JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This contempt application has been filed by the applicant, the Committee of Management, Dulari Devi Degree College, Bindwalia, Bhikahampur, Deoria through its Manager, Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey alleging that the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35255 of 2010 has been violated. 2. The writ Court in the afore mentioned writ petition No. 35255 of 2010, inter alia, had passed the following order: “By the impugned order dated 1.6.2010 the university has stated that the petitioner’s institution has been refused recognition and therefore is not entitled to either to admit or to take examination of students for B.Ed. course for the session 2008-09. It has been contended that the recognition granted to the petitioner’s institution vide order dated 31.8.2009 from the academic session 2009-10 only is incorrect and ought to relate back to the date of initial recognition. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner’s institution by filing a writ petition No. 18594 of 2010 in which necessary affidavits have already been exchanged. Thus it has been contended that in the event the above referred writ petition is allowed, the students of the petitioner’s institution would suffer irreparable loss if not allowed undertake B.Ed. examination for the academic year 2008-09 which are scheduled be commence from second July, 2010. On the other hand on behalf of the university it has been contended that some students have filed writ petition No. 677 of 2010 which has already been heard on 21st, May, 2010 and the judgment is reserved. There is yet another writ petition by the students being Writ Petition No. 22668 of 2010 which is pending for consideration and therefore, all these writ petitions be taken up together. The petitioner’s institution was admittedly granted recognition from the session 2009-10 and was also recognised in the session 2007-08 but there is no recognition in the year session 2008-09 in respect whereof the above writ petition is pending and the possibility of the said writ petition being allowed cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I consider it necessary to safeguard the interest of the students. Learned standing counsel as well as counsel for the N.C.T.E. and the university may file counter affidavit within three weeks and thereafter learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to file a rejoinder affidavit within a week. List after one month. Therefore, I consider it necessary to safeguard the interest of the students. Learned standing counsel as well as counsel for the N.C.T.E. and the university may file counter affidavit within three weeks and thereafter learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to file a rejoinder affidavit within a week. List after one month. As the interim measure it is provided that the students of the petitioner’s institution who were validly admitted in the B.Ed. course for the session 2008-09 and have completed their studies shall be provisionally permitted to appear in the B.Ed. examination scheduled be held with effect from 1st, July, 2010 but their result shall not be declared without the leave of the Court.” 3. Keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter, before issuing any formal notice to the opposite parties i.e. Gorakhpur University, this Court requested Smt. Sunita Agarwal representing the Gorakhpur University to assist the Court in dealing with the contempt application. Pursuant thereto, Smt. Sunita Agrawal has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, viz. Shri Abdul Mueed Ansari, the Registrar, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and submitted that the present contempt application has been filed by concealing material facts, particularly, the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed in a Bunch of writ petitions (writ petition No. 677 of 2010 and other similar writ petitions) filed by the students of the applicant’s College viz. Dulari Devi Degree College, Bindwalia, Bhikahampur, Deoria (for short the ‘College’) and the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1216 of 2010. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that in view of the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the writ Court in a Bunch of writ petitions i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 677 of 2010, Amrit Bhushan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, connected with four other writ petitions, filed by the students of the College, and also in view of the order dated 12.8.2010 passed in the Special Appeal, the College is neither entitled to admit the students in B.Ed Course for the academic year 2008-09 nor hold any examination for the said purpose. 5. 5. It is further submitted that the applicant was well aware of the order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the writ Court in the Bunch of afore mentioned writ petitions since the Management of the College had preferred a special appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the Single Judge. He further submits that the applicant has deliberately concealed the said material fact only in order to mislead this Court and to, somehow, obtain an order against the opposite parties. 6. It is further submitted that the alleged affiliation from the State Government was obtained by the applicant by filing a forged and fictitious letter and, an inquiry against the applicant is also pending and this fact has also been noticed by this Court in its judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 while deciding the Bunch of writ petitions. 7. It is further submitted that the present contempt application has been filed mala fide by the Management of the College just to save its skin since the enquiry is already going on against it for filing a forged letter of N.C.T.E. for getting affiliation from the State Authority /University. