JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jai Deep Narain Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, and Sri D. K. Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner Institution, is running B.Ed. Course after getting no-objection certificate from the State Government in the year 2003, since, 2004. It has been granted temporary affiliation year after year but the affiliation for the academic session 2008-2009, for which a request for permanent affiliation was made, has not been granted. In absence of affiliation, the petitioner institution was not allowed to participate in the counselling already held twice though the matter is pending before the State Government and direction was issued by this Court for deciding the matter within a specified time. This order was passed on 4.5.2009 directing the State Government to decide the matter of approval within a month. 3. The State Government has been raising objections from time to time though, according to petitioner, there was no shortcoming and whatever objections were raised, were removed but the State Government did not find it proper to grant approval for affiliation. 4. Lastly on 24.7.2009, a letter was sent to the University informing about 11 objections. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record that all these objections were not existent and were raised in the year 2007 also. He has also submitted before this Court that all objections were removed and though, there was no discrepancy but again, in the year 2009, the same objections have been repeatedly raised. This time the petitioner has brought on record the reply of each objections which have been read before this Court one by one and we find that none of objections can be said to be tenable. 5. It has also been emphasised by the petitioner’s counsel that three inspecting memos were furnished by the University which did not show any such shortcoming. This Court, therefore, on 1.12.2009 directed for presence of the Secretary concerned, to indicate as to why the approval is not being granted. 6. The Secretary appeared in person and it was disclosed that the recommendations for grant of approval after the recommendations made by the University, were duly considered by the committees on 30.9.2009; one headed by the Secretary and thereafter by high power committee headed by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister on the same day. 6. The Secretary appeared in person and it was disclosed that the recommendations for grant of approval after the recommendations made by the University, were duly considered by the committees on 30.9.2009; one headed by the Secretary and thereafter by high power committee headed by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister on the same day. This recommendation was forwarded to the Minister concerned but the Minister instead of approving the recommendations so made, directed the District Magistrate to submit his report. The District Magistrate submitted his report on 3.12.2009, as informed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 7. We are informed that in the said report it has been stated that the College was not having a boundary wall. However, during the course of arguments, Sri Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of oral instructions, says that in fact, the boundary wall is already constructed on two sides but it is not complete on two other sides. 8. It could not be explained by the learned counsel for the State that when there were reports of the University recommending for approval and the recommendations of the committee headed by the Secretary and also approval of the high power committee which was headed by the Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, then on what ground and for what reason, the Minister concerned, required the District Magistrate to submit a report. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the Minister was convinced after perusing the reports aforesaid that there was some ambiguity in some of the reports which may require clarification from the petitioner institution and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was any such ground on which the District Magistrate could have been involved in the matter. 9. It is also not clear that instead of making any inquiry from the University or the committees which had undertaken the exercise and recorded their approval for grant of approval why the District Magistrate was entrusted with the aforesaid job. Even if assuming that the boundary wall of the petitioner institution was not fully complete, it could not have been a ground for refusal of approval when the college was running right from the year 2004 and admittedly, the affiliation was granted for the B. Ed. Course. Even if assuming that the boundary wall of the petitioner institution was not fully complete, it could not have been a ground for refusal of approval when the college was running right from the year 2004 and admittedly, the affiliation was granted for the B. Ed. Course. At the best, it could have been suggested that the petitioner institution should construct the boundary wall and to ensure the compliance of such directions but it has not been done. 10. We also take notice of the fact that delay on the part of the State Government in granting approval in the matters of affiliation to institutions, in most of the times, because they got delayed in the Office of the Minister concerned, compels the institutions, waiting for approval for affiliations, to approach the Court which consumes lot of time of Courts which can easily be avoided by the State Government by taking early decisions in such matters. 11. This Court has been observing time and again that there should be a time schedule both, for applying for recognition/affiliation, before the current academic session and that the State Government must take appropriate decision within a time frame but we find that all the directions have not been able to move the State Government in right perspective and directions. The delay on the part of State Government, may be because of pendency of the matters with either of the committees or with the Minister, affects the students and also the institutions to run the courses. This also affects the academic calender and also the academic discipline in the institutions. It also sometimes require to hold the counselling for admission of the students, after the start of academic session, again which is likely to disturb the academic session. 12. The State Government is, therefore, directed to make a time schedule for the aforesaid purposes and to abide by the same. There should be a periodical review of the pending matters before the State Government, for every academic session by the high power committee, so constituted, and all those matters which are found pending, must be disposed of within a reasonable time so that the orders for holding fresh counselling or additional counselling, are not required to be passed and such litigation of educational institutions is not brought to the Court. 13. 13. Since the present institution fulfils all the conditions for grant of approval, a fact which has not been disputed by the State Government rather, it is admitted, we direct that the State Government shall pass formal order of approval for affiliation by 14th December, 2009, as assured by the learned Additional Advocate General, so that the present institution may be able to participate in the counselling to be held on 15.12.2009. 14. This order has been passed in the presence of parties counsel. Learned State counsel assures that the order would be complied with. Since the counselling starts from 15.12.2009. Learned counsel says that the approval will be granted by the State Government by tomorrow so that the petitioner institution may be able to participate in the counselling which is scheduled for 15.12.2009. 15. We, however, further direct that in the interest of the students and their security, the institute shall construct and complete the boundary wall forthwith, within a reasonable time. 16. The petition stands finally disposed of. ————