JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 23.7.2008 passed by respondent No. 1, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to pass an order of permanent affiliation in favour of petitioner’s institution for running the B.Ed. course with annual intake of 100 seats from the academic session 2007. 3. Sri Bhagwan Singh Mahavidyalaya is a self financed institution, which had earlier preferred writ petition No. 49642 of 2007 praying for grant of affiliation for B.Ed. course for the academic session 2006-07. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the High Court directing the office of the Chancellor Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University to transmit the papers with regard to petitioner’s institution to the Principal Secretary Higher Education for taking appropriate decision in terms of Section 37(2) of Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. A further direction was also issued by the High Court to Chancellor to take steps within one month from the date of production of certified copy and the State Government to take decision in accordance with law preferably within next two months thereafter. 4. Section 37(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 was amended by which power of affiliation is vested with State Government instead of the Chancellor. After the amendment the matter regarding affiliation was subsequently of the petitioner’s institution for academic session 2006-07 was referred to the State Government, certain information was sought from the University vide letter dated 7.1.2008. The University in turn supplied the information. According to the information received by the State Government the petitioner-institution alongwith several others admitted students on their own for the academic session 2005-06. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 24.4.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 944(M/S)/2006 filed at Lucknow Bench of the High Court, wherein the Court relying upon a Full Bench decision of the High Court, vide its order dated 31.3.2008 held the admissions made in contravention of the provisions of NCTE Regulation and the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 to be illegal. Pursuant to the order dated 24.4.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 944(M/S)/2006 filed at Lucknow Bench of the High Court, wherein the Court relying upon a Full Bench decision of the High Court, vide its order dated 31.3.2008 held the admissions made in contravention of the provisions of NCTE Regulation and the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 to be illegal. As when the admissions, therefore, made by the petitioners for the session 2005-06 were illegal, the examinations for the session July/August 2007 were also cancelled by the State Government in view of the judgment rendered by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5566(M/S) of 2007. 6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that from the impugned order it is apparent that there are two objections of the State Government regarding grant of affiliation to the petitioner which have been detailed in paragraph-6 of the said order as under : Þmi;qZDr fLFkfr ls Li"V gS fd Jh Hkxoku fko egkfo|ky;] mEesniqj] ,Vk }kjk ch0,M0 ikB~;Øe l= 2005&06 esa Nk=ksa ds Áosk Lo;a ds Lrj ls dkmaflfyax ds fcuk gh dj fy;k x;k Fkk vkSj l= 2006&07 gsrq lEc)rk ÁkIr fd;s fcuk Nk=ksa dk Áosk vius Lrj ij fy;k x;kA vr% lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr mijksDr dkj.kksa ls Áuxr laLFkk dks LofoRr iksf"kr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ch0,M0 ikB~;Øe dh 100 lhVksa esa l= 2006&07 ls lEc)rk Ánku fd;s tkus dk vkSfpR; ugha ik;k x;k gSA mDr egkfo|ky; ds ÁR;kosnu fnukad 11-10-2007 ,oa 12-10-2007 dks ,rn~}kjk fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSAÞ 7. In paragraph 46 of the writ petition it has been averred that the institution had not admitted any student in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2006-07 which is evident from its reply dated 11.6.2008 addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra and submitted that the petitioner could not have even admitted any student as there was no order of affiliation in favour of the petitioner institution for the academic session 2006-07. It is stated that in this view the averments made in the impugned order dated 23.7.2008 are incorrect. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the paragraph 17 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein the aforesaid fact has been reiterated as under : “That in reply to the contents of para 21 of the counter-affidavit, contents of paras 36 and 37 of the writ petition are reiterated. