Judgment :- VikramajitSen, Acting Chief Judge. 1. These Appeals assail the Order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the rejection of permission to admit the petitioner students to their respective courses for the academic year 2009-10. In other words the Appellant would have us disqualify students who have already pursued studies for over one year. 2. The Appellant is the Central Council of Indian Medicine which avowedly has the statutory functions of making recommendations to the Central Government, inter alia for the grant or withdrawal of permission under Sention-13-A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970, (‘the Act’ for brevity) for the cancellation of recognisition granted to medical colleges/medical institutions in India, in terms of the fasciculus of Chapter-III of the Act. An objection has been taken at the very threshold as to the maintainability of the Appeal at the hands of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, which is only a recommendatory body. Indeed, the Appeal has not been supported either by the Union of India or by the State Government. In fact, Mr.Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of Karnataka has been quick to submit that neither law nor equity favours the decision to cancel the admission as well as the right of the respondents-students to appear in their respective/appropriate examinations. We do not propose to detain ourselves on this preliminary objection for the reasons that the appellant was respondent No.3 before the writ Court. 3. The factual matrix may now be briefly narrated. The Appellant at an earlier instance despite noticing certain deficiencies in infrastructure on the part of the Respondent Trust, but taking into account the sundry facilities already available including the then teaching faculty, had by letter dated 27.02.2006 recommended to the Central Government to accord permission for admission of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07. The Appellant at an earlier instance despite noticing certain deficiencies in infrastructure on the part of the Respondent Trust, but taking into account the sundry facilities already available including the then teaching faculty, had by letter dated 27.02.2006 recommended to the Central Government to accord permission for admission of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07. Accordingly, the Central Government, in terms of its letter dated 01.09.2006, predicated on Section-13-A of the Act, communicated to the respondent-College in the following terms: “I am directed to refer to your letter dated 19th May 2006 on the subject cited above and to say that after careful consideration of the compliance report in the hearing given on 04.08.2006, the permission of the Central Government is accorded to the Atreya Charitable Trust to start a new Atreya Ayurvedic Medical College at Kodigehalli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore (Karnataka) with admission capacity of 50 students in Ayurvedacharya (B.A.M.S.) course from the session 2006-07 under the provisions of Section-13A of the IMCC Act 1970 subject to the condition that all the infrastructure, teaching and non-teaching staff required for providing training for the 1st Professional will be in place before the admission of students to the course.” 4. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, by notification dated 15.12.2008, on the subject of continuation of affiliation of the Atreya Institute of Ayurveda, Bangalore, for BAMS course for the academic year 2009-10 has granted continuation of affiliation as per Section-45 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act 1994, for conducting BAMS courses with an intake of fifty seats for the academic year 2009-10. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the undertaking or expectations from the respondent-college have not been complied with. The main complaint is with regard to teaching faculty which, uncontrovertibly has fallen short of the requirements. Acting on the recommendation of the appellant, the Central Government, by its order dated 30.10.2009, in view of several shortcomings and deficiencies pointed out by the appellant, decided not to grant permission to the respondent-college for giving admission in BAMS course during academic year 2009-10. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-college has relied on the calendar of events for admission to the first year BAMS course for the academic year 2009-10, which was notified as follows:- 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-college has relied on the calendar of events for admission to the first year BAMS course for the academic year 2009-10, which was notified as follows:- 7. The simple submission made on behalf of the Respondent-College is that, by the time the College received the impugned cancellation of permission letter dated 30.10.2009, 50 students had already been granted admission by it and were participating in the course. Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the State’s share of the seats had not been complied with/honoured, but since thelearned counsel for the State has clarified that it does not support the appellant, this ground is of no substance. 8. It is in this backdrop that the impact of the impugned order has to be appreciated. The learned Single Judge has adopted a pragmatic approach, which we unequivocally endorse. He has noted that admissions had already been completed much prior to the impugned withdrawal of permission for the academic year 2009-10. The learned Single Judge further noted that on 23/24.02.2010, the appellant had in fact carried out an inspection of the respondent-college, in order to re-assess the available infrastructure including the strength of the teaching faculty. Pursuant to the recommendations of the appellant, the Central Government, by order dated 04.10.2010 has granted permission to the Respondent-College for conducting the BAMS course allowing it to admit (fifty) students for the current academic year namely, 2010-11. 9. IN Father Muller’s Charitable Institutions, Kankanady, Mangalore –vs- Union of India (W.P.23802/1998 disposed of on 06.07.2009) followed by Yadalam Trusts’s Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College & Others –vs-Government of India & others (W.P.No.12213/2008 disposed of on 19.08.2009), this court has held that permission granted for a subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also. This decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench with which we respectfully concur. 10. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine is wholly devoid of merit. Firstly, neither the Central Government nor the State Government supports the prayer of the appellant for cancelling the admission of several students for the academic year 2009-10. The Appellant is only a recommendatory Body, and the Central Government is fully empowered not to accept its advice. Firstly, neither the Central Government nor the State Government supports the prayer of the appellant for cancelling the admission of several students for the academic year 2009-10. The Appellant is only a recommendatory Body, and the Central Government is fully empowered not to accept its advice. It cannot be overlooked that the cancellation order dated 31.10.2009 has come in the wake of completion of admission for the relevant academic year. Secondly, the appellant is only a recommendatory body and it cannot arraign the Union Government as a respondent, when the Central Government is desirous of complying the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge. Thirdly, we see no justification for the appellant to issue the far reaching cancellation orders, which has the result of wastage of a valuable year in students’ life, it any jeopardize their future irretrievably. We think that recommendations must be given well in advance, at least on or before the month of June, for the next following academic year. Fourthly, once permission to continue the course for a particular academic year is granted, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the previous year, have been complied with even in respect of the year for which permission had been withdrawn. We accordingly dismiss these appeals, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, desist from imposing exemplary costs. In view of the disposal of writ appeals, Misc. W. 5340/2011, Misc. W. 5341/2011, Misc. W.8697/2011 and Misc. W.8698/2011 and I.A.1/2011 and I.A.2/2011 do not survive for consideration.