Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28615 of 2008, wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the present appellant to permit 100 students of the present respondent Institution of 2007-2008 batch to appear for the B.Ed. arrears examination subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition No.6824 of 2007, pending before the Honble Supreme Court. 2. The writ petition was filed by the present respondent No.1 on the following allegations:- (2.1) The writ petitioner with intent to start B.Ed. Course from the academic year 20062007 applied to the Southern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education, which however was rejected as per order dated 15.05.2007. The writ petitioner thereafter, filed an appeal before the National Council for Teacher Education, which was allowed on 07.09.2007 and thereafter a conditional order was passed on 18.09.2007. Thereafter, a further order was passed on 011. 2007 permitting the writ petitioner to conduct B.Ed. Course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students without imposing any further condition. (2.2) While the writ petitioner was pursuing the above matters with the authorities under All India Council for Teacher Education, the writ petitioner had also applied on 28.09.2006 to the present appellant University for grant of affiliation. However, the said application was returned by the appellant University on 110. 2006 raising certain queries. Thereafter, the writ petitioner Institution submitted a second application on 18.09.2007. However, no specific orders had been passed. (2.3) At that stage, when the petitioner was granted the order of recognition dated 011. 2007 from the National Council for Teacher Education, another representation dated 011. 2007 was submitted before the present appellant University. (2.4) It is the case of the writ petitioner that though the applications in respect of other Institutions during such relevant time had been taken up by the present appellant for processing including inspection, the application of the writ petitioner was not taken up for consideration. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though affiliation was granted to similarly placed institutions, for no reason the application of the writ petitioner Institution was not disposed of expeditiously. (2.5) Subsequently, during the month of June 2008 a Committee was appointed by the appellant University to inspect the Institution by 23.06.2008 and the Inspection report was sent on 23.06.2008, but no decision was taken immediately. (2.5) Subsequently, during the month of June 2008 a Committee was appointed by the appellant University to inspect the Institution by 23.06.2008 and the Inspection report was sent on 23.06.2008, but no decision was taken immediately. Meanwhile Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University Act, 2008 came into force with effect from 01.07.2008 where under it was provided that the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University alone would be the competent University to grant affiliation for B.Ed. Course with effect from 1st April 2008. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University (Respondent NO.2 in writ petition as well as in the present appeal) granted affiliation to the writ petitioner on 04.09.2008 specifically for the academic year 20082009. (2.6) The main contention of the writ petitioner was that on account of the belated decision taken by the present appellant University as well as the 2nd respondent University, the students who had been admitted during the academic year 2007-2008 are left in the lurch and had not been in a position to be admitted for the University Examination to be conducted by the present appellant University for the students of the previous batch. (2.7) It was the further contention that since the students had studied as per the course adopted by the present appellant University and not in accordance with the syllabus of the 2nd respondent University it will be difficult for them to appear for the examination of the 2nd respondent University. (2.8) On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the writ petitioner prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the present appellant University to approve the candidatures of 100 students of 2007-2008 batch of the writ petitioner College for B.Ed. Degree course and consequently such University to publish the results of the said students to award degree. 3. Even though no formal counter was filed by the present appellant, it had resisted the prayer made in the writ petition by raising the contention that on 04.09.2008 affiliation was granted to the writ petitioner only for the academic year 2008-2009. (3.1) It was further contended that no affiliation could be granted retrospectively and without obtaining affiliation, the writ petitioner Institution should not have admitted students and hardship if any caused to the students is on account of the mistake committed by the Institution. (3.1) It was further contended that no affiliation could be granted retrospectively and without obtaining affiliation, the writ petitioner Institution should not have admitted students and hardship if any caused to the students is on account of the mistake committed by the Institution. (3.2) It was further contended that the application filed by the writ petitioner Institution during the year 2006 seeking for affiliation with effect from the academic year 20072008 had been rejected and the subsequent application which has been processed ultimately resulted in grant of affiliation by the Newly Constituted University and in view of the provisions contained in the statute, the appellant University was no longer authorised to grant any affiliation. (3.3) It was also contended that without challenging the order by which affiliation was granted to the writ petitioner Institution for the academic year 2008-2009, the claim of the petitioner Institution to allow the students to appear for the examination purportedly for the academic year 2007-2008 cannot be considered. (3.4) In support of various contentions raised, the present appellant had also placed reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 129 (Tvl. Aruna Malai College of Education, run by the Indira Gandhi Educational Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee, S.S.K. Chowdry, Kumarapuram and another vs. Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai and others). 