Judgment :- D.Murugesan, J. This review application is at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University, Chennai.The issue relates to the direction to the petitioner-University to permit 100 students admitted by the first respondent college, by name, G.K. College of Education, to take up the examination for the academic year 2007-2008 in B.Ed. degree course. 2. The controversy arises under the following circumstances:- The college in question applied for permission to offer B.Ed. course for the academic year 2006-07.The Southern Regional Committee for the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) accorded such permission by their order dated 06.11.2007 with certain conditions.One of the conditions was that the institution shall make admission only after it obtains affiliation from the examining body.The college made an application to the Tiruvalluvar University, even before such permission, on 28.9.2006, solely on the basis of the application filed before NCTE.The fact remains that the college did not obtain affiliation for the year 2007-08.Without there being any affiliation, the college had admitted 100 students for the academic year 2007-08.At one point of time, when the college approached Tiruvalluvar University for affiliation after admission of students, the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University was formed with effect from 01.07.2008.The power to consider and grant affiliation to the B.Ed. course was, thereafter, entrusted with the said University and as a necessary corollary, the Tiruvalluvar University has lost its jurisdiction to consider such applications.The college, in fact, applied for affiliation to the Teacher Education University for the academic year 2008-09 and had obtained the same and therefore, there is no controversy insofar as the students admitted for the academic year 2008-09. 3. 3. Even while the power to consider and grant affiliation to the course in question vested in the Tiruvalluvar University, the petitioner approached this Court seeking for a direction to the said University to approve the candidature of 100 students for 2007-08.That writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 12.12.2008 with a direction to the said University to permit the students to take up the examination.Thereafter, the said order came to be modified by a subsequent order dated 16.12.2008 for the conduct of special examination for the course within a period of thirty days, as the examination had already commenced.This order was again taken on appeal before a Division Bench by the Tiruvalluvar University and by impugned order dated 30.07.2009, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge in directing the University to conduct special examination for the students admitted for the academic year 2007-08.Even while such an order was passed, the Division Bench ultimately directed in paragraph 19 as follows:- "19. For the above reasons, we are not able to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge.However, keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that the 2nd respondent University,w hich is now as per the statute, the sole University to deal with such course, should permit the students concerned to appear at the next examination to be held by such 2nd respondent University. Subject to the above direction and observations, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs." 4. The present review application is taken out mainly on the following grounds:- (i) Firstly, the application filed by the college for affiliation to the Tiruvalluvar University was not granted and therefore, the students admitted during that period are not entitled to take the examination. (ii) Secondly, those students, in any event, cannot be allowed to take up examination conducted by the Teacher Education University. (iii) Having found that the college should not have admitted the students and the direction for conduct of examination was set aside, the Division Bench in the last paragraph should not have directed the conduct of examination by the Teacher Education University. (iii) Having found that the college should not have admitted the students and the direction for conduct of examination was set aside, the Division Bench in the last paragraph should not have directed the conduct of examination by the Teacher Education University. 5.We have heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/college.From the facts, which we have narrated, it is clear that the 100 students, who have been permitted to take up special examination in the Teacher Education University by the order of the Division Bench, were admitted when there was no affiliation granted to the college in question.The issue as to the right of the students of an unaffiliated educational institution to take up the examination is not new to the Court, as similar litigations were brought before the Court and the claim of such students or the institution on behalf of the students either to pursue the course or to take up the examination and correspondingly to receive the degree/diploma was negatived.Recently, the Supreme Court in 2008 (4) CTC 741, (Mahatma Gandhi University and anotherv. Gis Jose) had expressed great concern on the directions to the Universities to allow the students of an unaffiliated college to take up the examination.In that judgment, the Supreme Court has to say in paragraph 2 itself as follows:- "2.It is once again, a judgment has come from the High Court in complete derogation of the observations of this Court against the compromising of the educational standards in the matter of admissions to a particular course by showing unnecessary sympathies. The Mahatma Gandhi University has come up against the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench allowing the Appeal of a student, has directed the University to declare the withheld result of the student. The direction though was, of course, without creating precedence, as a special case." While expressing its concern about the directions issued by the Courts to the Universities to permit the students of an unaffiliated institution, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgments in (2003) 7 SCC 719 (Regional Officer, CBSEv. Ku.Sheena Peethambaran and others) wherein it has been observed as follows:- "6.This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the Petitions. Ku.Sheena Peethambaran and others) wherein it has been observed as follows:- "6.This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the Petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically.It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions ......" 