JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), the successor body of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council). 2. The petitioner institution seeks the relief for acceptance of fees and forms of its students for appearing at the ensuing Intermediate Examination in Arts to be held by the Board. 3. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that it was granted regular and permanent affiliation after its establishment in 1983 when till 2004 its students were allowed to appear in the Arts Examination conducted by the Council. The Tabulation Register in between the year 1985 to 2004 are sought to be relied upon. During the period 2005 to 2007 the matter for extension of affiliation was pending before the respondent Board. During this period the students of the petitioner institution could not appear in the Intermediate examination conducted by the Board for the aforesaid reasons. Later the Board extended the affiliation from 2007 to 2009 by an order dated 6.12.2007. It is urged that the Board was well aware that the petitioner institution was taking admission of students for the session 2008- 2010 and never objected to it. Therefore there is no justification for the Board not to accept the fees and forms of the students for the examination. 4. Learned Counsel for the Board has filed a counter affidavit. It states that the students of the Institution had appeared in the examination till the year 2004. Since 2005 to 2009 not a single student had appeared in the Intermediate Examination. Strong reliance is placed on sub-rules (23) and (24) of Rule 7 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Establishment of College and Conduct of Examination) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), to contend that by its own conduct the institution rendered itself liable to non-affiliation and for that reason no permission can be given to the students to appear for the examination 2008-2010 as the recognition/approval granted had automatically lapsed. 5. Education lays the foundation for the future generations. Quality education goes beyond functional literacy. It awakens the mind to think and reason. For that reason the Courts have consistently frowned upon education imparted by un-recognized/unaffiliated institutions. 6. The writ application states that the institution was given proposed affiliation in 1983. 5. Education lays the foundation for the future generations. Quality education goes beyond functional literacy. It awakens the mind to think and reason. For that reason the Courts have consistently frowned upon education imparted by un-recognized/unaffiliated institutions. 6. The writ application states that the institution was given proposed affiliation in 1983. Later it was given affiliation by the Council in 1991. In between 1983 to 2004 a large number of students were allowed to appear at the Intermediate Examination by the Council. No order of affiliation has been brought on record. The pleadings are bald. At this stage the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board assumes significance when it also aiike the petitioner makes a bald statement in Para 5 that the students were allowed to appear at the examination held in 2004. 7. Whether it be the writ petition or the counter affidavit both are fighting shy of clear statements that the institution fulfilled requirement for affiliation and was granted regular and permanent affiliation. The mere reliance on Tabulation Register can hardly be of any help in the circumstances. 8. If as is contended, permanent and regular affiliation was granted the question of extension of affiliation does not arise. It is not the case of the petitioner that earlier affiliation granted came to be annulled at any later time under the rules in accordance with law. 9. The contention of the petitioner based on documentary evidence at Annexure-3 that its students were allowed to appear for 2007-2009 session by the respondent Board has not even been attempted to be answered in the counter affidavit which prefers to conveniently ignore the same by stating that no student had appeared in between 2005 to 2009. 10. An institution either fulfils the conditions for recognition/affiliation or it does not. If it fulfils the conditions permanent and regular affiliation has to be granted. If it does not, recognition/affiliation has to be denied. If deficiency remains in meeting the standards for grant of affiliation/recognition, opportunity has to be given to meet the deficiency whereafter the matter has to be considered afresh. There can be no half way house. An institution cannot simultaneously meet the standards for affiliation/recognition, and at the same time not meet the standards. If deficiency remains in meeting the standards for grant of affiliation/recognition, opportunity has to be given to meet the deficiency whereafter the matter has to be considered afresh. There can be no half way house. An institution cannot simultaneously meet the standards for affiliation/recognition, and at the same time not meet the standards. The authorities responsible for ensuring quality education cannot turn this power of recognition/affiliation into an exercise of money making by granting recognition/affiliation in fits and starts at their whims and fancy as it may suit their convenience and pocket. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court on grounds of sympathy of the future of the students of the institution which are being held to the ransom of the officials of the Board. This Court is of the firm opinion that sympathy can have no place to supplant the law. Any invocation of sympathy will only embolden those who twist law for their advantage, coming out with the final conclusion that though the Court may have expressed its displeasure yet ultimately did grant relief on sympathy. 12. This Court can do no better than quote Paras 22 & 23 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 458 [:2007(1) PLJR (SC) 69] "Sunil Oraon vs. C.B.S.E." "22. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations. 23. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against School as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion." 13. This Court therefore finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. 14. 23. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against School as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion." 13. This Court therefore finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. 14. However this Court on basis of materials brought on record by way of the writ petition and the counter affidavit is satisfied that the present controversy is of a very serious nature and cannot be described as simply isolated. This Court therefore directs the Vigilance Investigation Bureau to forthwith seize all records of the petitioner institution as also of the Council/Board with regard to the permission/affiliation etc. claimed or alleged to have been granted to the petitioner institution and proceed to enquire and investigate the matter in accordance with law and carry the matter to its logical end under the criminal laws of the land. Let a preliminary report be submitted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau to this Court within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The matter shall then be listed under the heading For Orders only for that limited purpose. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.