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 further tried to impress upon the Court that since the interest of the students has been safeguarded by the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010,as such, it is only the Management and not the students, who preferred the special appeal before this Court. This Court by order dated 3.7.2010 had directed the State Government to make arrangements for admission of the students, who were allegedly granted admission for the academic sessions 2008-09 in the applicant college, in any affiliated college of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur without asking them to undertake any regular process of examination etc.on the basis of their merit status in the earlier examination, preferably within a period of next two months from the date of production of certified copy of that order. It has been further observed that for this purpose State Government shall call for the list of private affiliated colleges, affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhaya University, Gorakhpur, wherein B.Ed. course, approved by NCTE is imparted and in the said institutions, students be distributed in equal proportion as per their merit status and choice. It has been further observed that for this purpose State Government shall call for the list of private affiliated colleges, affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhaya University, Gorakhpur, wherein B.Ed. course, approved by NCTE is imparted and in the said institutions, students be distributed in equal proportion as per their merit status and choice. Thus, in view such directions, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the interest of the students is fully protected. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite specific order dated 23.6.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 35255 of 2010 the opposite parties are willfully disobeying the said order by not permitting the students to appear in the B. Ed Examination provisionally for the academic sessions 2008-09. 10. Heard Mr. R. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Sunita Agrawal for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the materials available on the record. 11. During the course of hearing this Court summoned the records of Writ Petition No. 677 of 2010 (Amrit Bhushan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No. 35255 of 2010 (C/M Dulari Devi Degree College Thru’ Manager M.K. Pandey v. State of UP and others) and Special Appeal No. 1119 of 2010 (C/M Dulari Devi Degree College Bindwalia Thr Man. M.K. Pande v. Amrit Bhushan Singh and Others). 12. The students of the College appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination for B.Ed. Course, 2008-09 and were declared successful. Thereafter they were granted admission in the said College. The students while pursuing studies in the college acquired knowledge that institution in question had no authority to take admission of B.Ed. Course for the academic sessions 2008-2009 and in view of absence of recognition by N.C.T.E. under N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 their pursuing of studies in the institution in question was of no consequence. In that background, complaining that it was a matter of public fraud by statutory body, as inspite of fact that institution was not at all accorded recognition by N.C.T.E., said institution was shown in the list of the recognised institutions wherein admissions were offered through State Sponsored Joint Entrance Examination of B.Ed. and in unrecognized colleges, the students were sent for admission. Therefore, the students of the College, who were granted admission in B.Ed for the academic sessions 2008-09 filed several writ petitions viz. Civil Misc. and in unrecognized colleges, the students were sent for admission. Therefore, the students of the College, who were granted admission in B.Ed for the academic sessions 2008-09 filed several writ petitions viz. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 677 of 2010 Amrit Bhushan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others Connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17311 of 2010, Harish Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15915 of 2010, Rubi Gupta v. State of U.P. and others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62549 of 2009 Sachchida Nand Pandey v. State of U.P. and others In writ petition No. 677 of 2010, inter alia the following prayer was made : “(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4 University to admit the petitioners in B.Ed Course for the year 2008-09 under his own capacity or in such other added college where a duly recognised similar course by the NCTE may be running in accordance with law. (II) Issue another writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus awarding an appropriate compensation in favour of the petitioners, against the respondent No. 4, University and respondent No. 7 College, Jointly and severally payable within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 13. This Court, by common judgment and order dated 3.7.2010, allowed the bunch afore mentioned writ petitions. For ready reference, the relevant portions of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 677 of 2010 connected with other similar writ petitions, are reproduced as under : “On the parameter as provided under statutory provision holding the field of according recognition, as far as recognition by the NCTE is concerned, at no point of time, any formal letter of recognition under Clause 7(11) of the Act had ever been issued in favour of the institution in question namely Dulari Devi Degree College, Bindwaliya, Bhikhmpur, Deoria. Letter, which has been made foundation and basis for according admission and for presuming that it is a letter of recognition is in fact only letter intent prior to recognition as per Clause 7(9) and at no point of time, any formal recognition order under Clause 7(11) had ever been issued. Letter, which has been made foundation and basis for according admission and for presuming that it is a letter of recognition is in fact only letter intent prior to recognition as per Clause 7(9) and at no point of time, any formal recognition order under Clause 7(11) had ever been issued. Letter dated 16.8.2007, of NCTE shows Dulari Devi Degree College, Bindwaliya Bhikampur, District Deoria at Serial No. 64, and item No. 3 clearly proceeds