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the paragraph 17 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein the aforesaid fact has been reiterated as under : “That in reply to the contents of para 21 of the counter-affidavit, contents of paras 36 and 37 of the writ petition are reiterated. It is further stated that the petitioner has never admitted the students in session 2006-07, but only distributed the admission forms in anticipation of receiving permanent affiliation, as the recommendation for affiliation was made by the University on Prapatra-A.” 8. Standing Counsel in rebuttle has placed paragraph 26 and 27 of the counter affidavit in paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 it has been averred that petitioner has himself admitted in his letter dated 15.5.2008 that he has taken admissions in anticipation of affiliation for the session 2006-07 in the institution. Copy of the letter is also annexed. 9. In Paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit it has been annexed that the petitioner institution has illegally admitted 100 students without getting affiliation in utter contravention of the provisions of NCTE Regulations and Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. 10. It is urged by the Standing Counsel that in the circumstances of the case the State Government was left with no choice but to reject the proposal for grant of affiliation which was unlawful as the admissions made in contravention of the NCTE Regulation and Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act was unlawful and if admission is granted it would tantamount to legalizing the admissions made by petitioner’s institution. 11. 11. Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, it appears that petitioner on the one hand is claiming that he has not taken any admission of students when the institute was not recognised by NCTE Regulations and the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 for the academic session 2005-06 and on the other hand in its letter dated 15th May, 2008 the institution admitted that admission of students for session 2005-06 in anticipation of affiliation letter dated 15.5.2008 is as under : ÞJh Hkxoku fko egkfo|ky; mesniqj] ,Vk Ás"kd] Ákid] lfpo Mk0 lR; Ádkk kekZ Áeq[k lfpo] mPp fk{kk vuqHkkx&2 m0Á0 kklu y[kuÅA i=kad&ch0,M0 17&18@2008&09 fnukad 15-5-2008 fo"k; % ch0,M0 dh ijh{kk ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd gekjs egkfo|ky; dks ,d o"kZ ds fy, ijUrqd esa lEc)rk nh x;h Fkh tcfd foofo|ky; vkxjk ds i=kad&,fQy@230&,@2007 fnukad 14-2-2007 ds vuqlkj , Ái= ij laLrqfr dj Hksth x;h FkhA rnqijkUr jkT;iky@dqykf/kifr ls lkuqjks/k fuosnu iquZfopkj gsrq fd;k blh Øe esa o"kZ 2005&06 esa Áosk dj fy;s x;sA blh ÁR;kkk esa 2006&07 esa Hkh Áosk dj fy;s x;s D;ksafd foofo|ky; }kjk LofoRriksf"kr fo|ky;ksa esa dkmUlfyax }kjk Nk= ugha Hksts x;sA lekpkj i=ksa esa foKkiu nsdj ojh;rk Øe ls Nk=ksa dk Áosk dj fy;k x;kA o"kZ 2005&06 dh ijh{kk djk yh x;hA ekuuh;k eq[;ea=h }kjk 2005&06 dh ijh{kk fujLr dj nh x;hA loksZPp U;k;ky; esa vihy fopkjkèkhu gSA dkj.kok ijh{kkQy ?kksf"kr ugha gks ldkA o"kZ 2006&07 esa dkmflafyax }kjk Nk= ugha Hksts x;sA vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd 2005&06 ds Øe esa gh 2006&07 ,oa 2007&08 dh lEc)rk LFkk;h :i esa Ánku djus dh Ñik djsa rFkk 2007&08 ds Nk=ksa dh dkmaflfyax ls nsus dh vuqdEik djsaA egku Ñik gksxhA Hkonh;] g0 vLi"V lfpo Jh Hkxoku fko egkfo|ky; mEesniqj] tuin ,Vk ¼m0Á0½ 12. Whether the petitioner institution has taken admission of students in the B.Ed. course when the institution was not recognised or unaffiliated is a question of fact which has to be looked into by the competent authority. 13. Categorically stand of the State Government is that the students have been admitted by the petitioner-institution with affiliation in anticipation of recognition which is against the provision of law as no admission of the students could be taken by the institution when it was not affiliated to the University and not recognised by NCTE. 14. 13. Categorically stand of the State Government is that the students have been admitted by the petitioner-institution with affiliation in anticipation of recognition which is against the provision of law as no admission of the students could be taken by the institution when it was not affiliated to the University and not recognised by NCTE. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner insist and has urged that in spite of writing letter dated 15.10.2008 they had not taken any admission for the academic session 2006-07, therefore, the State Government may reconsider grant of affiliation to the petitioner institution. 15. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that no admission has been taken by the petitioner-institution for the academic session 2006-07 in B.Ed. Course, as affiliation was not granted to it the writ petition is disposed of remanding the matter back to the State Government for deciding the same in accordance with law after considering all the facts and circumstances by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 16. No order as to costs. ————