4. The learned Single Judge under the impugned Judgment held that the affiliation by the present 2nd respondent University for the academic year 2008-2009 was granted on account of the delay of the present appellant University. As the appellant University had considered grant of affiliation in respect of other Educational Institutions within a short period and the writ petitioner Institute was subjected to a differential treatment, the learned Single Judge directed that on account of the delay on the part of the appellant University the students should not suffer, even though, the learned Single Judge had categorically observed that without getting affiliation the writ petitioner Institution ought not to have admitted the students. 5. On the aforesaid basis, the learned Single Judge has issued the following direction: "9. Further, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the examination scheduled to commence on 112. 5. On the aforesaid basis, the learned Single Judge has issued the following direction: "9. Further, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the examination scheduled to commence on 112. 2008 is the last examination to be conducted by the first respondent and also taking note of the fact that the syllabus of the first respondent and the second respondent is different syllabus and the concerned students have studied B.Ed. Course only with reference to the syllabus of the first respondent and also taking note of the interim orders passed in the Special Leave Petition, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to permit the 100 students of the petitioner institution of 2007-2008 batch for the B.Ed. arrears examination to be commenced on 112. 2008. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed". 6. Subsequently, on the basis of the oral submission made by the counsel for the appellant University, the learned Single Judge passed further orders on 16th December 2008 to the following effect:- "3. According to the learned Special Government Pleader for Education, there are certain difficulties faced by the respondent Department in implementing the order dated 112. 2008 passed by this Court, consequently, the same could not be implemented as on date. In view of this, the learned Special Government Pleader for Education has sought for further direction to implement the orders of this Court passed on 112. 2008 by permitting them to conduct a special examination for the students of the petitioner institution. 4. Taking note of the difficulties put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader for Education and also taking note of the fact that the orders were passed on 112. 2008, but the examination commenced on 112. 2008, the prayer of the learned Special Government Pleader needs consideration. Consequently, the respondents are permitted to conduct a special examination for B.Ed. course for the students of the petitioner institution for the academic year 2007-2008 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". 7. Thereafter, the Registrar in charge of the present appellant University sent a letter dated 212. Consequently, the respondents are permitted to conduct a special examination for B.Ed. course for the students of the petitioner institution for the academic year 2007-2008 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". 7. Thereafter, the Registrar in charge of the present appellant University sent a letter dated 212. 2008 to the Institution, which reads as follows:- "With reference to your letter cited, I am by direction to state that the Honble High Court, Chennai has reconsidered its order dated 112. 2008 in W.P.No.28615 of 2008 and passed modified orders on 112. 2008 granting time for one month for conducting B.Ed. examination to the students of G.K. College of Education for the year 2007-2008, subject to the S.L.P. Pending. In pursuance of the orders of the High Court dated 112. 2008, the University is making necessary arrangements for conducting the B.Ed. examination to the students of your college. You are requested to submit exam applications from the students with necessary enclosures, eligibility certificates, attendance certificates for all students, Internal marks records etc. submitted by the students and other relevant materials for taking further action in the matter. This may be treated as most immediate". 8. In the above background the counsel for the appellant has submitted that when affiliation was granted to the writ petitioner/present first respondent specifically with effect from the academic year 2008-2009 which was never challenged by the Institution, the prayer of the Institution in W.P.No.28615 of 2008 praying for a direction to the present appellant University to permit the students to appear at the examination conducted by the present appellant University for the other Institutions of the previous batch was misconceived. 9. It is further submitted that in view of the several decisions of the Madras High Court, laying down in categorical terms that before obtaining affiliation from the University, which is the examining authority, no college or institution should admit the students and therefore, the writ petitioner Institution having violated such norms cannot be heard to say that the present appellant University should be forced to hold an examination for those students. It is further submitted that this may give rise to anomalous situation in the sense that the affiliation to the Institution is given by another University viz., Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University for the academic year 2008-2009, whereas the present appellant University would be forced to hold an examination for the students for the academic year 2007-2008 and would be forced to issue degree even though there was no affiliation for the said year. This according to the learned counsel for the appellant is against the existing provisions as well as the ratio of several decisions of High Court. .10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (the writ petitioner Institution) on the other hand submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been made subject to the proceedings in S.L.P.No.6824 of 2007 now pending before the Honble Supreme Court is not in accord with the sense of substantial justice. It has been further submitted by him that at any rate the present appellant through its counsel had mentioned the matter before the learned Single Judge and had requested for permission to hold a special examination and in fact even the Registrar incharge of the University has issued a communication to the effect to the present respondent and therefore the appellant is estopped from raising any contrary stand. 