Judgment : Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. By the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to include the petitioner Institute, under the Single Window system of admission and to subsequently, admit/allot the students to the petitioner Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010, for the following programmes: Sl.No. Degree Programme(s) 1. B.E. Aeronautical Engineering 2. B.E. Computer Science and Engineering 3. B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering 4. B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering 5. B.Tech. Information Technology 6. M.B.A. Business Administration 7. M.C.A. Computer Application 4. It has been stated that the petitioner Institute, namely, P.M.R.Institute of Technology, was established by the P.M.R.Educational Trust, in the year, 2000. The petitioner Institute has been strictly following the Rules and Regulations prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education. The petitioner Institute has been granted provisional affiliation by the fourth respondent University, for the above mentioned programmes. While so, the fourth respondent University had raised various issues relating to the deficiencies in the petitioner Institute, during the academic year 2008-2009. It includes allegations regarding inadequate facilities and amenities, including non-availability of adequate faculty to meet the 1:15 teacher student ratio, as required by the All India Council for Technical Education. An allegation had also been made, with regard to impersonation by certain outsiders, who had posed themselves as faculty members of the petitioner Institute. Finally, on 6. 2009, the fourth respondent University had issued an order suspending the affiliation of the petitioner Institute, for all the programmes of the College, for the academic year 2009-2010. Further, the petitioner Institute had been informed by the fourth respondent University not to admit students from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. .5. It has been further submitted that the petitioner Institute had challenged the order of suspension passed by the fourth respondent Univeristy, on 6. 2009, before this Court, in W.P.No.11648 of 2009. By an order, dated 27. 2009, this Court was pleased to set aside the order of suspension, dated 6. 2009. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, on 27. 2009, before this Court, in W.P.No.11648 of 2009. By an order, dated 27. 2009, this Court was pleased to set aside the order of suspension, dated 6. 2009. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, on 27. 2009, the petitioner Institute had approached the fourth respondent University, requesting that the petitioner Institute may be listed under the Single Window System of admission, for which counselling is being conducted by the fourth respondent University. In spite of the order of this Court, dated 27. 2009, being served on the fourth respondent University the petitioner College had not been listed in the first batch of counselling under the Single Window System of admission. Since the Single Window System of admission for the Master of Computer Application (M.C.A.) programme would be over by 27. 2009, and the Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) programme would be over by 27. 2009, the petitioner College would not have sufficient number of students for the academic year 2009-2010. It would put additional pressure on the petitioner Institute to meet the high standard of performance expected by the All India Council for Technical Education, since students with higher marks would not be available for admission in the petitioner Institute. In such circumstances, the petitioner Institute has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The main contention of Mr.T.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Institute is that inspite of the order of suspension of the affiliation of the petitioner Institute, passed by the fourth respondent University, on 6. 2009, having been quashed by an order of this Court, dated 27. 2009, made in W.P.No.11648 of 2009, the fourth respondent University had not included the petitioner College in the list of Colleges for admission of students under the Single Window System of admission, for the academic year 2009-2010. The refusal of the fourth respondent University to consider the petitioner College for admission of students, under the Single Window System of admission would, in effect, nullify the order passed by this Court, on 27. 2009. In spite of the petitioner Institute having fulfilled all the requirements for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year 2009-2010, the fourth respondent University had not granted the affiliation for the programmes conducted by the petitioner Institute. 7. 2009. In spite of the petitioner Institute having fulfilled all the requirements for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year 2009-2010, the fourth respondent University had not granted the affiliation for the programmes conducted by the petitioner Institute. 7. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the failure of the fourth respondent University to list the petitioner Institute, under the Single Window System of counselling for the programmes of the petitioner Institute, for the academic year 20092010, would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner Institute, as well as the students of the said Institute. 8. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the petitioner Institute has been having affiliation for its courses, from the fourth respondent University, for the past several years. Many Colleges and Institutes, which have no affiliation for the academic year 2009-2010 have been listed for the counselling, under the Single Window System of admission. Therefore, the non-inclusion of the petitioner Institute in the list of Institutions for admission of students, under the Single Window System of admission, is discriminatory in nature and therefore, it is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. .9. Per contra the learned counsel, Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had submitted that the petitioner Institute has not been granted affiliation for its programmes, for the academic year 2009-2010. Even though this Court had passed an order, dated 27. 2009, in W.P.No.11648 of 2009, setting aside the order of the fourth respondent University, dated 6. 