Judgment :- The petitioner is an educational institution imparting education in different disciplines such as B.Sc., in Bio-Technology, Biochemistry, Microbiology, Genetics, Computer Science, Journalism, Business Management, etc., and several post graduate courses in different disciplines. It is the case of the petitioner that it had made an application to the University of Bangalore for grant of affiliation to two new courses, viz., Master of International business (MIB) and Master of Finance and Accounting (MFA) and for renewal of existing courses in accordance with Section 59 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’). It is contended that the application was placed before the Syndicate, in accordance with sub-clause (6) of Section 59, which in turn directed a local enquiry to be made by the Local Enquiry Committee (for short ‘LIC’). In furtherance thereof, the LIC carried out the inspection and submitted its report to the Academic Council. Taking note of the LIC report and the opinion of the other authorities of the University, the State Government proceeded to make recommendation for grant of affiliation by an order dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure-B) to the two courses of MIB and MFA with an intake of 60 in each of the disciplines. On receipt of the said order from the Government, the petitioner waited for some time for the University to grant affiliation, but, in the absence of any formal communication in terms of sub-section (12) of Section 59, it made a representation on 25.8.2010 requesting the University to grant an order of affiliation. Since the University failed to respond to the said request, it has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the University to forthwith grant the formal order of affiliation in accordance with sub-section (12) of Section 59 by taking into consideration the directions issued by the State Government under its communication at Annexure ‘B’ and to include the petitioner-institutions’ new courses of MIB and MFA in the ‘seat matrix’ and counsel for admission for the Academic Year 2010-11. 2. The first respondent-University has filed its objections contending that the college had submitted its application for renewal of affiliation along with new proposal for opening of new courses including MFA for the academic year 2004-05 though the University had not issued a notification inviting application for the new courses for the said academic year. 2. The first respondent-University has filed its objections contending that the college had submitted its application for renewal of affiliation along with new proposal for opening of new courses including MFA for the academic year 2004-05 though the University had not issued a notification inviting application for the new courses for the said academic year. The LIC inspected the college on 10.5.2004 and submitted its report recommending for the renewal of affiliation to the existing courses, but had not recommended for MFA course. For the academic year 2005-06, the college submitted its application for renewal of affiliation and for new courses including MFA. The LIC had visited the college on 16.2.2005 and submitted its report rejecting the application for affiliation for the MFA course. For the academic year 2006-07, the LIC had not recommended for affiliation to the new courses. As such, the Academic Council and the Syndicate did not recommend for the said course. However, the State Government on the basis of a letter addressed by the Chairman of the college had recommended for affiliation to the course by its order as per the order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure ‘R15’). After some correspondence, the State Government by its letter dated 31.8.2009 suggested the University to reject the request of the college for affiliation of new courses including that of MFA course for the academic year 2009-10 (Annexure ‘R21’). For the academic years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, the college did not apply for grant of affiliation to the said courses. The LIC while considering the application of the college for renewal of affiliation for 2009-10 without there being any claim for the said courses has surprisingly recommended for the affiliation of the new course including the MIB and MFA. The Academic Council and the Syndicate have resolved not to grant affiliation to the courses not applied for and the said decision was communicated to the Government on 29.6.2009. The Government by its letter dated 22.9.2009 has once again recommended for grant of affiliation to the said course. The University sent a letter to the Government dated 9.2.2009 informing its inability to comply with the same. When the matter stood thus, the Government has recommended to grant affiliation for MIB and MFA courses for the academic year 201011. 3. The Government by its letter dated 22.9.2009 has once again recommended for grant of affiliation to the said course. The University sent a letter to the Government dated 9.2.2009 informing its inability to comply with the same. When the matter stood thus, the Government has recommended to grant affiliation for MIB and MFA courses for the academic year 201011. 