11. The learned Single Judge has issued a direction primarily on account of the delay on the part of the appellant University in dealing with the application for affiliation filed by respondent No.1 Institution. It is not disputed that the application which was filed during the year 2006 had been returned by the present appellant University on account of certain defects in the application. Be that as it may, the respondent Institution filed a fresh application during the year 2007. Since such application had been kept pending, the present respondent No.1 had filed W.P.No.3177 of 2008 seeking for a direction to the present appellant University to process the application dated 011. 2007 including causing of inspection for consideration for grant of affiliation to the G.K. College of Education within a time frame. By the time such writ petition was taken up for hearing on 211. 2008, the order of affiliation dated 04.09.2008 by the Newly Constituted Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University had already been granted. 2007 including causing of inspection for consideration for grant of affiliation to the G.K. College of Education within a time frame. By the time such writ petition was taken up for hearing on 211. 2008, the order of affiliation dated 04.09.2008 by the Newly Constituted Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University had already been granted. In such order of affiliation, it was specifically indicated that it had been decided to grant provisional affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009. At that stage, the respondent No.1 Institution which was the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3177 of 2008 did not challenge such grant of affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009. .12. On the other hand the following order was passed on 211. 2008 in W.P.No.3177 of 2008:- ."Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as nothing survives in the writ petition, the same has become infructuous and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the same and has also made an endorsement to that effect. Permission is granted. In view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous". .13. Though prima-facie it may appear as if there had been some delay on the part of the present appellant University, it is not disputed at the Bar that as per the relevant time schedule applicable, the Institutions seeking affiliation should file the application before 30th September of a particular year so that the question of affiliation for the next academic year can be considered. In other words, if application is filed in September 2007, affiliation can be granted for the year 2008-2009. 14. At any rate, since the affiliation was specifically granted for the year 2008-2009 and that too under newly Constituted University (present Respondent No.2), if the petitioner had any grievance at that stage, instead of withdrawing the Writ Petition No.3177 of 2008 the petitioner should have pursued the matter to its logical end by challenging the affiliation granted to it and further by seeking for affiliation with effect from 2007-2008. Having allowed the earlier writ petition to be withdrawn which was practically based on very similar cause of action, the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 in the present appeal) is trying to get over the hurdle of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition by couching the prayer in a more innovative manner. 15. Having allowed the earlier writ petition to be withdrawn which was practically based on very similar cause of action, the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 in the present appeal) is trying to get over the hurdle of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition by couching the prayer in a more innovative manner. 15. In this context, it is also to be noted that while filing the present writ petition No.28165 of 2008 through the very same counsel, the petitioner has not at all bothered to indicate about the filing of the earlier Writ Petition No.3177 of 2008 and the result there of. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in a series of decisions of the Madras High Court including in Full Bench decision reported in 2008 1 MLJ 1217 (Rukmani College of Education vs. State of Tamil Nadu), it has been laid down that without the grant of affiliation, no institution can admit the students. 17. It is no doubt true that SLP.NO.6824 of 2007 has been filed before the Supreme Court against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, but there is no stay of the operation of the Judgment of the Full Bench. Merely because an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the ratio of the Full Bench Decision ceaases to be binding. As a matter of fact, in a subsequent Division Bench Judgment, it has been specifically stated that the operation of the Full Bench decision having not been stayed, such decision is required to be followed. Learned Single Judge appears to have glossed over the effect of the Full Bench Judgment merely by observing that SLP has been filed against the said decision and permission has been granted to the students of the said Institution to write the examination. 18. It is no doubt true that the learned Single Judge has also observed that the direction regarding holding of examination would be subject to the result of the SLP, but in our considered opinion, the holding of examination for the batch of students who had been admitted even though affiliation had been granted for the year 2008-2009 would create an anomalous position. 19. 19. The counsel for the respondent NO.1 (the writ petitioner) has strongly raised the question of estoppel on the ground that the counsel for the present appellant had made a mention before the learned Single Judge on the basis of which the learned Single Judge had permitted the present appellant University to hold a special examination and in fact subsequently on the basis of such an order, a communication was sent by the Registrar incharge of the University appellant University to the Institution. As is well known, there cannot be any estoppel against law. The affiliation granted to the respondent Institution is only from 2008-2009. As per law applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu (atleast as per the several decisions) no admission can take place before affiliation is granted. Moreover, since the affiliation was granted specifically for 20082009 onwards, permitting the students to appear as if there was affiliation for 20072008, would create an anomalous situation. 20. For the above reasons, we are not able to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that the 2nd respondent University, which is now as per the statute, the sole University to deal with such course, should permit the students concerned to appear at the next examination to be held by such 2nd respondent University. Subject to the above direction and observations, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.