2009, liberty had been given to the Syndicate of the fourth respondent University to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, regarding the request of the petitioner Institute for the grant of affiliation for its programmes, for the academic year 2009-2010. The Syndicate of the fourth respondent University would be considering the request of the petitioner Institute for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year 2009-2010, based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute, as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 27. 2009. 10. The learned counsel had further submitted that there is no provision, under the statutes and regulations for affiliation of the fourth respondent University, for including the petitioner Institute in the list of Colleges and Institutes for admission of students, under the Single Window System of admission. 2009. 10. The learned counsel had further submitted that there is no provision, under the statutes and regulations for affiliation of the fourth respondent University, for including the petitioner Institute in the list of Colleges and Institutes for admission of students, under the Single Window System of admission. Further, since the petitioner Institute does not have the required affiliation, for the academic year 2009-2010, it cannot be considered for admission of students, under the Single Window System of admission. 11. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 24. 2005, in Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust V. The University of Madras ( 2005(2) CTC 513 ), had held that the grant of affiliation by the University, which is the examining body, is not automatic, even though the National Council for Technical Education might have granted the necessary recognition. Since the University is a center of higher learning it has to maintain its reputation and therefore, it would be expected to grant affiliation only to the Institutions, which have proper facilities, qualified staff, financial resources etc. Therefore, no admission can be made by a College or Institute, until the necessary affiliation is granted by the University. Further, the fourth respondent University has the power, under Section 5(ac) of The Anna University Act, 1978, to affiliate colleges to the University, under the conditions prescribed and to withdraw such affiliation. .12. It has been further submitted that the petitioner Institute, which is lacking in providing the necessary facilities and the minimum amenities for conducting the programmes, cannot claim that the fourth respondent University should grant the necessary affiliation for its programmes, for the academic year 2009-2010, as a matter of right. Further, there have been serious allegations of impersonation against some of the persons associated with the petitioner Institute. Serious complaints have been made by the students and the parents of the students of the petitioner Institute, regarding the deficiencies and defects in the petitioner Institute. In such circumstances, the claims made on behalf of the petitioner Institute are devoid of merits. 13. Serious complaints have been made by the students and the parents of the students of the petitioner Institute, regarding the deficiencies and defects in the petitioner Institute. In such circumstances, the claims made on behalf of the petitioner Institute are devoid of merits. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner Institute, as well as the fourth respondent University and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Institute has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for in the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Institute has not been granted the necessary affiliation by the fourth respondent University, for conducting its programmes, for the academic year 2009-2010. While so, the petitioner Institute is not entitled to claim that it should be included in the list of institutions, for the purpose of admission of students, under the Single Window System of admission. There is no doubt that the fourth respondent University has the power to grant affiliation for the programmes of the petitioner Institute, as well as the power to refuse affiliation to the petitioner Institute. However, the power to refuse the grant of affiliation shall be exercised by the fourth respondent University, only in accordance with the procedures established by law. 14. Even though this Court had passed an order, on 27. 2009, in W.P.No.11648 of 2009, setting aside the order of the fourth respondent University, dated 6. 2009, suspending the affiliation of the petitioner Institute, it had been made clear that the Syndicate of the fourth respondent University would be at liberty to re-examine the issues involved, with regard to the deficiencies and the allegations made against the petitioner Institute. It was also made clear that it would be open to the fourth respondent University to consider the request of the petitioner Institute for the grant of affiliation, for the programmes proposed to be conducted by the petitioner Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010, in accordance with law and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner Institute to put forth its case. .15. .15. In view of the fact that an institution which has no affiliation cannot have a right to demand its inclusion in the list of institutions, for admission of students under the Single Window System of admission, the averments made on behalf of the petitioner Institute cannot be sustained. Even if the fourth respondent University had included certain institutions, which had no affiliation, under the Single Window System of admission, it cannot be claimed that the same privilege has to be granted to the petitioner Institute, since serious charges had been levelled against the petitioner Institute, including the allegation that there was impersonation of certain faculty members, during the visit of the Inspection Committee to the petitioner Institute, on 12. 2008. It is for the petitioner Institute to convince the fourth respondent University to grant the necessary affiliation, for the programmes to be conducted by the petitioner Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010, by way of appropriate resolutions to be passed in the Syndicate meeting, scheduled to be held in the month of August, 2009, or thereafter. 16. In such view of the matter, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Institute, for its inclusion in the list of institutions, for admission of students, under the Single Window System of admission, for its programmes, for the academic year 20092010, cannot be countenanced. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.