JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Rehabilitation Council of India. 2. In all the three writ applications the petitioners are the students of J.M. Institute of Speech and Hearing (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). The Institute is a study centre of the Madhya Pradesh Bhojpur (Open) University, Department of Special Education ((hereinafter referred to as the University.). The University runs programmef or grant of qualifications in B.Ed. (Special Education-cum-Distance Education) Programme. It is recognized and regulated by the Rehabilitation Council of India which also maintains a central register of all qualified persons in the field of rehabilitation. The primary aim is to rehabilitate physically handicapped persons. The issue relates to the publication of the results of the petitioner for the session-2007-09. 3. C.W.J.C. No.5116/08 and C.W.J.C. No.6824/09 have been filed by the same set of petitioners who have completed both sessions of the two year course for publication of their results of both the years. C.W.J.C. No.1415/10 has been filed for the same relief. 4. In C.W.J.C. No.5116/08 notice was issued to the University and which has been validly served. There is, however, no appearance on their behalf. The study centre at Patna is duly represented by the counsel who has filed a Vakalatnama, but none is present on its behalf when the matter is taken up. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that he represents the Rehabilitation Council of India in all the three applications and a counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. No.6824/09 on 3.8.2010. Due to delayed filing of the same it is not available on record. If the Union of India had been more careful in filing the counter affidavit in due time, it would have been available to the convenience of the Court. This Court therefore requested the counsel for the Union of India to make available his copy of counter affidavit for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground as the copies have been served on the counsel for the petitioners. The office shall however place the original counter affidavit on record. 5. The Rehabilitation Council of India is the regulatory body of the University. The study centre of the University has entered appearance. Notice has been duly served on the University in C.W.J.C. No.5116/08. The office shall however place the original counter affidavit on record. 5. The Rehabilitation Council of India is the regulatory body of the University. The study centre of the University has entered appearance. Notice has been duly served on the University in C.W.J.C. No.5116/08. This Court therefore holds, that the University, a statutory body, is aware of the pendency of the writ application and had a bounden duty to appear and assist the Court. The Court draws an adverse inference against the University. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 40 seats each have been allocated to the two study centres at Patna. The admission is regulated by the Rehabilitation Council of India which recommends the names. The petitioners were neither directly sponsored for admission by the Rehabilitation Council of India nor were sponsored subsequently when earlier sponsored candidates within the intake capacity did not join. They have appeared at the two Shnual examinations held for the session-2007-09 of the B.Ed. Course of Special Education and Distance Education but their results are not being published. 7. The counter affidavit of the Rehabilitation Council of India does not deny or dispute these basic facts. The Court has already drawn an adverse inference against the University. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the Rehabilitation Council of India, a nodal body created by the Government of India to regulate and monitor institutions like the university has a bounden duty in the matter towards the present petitioners having sponsored them for such admission quite apart from its regulatory, statutory obligations. 8. This Court therefore directs the Rehabilitation Council of India to take all necessary steps in law to ensure that the University takes an appropriate decision for publication of the results of the petitioners within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Rehabilitation Council of India. If the result of the petitioners or any one of them is proposed to be withheld, the reason must be spelt out in detail in a reasoned and speaking order to be passed jointly by the University and the Rehabilitation Council of India so as to facilitate judicial review, should the need arise. 9. The writ applications stand disposed in the aforesaid terms.