to mention that it is letter prior to recognition, and also clearly proceeds to pass prohibitory order, the institution shall not admit the students to the course, until it submits the compliance regarding the appointment of qualified teaching staff and until the unconditional recognition order under 7(12) of Regulation is issued to the institution. Before this Court, it has been submitted by the University, that Manager had made manipulations in the said letter by deleting the said conditions, whereas the original letter contained such condition. Enquiry against the Management is already on, and such this Court is not expressing any opinion, but the fact of the matter is that in term of Clause 7(11) of Regulation, no formal order of recognition had ever been issued, then the institution in question by no stretch of imagination could be accepted to be recognized institution and could have proceeded to admit the students. .............................................. Once this is factual scenario, then net effect of the same is that both the institutions in question as per parameter of N.C.T.E. Act and relevant regulations have to be treated as unrecognized institution for the academic session 2008-2009, when petitioners have been accorded admission, and according of recognition for session 2009-2010 and allowing of appeal will not change the situation. ................................................ However, in the facts of the present case, as petitioners have not manipulated anything and to the contrary record in question clearly reflects that under State Sponsored Test conducted by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, petitioners appeared and thereafter were declared successful, and in the list of the college, which was admittedly supplied by the University for counseling they were accorded admission in the said respective institution. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, petitioners appeared and thereafter were declared successful, and in the list of the college, which was admittedly supplied by the University for counseling they were accorded admission in the said respective institution. Here petitioners before this Court are at not at all fault and they have been accorded admission in un-recognised institution of the NCTE for academic session 2008-2009, on account of there being gross negligence on the part of the University-authority/ State in not being vigilant words to their obligation, the institution in question succeeded in getting its name included in the list of recognised institution and thus perpetuated fraud on the students. Fact of the matter is that petitioners are not at all fault and in this situation and in this background, as it has been found that both the institutions are un-recognized for the academic year 2008-2009, in such a situation this Court directs management of both the institutions to return entire fees to the petitioners alongwith 9% simple interest within next one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ................................................ In this background in order to bring their agony to an end, as State Government/University, Deen Dayal Upadhaya, University Gorakhpur and respective institution all have contributed to such situation, compensation of Rs One lac is awarded to each student. Out of this one lac rupees fifty thousand each shall be paid to the student by the Management of the institution within two months from the date of judgment. Remaining fifty thousand amount shall be paid by State Government/ University in equal proportion, to the students concern within the same period as mentioned above. State Government/University, would be entitled to recover the said amount, from its erring official/employees after making due enquiry into the matter and after fixing due responsibility in accordance with law. Petitioners at last contended that in the next academic session, as they are not at all at fault, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Dally Chandra v. Chairman JEE, 2004 AIR SCW 5699, directives be issued for giving admission. At this juncture, the view point of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dally Chandra v. Chairman JEE, 2004 AIR SCW 5699, is being looked into. Relevant para Nos. 10 and 11 are being extracted below. At this juncture, the view point of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dally Chandra v. Chairman JEE, 2004 AIR SCW 5699, is being looked into. Relevant para Nos. 10 and 11 are being extracted below. “10.The appellant had qualified in the JEE-2003 but the said academic year is already over. But for this situation the fault lies with the respondents, who adopted a highly technical and rigid attitude and not with the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be given admission in MBBS course in any of the State medical colleges in the current academic year. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. The judgment and order dated 31-10-2003 of the High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to give admission to the appellant in any one of the State medical colleges forthwith. In case the State seats have already been filled up, one extra seat shall be created for her.” On the parameters as set out as petitioners had undertaken entrance test and admittedly have been accorded admission. Had State/University-authority been vigilant, such situation would never have occurred and petitioners would not have been put in such great dis-advantageous situation in such a situation and in this background, it is hereby directed that as academic session 2009-2010 has been declared to be zero session, in such a situation and in this background it is hereby directed that for academic session 2010-2011 State Government shall make arrangement of admission of these students in any affiliated college of Deen Dayal Upadhaya University, Gorakhpur without asking them to undertake any regular process of examination etc on the basis of their merit status in the earlier examination, preferably within period of next two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. For this purpose State Government shall call for the list of private affiliated college, affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhaya University, Gorakhpur, wherein B.Ed. course, approved by NCTE is imparted and in the said institution, students be distributed in equal proportion as per their merit status and choice.” 14. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2010, the applicant filed Special Appeal No. 1119 of 2010. This Court, in Special Appeal, inter alia, passed the following order: “As an interim measure it is provided that the amount of compensation of Rs. one lac awarded per student out of which Rs. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2010, the applicant filed Special Appeal No. 1119 of 2010. This Court, in Special Appeal, inter alia, passed the following order: “As an interim measure it is provided that the amount of compensation of Rs. one lac awarded per student out of which Rs. Fifty thousand to be paid by the present appellant shall remain stayed. However, it is clarified that the remaining directions given in the impugned judgment has not been stayed.” 15. Thus, a perusal of the afore mentioned interim order dated 12.8.2010 clearly goes to show that the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 677 of 2010 has not been stayed in its totality and as an interim measure only a part of the directions contained in that order regarding payment of compensation to the students was stayed and the remaining directions given in the judgment has not been stayed. 16. It may also be noted that in the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed by this Court, it has been observed that the students were not, at all, at fault and they have been accorded admission in un-recognised institution of the NCTE for academic session 2008-2009 on account of there being gross negligence on the part of the University-authority/ State in not being vigilant towards their obligation and the institution in question succeeded in getting its name included in the list of recognized institutions and thus playing fraud upon the students and the letter, which has been made the foundation and basis for according admission and for presuming that it is a letter of recognition is, in fact, only letter intent prior to recognition as per Clause 7(9) and at no point of time, any formal recognition order under Clause 7(11) had ever been issued. (Emphasis supplied) 17. (Emphasis supplied) 17. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the Manager of the college had made manipulations in the said letter dated 16.8.2007 of N.C.T.E by deleting the relevant conditions, whereas the original letter contained such conditions and an inquiry against the Management was already going on, and as such this Court in its judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 has not expressed any opinion but had proceeded to observe that since no formal order of recognition had ever been issued in favour of the applicant, the institution in question, by no stretch of imagination, could be accepted to be a recognized institution and could have proceeded to admit the students. Thus, the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 makes it crystal clear that the College could not have proceeded to admit the students. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the special appeals No. 1216/10 and 1223/10 filed against the order dated 3.7.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4192 of 2010 have been allowed. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is totally misconceived and unacceptable, for the reasons that the said writ petition No. 4192 of 2010 pertains to a different institution i.e. Lal Bahadur Shastri Smnaarak, P.G. College, Mahrajganj based on different set of facts wherein the students had come with the similar prayer before this Court and their contentions were upheld in the special appeal. However, in the special appeal No. 1216 of 2010 filed by the applicant, no such order has yet been passed and only a part of the directions contained in that order regarding payment of compensation have been stayed and the remaining directions given in the judgment have not been stayed. 19. It may be noted that when the interim order dated 23.6.2010 was passed by the writ Court in writ petition No. 35255 of 2010, the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed in Bunch of writ petitions was not in existence at all and in the said judgment and order it has been very categorically held that the applicant’s college is neither entitled to admit nor to hold examinations of the students for B.Ed. Course for the sessions 2008-09 and a direction has been given to the University/ State Government to adjust the students in some other recognized University. Course for the sessions 2008-09 and a direction has been given to the University/ State Government to adjust the students in some other recognized University. Under these circumstances, the opposite parties cannot be compelled to comply with the order dated 23.6.2010 passed in writ petition No. 35255 of 2010. 20. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that this Court can no go behind the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the writ Court. The said contention of the applicant is totally misconceived and is unacceptable as this Court while enforcing the order dated 23.6.2010 has to take into account the subsequent development and change of circumstances keeping in view the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 3.7.2010 passed in the writ petition No. 677 of 2010 and other similar four writ petitions filed by the students wherein the interest of the students has been safeguarded by issuing appropriate directions and also the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by this Court in the Special Appeal No. 1216 of 2010, preferred by the applicants. This Court is of the firm opinion that the opposite parties are under no obligation to comply with the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the writ Court in writ petition No. 35255 of 2010 in view of the subsequent development and changed circumstances. 21. In view of the discussions made herein above, this contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. —————