3. Sri Madusudhan R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had made application for extension of affiliation to the existing courses and for grant of affiliation to two new courses, viz., Master of International business (MIB) and Master of Finance and Accounting (MFA) under Section 59 of the act for the academic year 2009-10. The application was placed before the Syndicate in accordance with sub-section (6) of Section 59 of the Act, which in turn directed the local enquiry to be made by the LIC. The LIC carried out the inspection and submitted the report for renewal of affiliation for the existing and also for grant of affiliation for the additional courses sought for the academic year 2009-10. After considering the report of the LIC, the Academic Council and the Syndicate recorded their opinion. The Registrar of the University submitted the application, the report of the LIC, the proceedings of the Academic Council and the Syndicate to the State Government for taking a decision thereon. The State Government directed the University to accord affiliation to the two courses of MIB and MFA with an intake of 60 each as per the order at annexure ‘B’. In the light of the said order, the University has no other option but to issue a formal order of affiliation under sub-section (12) of Section 59. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that ‘Government R.C. College’ alone was included in the seat matrix for the said courses for the academic year 2009-10. However, many other colleges have been included in the seat matrix for academic year 2010-11. Therefore, the University ought to have included the petitioner in the seat matrix for the academic year 2010-11. 4. On the other hand, Sri M. Keshava Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the University submits that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of affiliation to the courses in question for the academic year 2010-11. Therefore, the University ought to have included the petitioner in the seat matrix for the academic year 2010-11. 4. On the other hand, Sri M. Keshava Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the University submits that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of affiliation to the courses in question for the academic year 2010-11. It is argued that for the academic year 2004-05, the petitioner had applied for grant of affiliation to MFA course though the University has not issued a notification inviting the application for the new courses. The University did not recommend for grant of affiliation to the new courses for the said year. For the academic year 2005-06, the college had applied for grant of affiliation to MFA Course. The LIC after inspection submitted a report rejecting the application of the petitioner. The report was accepted by the academic Council and the Syndicate. For the academic year 2006-07, 2007-08, 200809 and 2009-10, the petitioner has not applied for grant of affiliation to the new courses. However, for the academic year 2006-07, the State Government on the basis of the letter addressed by the Chairman of the college, had recommended for affiliation to MFA Course by its order dated 4.10.2007. After some correspondence, the State Government sent a letter dated 31.8.2009 suggesting the University to reject the request of the college for grant of affiliation to new courses for the academic year 2009 10. While considering the application of the college for renewal of affiliation for 2009-10, the LIC has surprisingly recommended for affiliation of new courses, which was not at all applied for by the college. The Academic Council and the Syndicate have resolved not to grant affiliation to the course not applied for and the said decision was communicated to the Government on 29.6.2009. When the matter stood thus, the Government has reviewed it order dated 31.8.2009 and recommended for grant of affiliation for the MIB and MFA courses by its order dated 18.3.2010 for the academic year 2010-11 even though the college had not submitted its application. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having regard to the contentions urged, the question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of an order of affiliation for MIB and MFA courses for the academic year 2010-11? 6. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having regard to the contentions urged, the question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of an order of affiliation for MIB and MFA courses for the academic year 2010-11? 6. It is evident from the materials on records that the petitioner had sought for grant of affiliation to MFA course for the academic year 2004-05. The application was rejected by the LIC, the Academic Council and the Syndicate. For the academic years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10, the college did not apply for grant of affiliation to MIB and MFA courses. However, on the basis of a letter of the Chairman of the college, the State Government granted affiliation for MFA course with an intake of 60, which is clear from Annexure ‘R15’. When the University brought to the notice of the State Government that it is not permissible in law for grant of affiliation, the State Government by an order at Annexure ‘R20’ dated 31.8.2010 suggested the University to reject the application for the academic year 2009-10. The said order is as under: KANNADAM 7. While considering the application of the petitioner for renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2009-10 without there being any claim for MIB and MFA courses, the LIC recommended for affiliation to the courses as per Annexure ‘R21’ with an intake of 60 in each of the courses. However, the Academic Council and the Syndicate did not recommend for grant of affiliation to the said courses which is clear from the report at Annexure ‘R22’. The State Government by its order at Annexure ‘B’ dated 18.3.2010 has directed the University to grant affiliation to the aforesaid two courses for the academic year 2010- 11. It is clear from the notification issued by the University under Section 59(2) of the Act dated 17.9.2009 (Annexure-R1) that it has not invited applications for grant of affiliation to the aforesaid course for the academic session 2010-11. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has made an application for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2009-10, the original records produced by the University would clearly show that no such application was filed by the college nor has it deposited the affiliation fee. 8. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has made an application for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2009-10, the original records produced by the University would clearly show that no such application was filed by the college nor has it deposited the affiliation fee. 8. As directed by me, learned HCGP appearing for the second respondent has produced the file relating to grant of affiliation to the aforesaid two courses. The file contains a letter dated 5.9.2009 sent by the Chairman of the college to the then Minister for Higher Education requesting him to grant affiliation for the academic year 2009-10. Yet another letter was sent by the Chairman requesting the then Secretary for Higher Education for grant of affiliation to the aforesaid courses w.e.f. 2010-11 instead of 2009-10. It is thus clear that the order of affiliation has been granted without any application for the academic year 2010-11. In so far as the academic year 2009-10 is concerned, it is clear that the college has not made any application nor has it deposited the affiliation fee. The State Government had already rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of affiliation as per the order dated 31.8.2009 for the said academic year. In order to clarify the position, this Court sought for an explanation in this regard from the present Secretary for Higher Education. He has filed an affidavit dated 20.9.2010 stating that he has noticed some irregularities in issuing the order and that he will reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with law and will take necessary corrective measures. The affidavit is as under: “I, M. Madan Gopal, I.A.S., S/o Sri Venkatachari, aged about 54 years, working as Principal Secretary to Govt. Education Department (Higher Education), M.S. Bldg., Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I state that I am presently working as Principal Secretary to Govt. Education Department (Higher Education), a such, I am fully conversant with the facts of the case and I am swearing to this affidavit. 2. I submit that, after thorough verification of the records pertaining to this case, it has been noticed that there are some irregularities in passing the impugned order. Education Department (Higher Education), a such, I am fully conversant with the facts of the case and I am swearing to this affidavit. 2. I submit that, after thorough verification of the records pertaining to this case, it has been noticed that there are some irregularities in passing the impugned order. I submit that the matter will be reconsidered once again strictly under the provisions of Section 59 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 and necessary corrective measures will be taken and the matter will be set right in compliance with the provisions of Section 59 in accordance with law. What is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.” 9. A University is a corporation of teachers or assemblage of learned men or colleges for teaching the higher branches of learning. A University has been legally established to hold the examination, grant and confer degrees, diplomas and other distinctions and also to admit educational institutions, not maintained by it to its privileges as affiliated colleges. The various powers of the University are enumerated in section 4 of the Act. Affiliation of the college is essential for the purpose of attaching an educational institution to such University within jurisdiction as directed by law. It is generally sought for from the University before it starts functioning. The expression ‘affiliation’ has not been defined in the Act. Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 12-A of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 defines the expression ‘affiliation’ as under: “ ‘affiliation’, together with its grammatical variations, includes in relation to a college, recognition of such college by, association of such college by, association of such college with, and admission of such college to the privileges of, a University.” 10. Chapter X of the act provides for affiliation of colleges and recognition of institutions. The relevant provisions for the purpose of this case are sub-sections (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (9), (10) and (12) of Section 59, which are as under: Sec.59: Affiliation of Colleges: (1) Colleges within the University area shall on satisfying the conditions specified in this Section be affiliated to the University as affiliated colleges of the University on the recommendation made by the State Government. (2) The Registrar shall notify atleast in two leading newspapers one in English and one in Kannada, inviting applications for affiliation of new colleges, new courses in the existing affiliated colleges, new subjects in the affiliated colleges and also variation in the sanctioned intake fixing the last date for receipt of applications. The advertisement shall also contain such other particulars as may be required by the University and also specify the amount of fee for affiliation with a specific indication where the college requires to obtain the approval or recognition of the All India Council for Technical Education, the Bar Council of India, the National Council for