Shishir Kumar, J.:- This is an application for correction of order dated 31.08.2010, in which some major correction has to be made, therefore, it is being substituted by a fresh order. 2. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A.B. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate, as well as Sri Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents may file counter affidavit within one month. Petitioner will have two weeks, thereafter, to file a rejoinder affidavit. 4. List after expiry of the aforesaid period. 5. Petitioner is a technical institute and imparting education in B.Tech. and MBA. It appears that in the year 2009, respondent No.3 issued a notification putting a rider for running second shift in the engineering colleges. Clause III of the Scheme provides as under:- "III. Applicability:- The scheme is applicable to all existing AICTE approved engineering institutions with four years standing (three years in case of institution exclusively set up for women). In those States where the number of seats available in engineering colleges per lack of population is less than all India average. Institutions exclusively set up for woman all over the country." 6. Petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid condition on the ground that for the purposes of running evening classes the condition put up is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. This Court entertained the writ petition and passed an interim order to the extent that the operation of clause IIIrd shall remain stayed till further orders. The respondents were granted time, but according to the petitioner in spite of time granted uptil date no counter affidavit has been filed. This order was passed on 08.04.2009. Now, again the All India Council for Technical Education, only to circumvent the order of this Court, has issued another notification that the scheme will be applicable to all existing AICTE approved engineering Institutions with at least four years standing in the States. According to petitioner the Institutions who have completed four years of standing will only be permitted to run the evening classes in spite of the fact that the Institutions lacks the infrastructure, faculty and other requirements. Further submission has been made that only to defeat the order passed in the writ petition this notification has been issued. According to petitioner the Institutions who have completed four years of standing will only be permitted to run the evening classes in spite of the fact that the Institutions lacks the infrastructure, faculty and other requirements. Further submission has been made that only to defeat the order passed in the writ petition this notification has been issued. The applicability is being quoted below: "That Serial No. 23.2 of Chapter-III prescribed the approval for Additional Programme/ courses/division in Technical Institute in 2nd shift working shall be considered on with views by State Government/UT and Affiliating University and on fulfillment of following conditions:- a. At least one batch from existing Institution is graduated." All AICTE Approved Engineering Institutions exclusively setup for women all over the country with at least three years standing." 7. On the other hand, Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision taken by the Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.3008 of 2009. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition has been dismissed and it has been held that the condition is not arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. This Court is of the view that the Bench has not considered the issue that what will happen to those Institutions who does not complete four years' standing, but fulfills all the criteria and in spite of the fact that various seats after counseling are vacant, they will not be permitted to give admission to those students who are willing in the evening classes. The Division Bench has observed as follows in one of the paragraphs:- "For allowing second shift to an institution it is necessary that the AICTE is satisfied about the functioning of a particular educational institution. The minimum requirement of four years standing of an institution would mean that the institution is running in accordance with law and is successfully completing the studies. Only such institution, therefore, should be given the facility of second shift whose existence is not in doubt and who are likely to continue in near future." 8. Meaning thereby the Division Bench of this Court was also of the view that the AICTE has to be satisfied about the functioning of a particular educational institution. Only such institution, therefore, should be given the facility of second shift whose existence is not in doubt and who are likely to continue in near future." 8. Meaning thereby the Division Bench of this Court was also of the view that the AICTE has to be satisfied about the functioning of a particular educational institution. It is only such Institutions should be given the facility of second shift whose existence is not in doubt and who are like to continue in near future. 9. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for interim relief. Till further orders of this Court, the rider put by the respondent regarding condition No.23.2 "a. At least one batch from existing Institution is graduated" will not come in way to the petitioner to run the evening classes.