JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J.- Petitioner no.1 is an educational institution. It is being run by petitioner no. 2 Navigator Society. Petitioner no.1 was granted association in the year 2004 by respondent no.1 Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication (in short, the University). The association granted to petitioner no.1 was for offering Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) course and some other courses. 2. The University has framed Association of Study Institutes Regulation No.18 2008 (in short, the Regulation). Clause 13.3. of the Regulation provides that once an educational institute is linked with the University as an Associate Study Institute, it will be the responsibility of the institute to always maintain high moral and ethical standards, expected of a good academic institution associated with the University. This clause further provides that the institute must take care that none of its actions bring a bad name to the University or else the Vice Chancellor or an officer authorized by him will be empowered to either cancel the association or put it in no admission category. Another Clause 5.4 of the regulation states that it shall be the responsibility of institute to check the eligibility of students before granting them admission for the course and if at any point of time it was found that the students do not possess the eligibility for that course, the admission will be cancelled forthwith and the consequence of which shall lie entirely with the institute. 3. The University, apart from receiving various complaints against the malfunctioning of petitioner no.1, also received a complaint that in the July academic sessions 2008 and 200for BCA course it has illegally given admissions to students, namely Varsha Paradkar, Munish Kumar, Sanjay Yogi, Mukesh Kumar Mankar and Rupesh Sahu, in the category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes although they belong to Other Backward Classes. Varsha Paradkar, a student of more than two years, herself made a complaint dated 4.10.201to the University against petitioner no.1 in this regard. According to the University, petitioner no.1 did so because these students, who were otherwise not eligible for admission as they did not secure the minimum 50% marks in 10+2 course, could only be admitted in the category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes students in view of the relaxation of 5% provided to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes students vide notification dated 13.6.2008. Taking serious note of the complaint made by Varsha Paradkar against petitioner no. Taking serious note of the complaint made by Varsha Paradkar against petitioner no. 1, the matter was enquired by the University. On finding the allegations to be true the University issued a show cause notice dated 2.2.2011, Annexure PI6, to petitioner no.1 as to why its association should not be cancelled. By the same notice the University also put petitioner no.1 in the no admission category with immediate effect. 4. Petitioner no.1 in its reply could not deny that the students namely Varsha Paradkar, Munish Kumar, Sanjay Yogi, Mukesh Kumar Mankar and Rupesh Sahu did not belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. It also did not deny that none of these students had secured 50% and above marks in 10+2 course. Petitioner no.1, however, submitted that the students themselves had misrepresented about their castes at the time of admission. The University found the explanation given by petitioner no.1 unacceptable and cancelled its association with immediate effect vide order dated 22.2.2011, Annexure PI. The University thereafter by another communication dated 26.2.2011, Annexure P20, again informed petitioner no.1 that there has been no change in the decision regarding cancellation of association. 5. Aggrieved, petitioner no.1 preferred an appeal, Annexure P22, before the Vice Chancellor of the University wherein it stated that the admissions to the above mentioned students were given on the basis of declarations made by them regarding their castes and the mistake on its part was bonafide. While considering the appeal, the Vice Chancellor gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the representative of petitioner no.1. During the course of hearing also, the representative of petitioner no.1 admitted that the admissions were wrongly given to the students of Other Backward Classes as Scheduled Castes students and no caste certificates were obtained at the time of their admissions. 6. The Vice Chancellor, after considering the submissions made on behalf of petitioner no.1 and the materials brought on record vide order dated 22.3.2011, Annexure R23, held that it wrongfully gave admissions to Varsha Paradkar, Munish Kumar, Sanjay Yogi, Mukesh Kumar Mankar and Rupesh Sahu for BCA course in the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category though they did not belong to such castes. He also held that petitioner no.1 attempted to unlawfully give the benefit of relaxation of 5% marks to these students. On these findings he decided to keep petitioner no.1 in no admission category for the courses commencing from July 2011. He also held that petitioner no.1 attempted to unlawfully give the benefit of relaxation of 5% marks to these students. On these findings he decided to keep petitioner no.1 in no admission category for the courses commencing from July 2011. As regards admissions for January 2012 session the Vice Chancellor directed that decision will be taken on the basis of recommendation made by a committee. The Vice Chancellor also granted relief to petitioner no.1 by suspending the order of cancellation of association of petitioner no.1. It is in this background, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of notice dated 2.2.2011, Annexure P16, order dated 22.2.2011, Annexure PI, communication dated 26.2.2011, Annexure P20, and order dated 19.4.2011, Annexure P27. It is to be noted that Annexure P27 dated 19.4.2011 is nothing but an extract of order dated 22.3.2011, Annexure R23, which was communicated to petitioner no.1. 7. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that, for admitting students for BCA course in the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category though they did not belong to such castes, the action taken by the University against petitioner no.1 is wholly unjustified because the mistake was bonafide. According to the learned counsel, the students themselves had misrepresented petitioner no.1 regarding their castes mainly to get the benefit of fee-concession provided to the students of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category. The learned counsel for petitioners also argued that as the order dated 19.4.2011 Annexure P27 does not contain any reasons for dismissing the appeal, it is violative of principles of natural justice and hence the same be quashed. The learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, defended the action taken against petitioner no.1 on the ground that mistake was deliberate and it brought a bad name to the University. He also submitted that the order passed by the Vice Chancellor dismissing the appeal of petitioner no.1 is well reasoned and unassailable. 8. Petitioner no.1 has admitted that the students of Other Backward Classes were given admission in the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category for BCA course. This act of petitioner no.1 was wholly impermissible. The documents filed clearly reveal that Varsha Paradkar was given provisional admission on 19.9.2008 without any certificates regarding her caste and eligibility and she was allowed to continue with such admission for as many as four semesters. This would not have been possible but for the deliberate act of petitioner no.1. This act of petitioner no.1 was wholly impermissible. The documents filed clearly reveal that Varsha Paradkar was given provisional admission on 19.9.2008 without any certificates regarding her caste and eligibility and she was allowed to continue with such admission for as many as four semesters. This would not have been possible but for the deliberate act of petitioner no.1. And later this very student made a complaint dated 4.10.201to the University against petitioner no.1 for knowingly giving wrong admission and harassing her for fee. The University also after enquiry found her complaint to be true. Under Clause 5.4 of the Regulation it was the responsibility of petitioner no.1 to check the eligibility of the students before granting them admission for the course. The contention of petitioner no.1 that the mistake was bonafide because the students had misrepresented about their castes to get the benefit of fee-concession is, therefore, unacceptable to us. 9. None of the students in question admitted by petitioner no.1 for BCA course had secured minimum 50% marks in 10+2 course. They were, thus, not eligible for admission. The University provides relaxation of 5% marks to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes students for admission for BCA course. Petitioner no.1, taking advantage of this relaxation, deliberately gave illegal admission to the students in the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category. No explanation was also given by petitioner no.1 in this regard to the University despite repeated show cause notices. The admission of the students wrongly admitted ultimately had to be cancelled by petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 has, thus, not only played with the career of students but its conduct has also brought a bad name to the University. We are, therefore, of the view that the action taken by the University against petitioner no.1 is absolutely just and proper. 10. We are also unable to agree with the counsel for petitioners that the order dated 19.4.2011, Annexure P27, deserves to be quashed because it is violative of the principles of natural justice. The order dated 19.4.2011 is nothing but an extract communicated to petitioner no.1 of the final order dated 22.3.2011, Annexure R23, passed in appeal by the Vice Chancellor. The order dated 22.3.2011 contains full discussion of the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner no.1 as well as the reasons for the decision taken in the appeal. The order dated 19.4.2011 is nothing but an extract communicated to petitioner no.1 of the final order dated 22.3.2011, Annexure R23, passed in appeal by the Vice Chancellor. The order dated 22.3.2011 contains full discussion of the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner no.1 as well as the reasons for the decision taken in the appeal. The learned counsel for petitioner no.1 could not point out any perversity and illegality in the order dated 22.3.2011. 11. For these reasons, we find no merit in the petition. It fails and is dismissed. The petitioners shall also pay Rs.2,000/as costs to the University.