6. In this context, we may also quote the judgment of the Apex Court in Minor Sunil Oraon Tr.Guardianv. C.B.S.E. & others (2007-4-L.W.-97) wherein the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 23 as follows:- "23.Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognitionor affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations." 7. At this juncture, it may also be useful to refer the judgment of this Court in University of Madras v.Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust, [(2005) 3 MLJ 305], wherein the Division Bench has held that the college does not have the right to admit students even before the grant of affiliation and that it would amount to fraud on those students. 8. Further, the Apex Court, in A.P.Christians Medical Educational Societyv.Government of A.P., (1986) 2 SCC 667 , has held as follows:- "We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws." In N.M.Nageshwarammav.State of A.P., (1986 (Supp.) SCC 166, the Apex Court has held thus: "We are unable to accede to these requests. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws." In N.M.Nageshwarammav.State of A.P., (1986 (Supp.) SCC 166, the Apex Court has held thus: "We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the Court, we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination, we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions." In Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers Training Collegev.State of Bihar, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 722, it was held as follows:- "What is however, unfortunate is that applications are not promptly disposed of. In fact, we are of the view that the concerned department of the Government of Bihar should see to it that applications for recognition of educational institutions are decided promptly and where such an application is without merit, the Government should promptly reject the same and take steps to see to it that the rejection is brought to the attention of the students of the institution concerned so that they may not waste further time and money by undergoing training in that institution. The failure of the Government to ake such action would only reflect callous indifference to the interests of the young students to whom the Government certainly owes certain responsibilities." In State of Tamil Naduv. St.Joseph Teachers Training Institute, (1991) 3 SCC 87 , it has been held as follows:- "Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of recognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the Government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination." The above judgments of the Apex Court have been extenstively quoted and considered by a learned single Judge of this Court (Prabha Sridevan, J.) in the judgment in Tvl.Aruna Malai College of Educationv.Secretary to Government, (2007) 4 MLJ 129 . 9. 9. From the above judgments, it is clear that the law on the issue is by now well settled.The consideration in respect of issuing directions in matters like this on very many grounds, would be first of all, the educational institution which has not been affiliated to the University concerned, has no right to admit the students. Even the permission granted by the National Council for Teacher Education stipulates the condition to such colleges not to admit students without affiliation of the concerned University.Secondly, insofar as the students, who were admitted in such colleges, have no right to seek for continuance of the course or to take up examination and consequently seek for declaration of degree/diploma.If any order is issued either permitting the students to take up the examination or directing the University to conduct examination for those students, it would certainly amount to a direction contravening the regulations framed in this regard.Courts should not issue directions to any authority to contravene the provisions of the Acts, Rules, Regulations and for that matter, any procedure, which are prescribed in the academic field.It is also equally settled that in academic matters, the decision for grant of affiliation should be left to the authorities concerned and the Court cannot substitute its reason and to hold that the particular college who had applied for affiliation would be otherwise entitled to affiliation and due to the delay on the part of the University, the students should not be deprived of. 10. In the facts of the case, we find that the Division Bench, having rejected the request of the college to permit the students to take up the examination, had directed the Teacher Education University to allow the students to take up the examination.This direction should be reviewed, as it is not in conformity with the findings and the conclusion arrived at in the order.Therefore, we find every merit in this application seeking for review.Accordingly, the review application is allowed.The direction to the petitioner-Teacher Education University to permit the students of the college in question numbering 100 admitted during the year 2007-08 to take up the special examination is set aside.No costs.