JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner institution in 2006 applied for and was granted temporary permission for admitting students to the under graduate course of Ayurvedacharya, by the Union of India on the recommendation of the Secretary, Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as C.C.I.M. for short) in the session-2007- 2008 under Section-13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003. 3. The C.C.I.M. submitted a report on 16.7.2008 on such inspection held in March, 2008 for purposes of admission for the session 2008-2009. 4. This report pointed out certain deficiencies required to be fulfilled by the petitioner institution before recommendation for recognition for the session could be made by it. The Union of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, letter dated 18.7.2008 issued show cause notice to the petitioner for removal of the deficiencies. The petitioner institution on 2.8.2008 filed their show cause which is available at Annexure-10 to the writ application. The petitioner clearly admitted five of the nine deficiencies and stated that steps to remove the same shall be taken. The Union of India by its letter dated 19.8.2008 declined to grant permission for admission for the session 2008-2009 as deficiencies subsisted. 5. On 19.11.2008 the petitioner institution sent a communication to the C.C.I.M. that they had removed the deficiencies completely. The C.C.I.M. by their letter dated 14.1.2009 replied that based on the fresh inspection dated 4.12.2008 the issue of recommendation for the session 2009-2010 had been initiated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to persuade this Court that the developments on the issue of recommendation and consequent recognition cannot be seen in isolation. The petitioner institution was inspected as early as in March, 2008, deficiencies pointed in July, 2008, steps taken for removal in August, 2008 which are finally claimed to have been removed in November, 2008. The issue of grant of recognition for the session 2008-2009 has to be viewed in that context. 7. The petitioner institution was inspected as early as in March, 2008, deficiencies pointed in July, 2008, steps taken for removal in August, 2008 which are finally claimed to have been removed in November, 2008. The issue of grant of recognition for the session 2008-2009 has to be viewed in that context. 7. Learned counsel for the Union of India invites the attention of the court to paragraph-40 of their counter affidavit to submit that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5166/01 filed by the Medical Council of India to streamline academic standards with regard to imparting of education and admission to Medical Institutions has fixed a cut-off date as 31.10.2008 for grant of admissions in the session for a Medical Course. The petitioner on his own showing has finally removed the deficiencies after the cut-off date. 8. The issues of recognition and fulfillment of conditions for imparting of standardized quality education, more so, in specialized professional courses needs no emphasis. Issues of eligibility for recognition are issues of facts and lie in the executive domain. It shall not be the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere unless there be allegations of mala fide, perversity, arbitrariness or violation of statutes. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Oraon (Minor) through Guardian and Others vs. CBSE and Others reported in (2006)13 S.C.C. 673 [: 2007(1) PUR (SC)69] has reiterated the caution to be exercised by courts in granting reliefs, even interim reliefs, with regard to institutions which are not recognized, based on sympathy, compassion or what may be termed as individualized justice. The Court considers it proper to quote paragraph Nos. 14, 23 and 24 of the same. "14. Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in various judgments to the effect that interim orders of the nature passed in the present case are detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of course, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is subversive of academic discipline." "23. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institutions 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. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institutions 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 that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for 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-chalantly continued the violations." "24. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against the school as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion." 10. The admitted fact is that the petitioner has submitted a report of removal of deficiencies in November, 2008 after the cut-off date of 31.10.2008 fixed by the Supreme Court on a recommendation submitted as far back as 16.7.2008 and themselves took a half hearted effort to remove them on 2.8.2008. Additionally, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that nearly four months of the 18 months- session are over. If the institution were permitted to take admissions for the session- 2008-2009, the inevitable sufferers shall be the students. Quite obviously, the 18 months course will now be compressed into a 14 months course with all its attendant consequences of rushing through the course ultimately affecting the quality of knowledge imparted. 11. The only appropriate order to be pased now is for a direction to the C.C.I.M. to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner for removal of deficiencies by their letter dated 19.11.2008 acknowledged by the C.C.I.M. in their letter dated 14.1.2009. Let a final decision on the issue of recommendation for grant of recognition upon fulfillment of the standards for the session-2009-10 be taken by C.C.I.M. within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This shall subserve the institution which can safely thereafter claim to have recognition for the session 2009-2010. Let a final decision on the issue of recommendation for grant of recognition upon fulfillment of the standards for the session-2009-10 be taken by C.C.I.M. within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This shall subserve the institution which can safely thereafter claim to have recognition for the session 2009-2010. This shall be in the interest of not only the present institution, but also the students applying for admission in the said session who shall then be sure of the quality of the education being imparted to them and the value of the qualification that they shall be obtaining through such an institution. After appropriate orders are passed by the C.C.I.M., this Court requires the Union of India to take such appropriate decision based on the nature of the recommendation within a maximum period of one month from the date of reciept of such recommendation from the C.C.I.M. 12. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms.