passed by this Court in connection with some other matters pertaining to D.Ed. course admissions and examinations and we are constrained to note that the concerned respondents appear to be callous in the approach to these institutions for the reasons best known to themselves. On behalf of Respondent No.7, it is also submitted that on 28.7.2006, this Court passed common order in Writ Petition No.4437 of 2006 and others permitting the minority Educational Institutions like respondent no.7 institution to admit 100% of students from management quota after following the rules and regulations and as per the merits of the students. It is also to be noted that as per the admission rules formulated by the respondents themselves in respect of admission of such students by virtue of Rule No.14.10, 14.11 and 14.12 in fact it was mandatory upon Respondent No.5 to consider such proposal for approval within a period of 7 days from its receipt and later on thereafter within a period of 10 days, he has to submit a report about the decision before the Respondent No.3, but till today, it has not been done. 9. 9. Advocate Shri Bora for N.C.T.E. has clearly submitted that both colleges are recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education. Management in first writ petition has produced for our perusal an order dated 24.12.2006 from N.C.T.E., granting recognition to the institutions mentioned therein and Respondents 7, 8 of Writ Petition No.5697 of 2007 are at Sr.Nos.12 & 13, showing approved intake of 50 students for each, Marathi as well as Urdu medium. (Now numbered as paperbook page Nos.47 to 54). At paperbook page no.36 there is certificate issued by competent authority recognising minority status of R.Nos.7/8. In the communications at paper book pages 22 and 23 Dy. Director of Education of Latur division has referred to R.Nos.7/8 as "unaided" -----------. Thus D.Ed. College in Writ Petition No.5697 of 2007 is private unaided minority institute. So far as R.No.7 in Writ Petition No.5943 of 2007 is concerned, the said college being recognised by N.C.T.E. is position admitted by Advocate Shri Bora. Information brochure for admission for the academic year, 2006-07 contains list of D.Ed. colleges recognised by N.C.T.E. & R.No.7 finds place at Page No.23 of the brochure with N.C.T.E. Code No.122230 and intake capacity of 50 students. It is also recorded to be -------------"unaided". [At page no.33 of the booklet even petitioner in earlier Writ Petition finds place at page 33. N.C.T.E. Code No.122196 with intake capacity of 50 students for each, English and Marathi medium and also recorded as ------------ i.e. unaided]. At paper book page 129 of the petition, there is minority certificate of Respondent No.7. Thus, D.Ed. college in second Writ petition No.5943 of 2007 is also private unaided minority institute. . In the judgment delivered by another Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (N.V. Dabholkar, J) was a party in Writ Petition Nos.4437, 4531 and 4629 of 2006 reported in After considering the ratio laid down by Honourable the Supreme Court, in the matter of P.A. P.A.P.A. InamdarInamdarInamdar (2005(2005(2005 AIRSCWAIRSCWAIRSCW 3923)3923)3923) andandand TMATMATMA Pai PaiPai 4957), this Court has observed that private unaided minority institutions are not liable to share seats with the State Government. 10. 10. After hearing both the parties having gone through the entire record in details, we are of the clear view that the fault lies with Respondents No.3 to 6 due to which, these poor petitioners are unnecessarily suffering due to inaction on behalf of the concerned respondents, especially, when the institutions at relevant as well as prescribed time, had tried to comply with all the necessities as per the rules and regulations as well as in accordance with the law. It is also apparent that in order to conduct the examinations of the petitioners, the institution in W.P. No.5943/07 had approached the divisional authorities on 28.7.2007, 24.8.2007 and 6.9.2007, requesting them to furnish examination forms for the said petitioners which were finally supplied to them only on 7.9.2007. Thereafter, while filling of these forms as per the requirements, the institution had submitted the same on 21.9.2007, 29.9.2007 and 5.10.2007 but, respondent no.6 i.e. DIET refused to accept the same for the reasons best known to themselves. This was in spite of the fact that by communication dated 15.6.2006 (page 95), 27.6.2006 (page 96) R.Nos.3 and 6 had consented to admission of management quota. In fact at paperbook page 93/94 is copy of Government Resolution dated 18.4.2007 which states that minority institutions shall have powers to admit 100% students and the Government Resolution is applicable for academic year, 2006-07. . Management has admitted 12 petitioners in Writ Petition No.5697 of 2007 only after 4 students from 72 allotted by Government did not resume and Government had thus allotted 68 out of 80. In fact, it has shared seats with Government although was not obliged to do so. 11. In this connection, it is apparent that by virtue of Government Resolution dated 18th April, 2007, the State Government has allowed the minority institutions to give 100% admissions to the eligible students on the basis of merit, transparency and non exploitation, in any respect. Once, it is found that prerequisite conditions of Government Resolution dated 18th April, 2007 are fulfilled, then the State Government or the respondents Education authorities had no business to deny the right to the petitioners on one pretext or another i.e. especially, in case of respondent Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune who has sought dismissal of the petitions on various frivolous grounds, for instance, the petitioners have not produced on record the N.C.T.E. approval. When the learned Counsel for the N.C.T.E. makes a statement to that effect, which is again supported by the relevant entries in the brochure, we fail to understand as to why the Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune was obliged to take such stance in their submissions as well as affidavit-in-reply. In this regard, the various directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions were also brought to our notice, which are in consonance with our view expressed above and we do not see any reason why the petitioners - students should be deprived of their lawful right bestowed upon them under the Constitution and relevant statutory provisions, only at the whim of concerned respondents - authorities. 12. As noted earlier, it was submitted that the examinations were already over in the month of October -November, 2007 and, therefore, these petitions are rendered infructuous. However, we are not willing to dispose of these petitions as rendered infructuous, which is, in fact, clarified by us by interim order dated 12th September, 2007. It is also apparent from the entire correspondence and communications on record that the institutions did seek guidance from the State as well as quota of students but, it was not provided and, therefore, in view of the communication by the concerned respondents, it is found that they were permitted to admit students in the year, 2006-07. No doubt, that the petitioners were required to skip the examinations of first year D.Ed. course of the month of October, 2007, however, as we have found that they are eligible students in all respect, we find it appropriate to issue necessary directions. 13. In the result, rule is made absolute in following terms: We hereby direct that examination forms of petitioners in both petitions shall be accepted and the first year D.Ed. examination of all the petitioners in both the petitions shall be held by the respondents concerned by making necessary arrangement and formulating timetable so as to complete the entire exercise of holding examinations before 30th April, 2008. Notice of examination schedule should be given to petitioners at least two weeks in advance. Needless to note that all the petitioners in both the petitions have not only completed their curriculum terms but, have also paid necessary fees and filled in forms. Notice of examination schedule should be given to petitioners at least two weeks in advance. Needless to note that all the petitioners in both the petitions have not only completed their curriculum terms but, have also paid necessary fees and filled in forms. The forms shall be submitted by Respondent No.7 in both the petitions to respondent DIET, who shall take further steps so as to enable the petitioners in both the petitions to appear for examination. Necessary arrangements shall be made by the concerned respondents including respondent Director, Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune as well as other educational authorities of the State. With these directions, petitions stand disposed of. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.