Teachers Education or such other authorities to that effect. (3) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (4) Applications for affiliation of new colleges shall not be entertained from individuals but only from the Registered Society or Registered Public Trust financially viable to run the Colleges without the aid of the State Government. (5) The application shall further contain an undertaking that after the college is affiliated, there shall not be any transfer of management or change of name and style of the college, without prior approval of the State Government and the University. (6) On receipt of application under sub-section (2), it shall be placed before the Syndicate for consideration. The Syndicate on consideration of each of the applications for affiliation shall direct a local inquiry to be made by a local inquiry committee: Provided that the Local Inquiry Committee shall consists of atleast one person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. (7) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (8) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (9) The Syndicate shall consider the report of the Committee and the resolution of the Academic Council and shall further record its opinion on the question whether the request shall be granted either in whole or in part or rejected, after making such further enquiry as may be deemed necessary. (10) the Registrar shall submit the application and its enclosures, Annexures, the report of the Local Inquiry Committee, the Academic Council and the Syndicate and after such enquiry as may appear it to be necessary make their recommendation to the University to affiliate or reject affiliation as the case may be, or any part thereof, including the variation in the intake. (11) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx (12) The University shall on receipt of the direction of the State Government, issue formal order accordingly.” 11. (11) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx (12) The University shall on receipt of the direction of the State Government, issue formal order accordingly.” 11. The above provisions would clearly indicate that the colleges within the University area shall be affiliated to the University as affiliated colleges of the University on satisfying the conditions mentioned in Section 59 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 59 states that the Registrar shall notify atleast in two leading newspaper one in English and one in Kannada inviting application for affiliation of new courses in the existing affiliated colleges, new subjects in the affiliated colleges and also variation in the sanctioned intake fixing the last date for receipt of applications. The colleges have to send the application to the Registrar within the time limit specified in the advertisement furnishing the information required under sub-section (3) of Section 59 of the Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 59 states that on receipt of the application, it shall be placed before the Syndicate for consideration. The Syndicate on consideration of each of the application for affiliation shall direct the local inquiry to be made by the LIC. The Academic Council after receipt of the report of the LIC, consider the finding of the committee envisaged in the report and make such further enquiry as may appear it to be necessary and record its opinion on such request and transmit it to the Syndicate. Thereafter, the Syndicate has to consider the report of the committee and resolution of the Academic Council and record its opinion on the question whether the request shall be granted either in whole or in part or rejected. The Registrar has to submit the application and its enclosures, Annexures, the report of the LIC and the proceedings of the academic Council and the Syndicate to the State Government for taking a decision thereon before 31st March of the ensuing year. The language employed in sub-section (10) of Section 59 makes it clear that the State Government shall consider such applications in the light of the recommendations of the LIC, the Academic Council and the Syndicate and after such enquiry as may appear it to be necessary, make their recommendation to the University to affiliate or reject the affiliation as the case may be or any part thereof including the variation in the intake. On receipt of the directions of the State Government, the University has to issue the formal order accordingly. 12. It is thus clear that the institutions concerned have to apply for grant of affiliation in response to the notification by the Registrar of the University under sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Act. After compliance of the procedure prescribed under various sub-sections of Section 59, the Registrar has to submit the report to the State Government for taking a decision before 31st March of the ensuing year and the State Government has to consider only such applications in the light of the recommendations of the authorities of the University. It is clear from the scheme of the act that if an application for grant of affiliation is made for the academic session 2009-10, the State Government cannot grant fresh affiliation for the next academic year. Needless to say that without making an application for grant of affiliation for a particular year, the state Government cannot direct the University to grant a formal order of affiliation. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner has not made an application for grant of affiliation for MIB and MFA courses for the academic year 200910 though the University had invited applications for grant of affiliation to the said courses. Therefore, the report of the LIC recommending for the grant of affiliation is totally without jurisdiction. The Academic Council and the Syndicate have not recommended for grant of affiliation to the aforesaid two courses for the said academic year. Therefore, the State Government has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner, as per Annexure ‘R20’ dated 31.8.2009 for grant of affiliation to the said courses. On the basis of the letters dated 5.9.2009 and 23.1.2010 by the Chairman of the college, which are available at page 5 and 9 of the records produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the State Government has granted affiliation for the two new courses for the academic year 2010-11 is again contrary to law. For the academic year 2010-11, the University has not invited any application for grant of affiliation to the above courses. It is to be noted here that grant of affiliation is not a matter of course nor is it a formality. For the academic year 2010-11, the University has not invited any application for grant of affiliation to the above courses. It is to be noted here that grant of affiliation is not a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a University is a power to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of the students. When the law prescribes a procedure for grant of affiliation, it must be done only in that manner. Statutes have been made by the University regulating grant of affiliation. The guidelines issued by the University states that the exercise of affiliation shall begin atleast nine months in advance and get completed atleast two month before admissions are made in the college. The object of the local enquiry is to find out if the college possess required infrastructure to start the course. Affiliation cannot be granted on the basis of the letters of the Chairman of the college to the concerned Minister and the Secretary for Higher Education, without making an application to the University in accordance with law. The act has not conferred upon the State Government inherent powers to direct the University to issue order of affiliation to the colleges. It has to function within the powers and duties assigned to it under the Act. In the circumstances, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Education Department (Higher Education), is right in stating that he has noticed irregularities in passing the impugned order. In this background, the University has taken a correct stand that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of an order of affiliation. 14. The order submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that though the University has not invited applications for grant of affiliation for the courses in question, the University has included several other institutions in seat matrix for the academic year 2010-11 and that the petitioner has been discriminated is without any merit. For the academic year 2009-10, Government RC College, Bangalore, was granted affiliation for the aforesaid two courses, which is clear from the seat matrix of 2009-10. However, several other institutions have been included in the seat matrix of 2010-11 though the University has not invited application for grant of affiliation. For the academic year 2009-10, Government RC College, Bangalore, was granted affiliation for the aforesaid two courses, which is clear from the seat matrix of 2009-10. However, several other institutions have been included in the seat matrix of 2010-11 though the University has not invited application for grant of affiliation. It is well established that if the University has granted affiliation to some other educational institutions illegally for the academic year 2010-11, this Court cannot direct the University to grant affiliation to the petitioner. It is settled that a party cannot claim that since some thing wrong has been done in another case, direction should be given for doing another wrong. No one has a right to claim performance of an unlawful or illegal act. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to perpetuate illegalities but to strike at them. In Union of India & Another Vs. International Trading Co. & another- (2003) 5 SCC 437 , the Apex Court has held that two wrongs do not make a right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case; direction should be given for doing another wrong. In such matter, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality, the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish the strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. 15. The Registrar of the University has filed an affidavit dated 24.9.2010 stating that affiliation cannot be given to the petitioner as it has not applied for affiliation to the said courses for the academic year 2009-10 and the said courses were not offered for the academic year 2010-11. 15. The Registrar of the University has filed an affidavit dated 24.9.2010 stating that affiliation cannot be given to the petitioner as it has not applied for affiliation to the said courses for the academic year 2009-10 and the said courses were not offered for the academic year 2010-11. He has further stated that it has come to the notice of the University that certain colleges were given affiliation for the said courses for the academic year 2010-11, and that the University will examine each and every case individually and action will be initiated against such colleges in accordance with law, if the grant of affiliation is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 59 of the Act. The stand taken by the University is just and fair. 16. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.