ORDER With the consent of the learned advocates, this Appeal is heard and decided today. 2. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Dental Council of India and others, the respondents in above C.W.J.C. No. 8021 of 2011, against the order dated 19th May 2011 made by the learned single judge pending C.W.J.C. No. 8021 of 2011. 3. The matter at dispute is the rejection of the application for permission to the respondent- Dr. B.R. Ambdkar Institute of Dental Science and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “the college”) to start Post Graduate Courses in four disciplines of dental science. It is not in dispute that the College has been conducting under graduate courses in dental science for last five years. The college applied for permission for starting the aforesaid Post Graduate Courses in Dental Science commencing from the Academic year 2011-2012. The Appellant Dental Council of India ( hereinafter referred to as “the council”) refused such permission for the academic year 2011-2012 on the premise that the college does not have adequate facilities of infrastructure, faculty, laboratory, library, etc. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the College has approached this Court in above C.W.J.C. No. 8021 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pending the writ petition by the impugned order dated 19th May 2011 the learned single judge has permitted the College to provisionally start the Post Graduate Courses in four disciplines on condition that the deficiencies would be removed within ten days. The learned single judge observed “…..It is open to the College to remove the deficiencies in the infrastructure for starting MDS course within ten days from today………In that event, they will be at liberty to take provisional admission of the students as per procedure prescribed in the Regulations at their own risk and subject to final decision in the matter. However, this arrangement is being allowed to the petitioner College only because last date for starting course in the Dental Colleges is 31st May of each year and due to shortage of time the College may not miss the session.” 5. It is the above direction permitting the College to grant provisional admission to the students for Post Graduate Courses which is under challenge before us. 6. Learned advocate Mr. S.D. Sanjay has appeared for the Council. It is the above direction permitting the College to grant provisional admission to the students for Post Graduate Courses which is under challenge before us. 6. Learned advocate Mr. S.D. Sanjay has appeared for the Council. He has relied upon the inspection carried out by a team of Doctors appointed by the Council and the report submitted by the Secretary. He has submitted that the aforesaid inspection was made on 10th June 2011, more than 10 days after the date of the impugned order. Several deficiencies were recorded by the Inspecting team as detailed in the report. It is submitted that the interim order made by the learned single judge amounts to allowing the writ petition finally without the College removing the deficiencies indicated by the Council. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel, Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan [(2009)1 SCC 59] and in the matter of Medical Council of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others [ (2004)6 SCC 76 ]. Mr. S.D. Sanjay has also submitted that the impugned order was made by the learned single judge with further condition that “In the advertisement which the College will publish inviting applications for appointment of teaching staff in the College and for inviting applications for admission of the students, it shall clearly mention that this arrangement is being made only on provisional basis without creating any right to any person on the basis of appointment or admission in the course in the College. It will also be made clear in the advertisement itself that in case this writ application is finally not allowed and MDS course for session 2011-2012 is not finally approved by the Dental Council of India and the Government of India, under the orders of this Court, no right will accrue to any of parties by this interim arrangement and this order shall not in any way be construed by any party as permission by this Court to the College to start the MDS Course for session 2011-12 as an interim measure.” 7. Mr. S.D.Sanjay has relied on the advertisement published by the College on 22nd May 2011. Mr. S.D.Sanjay has relied on the advertisement published by the College on 22nd May 2011. He has submitted that the said advertisement did not conform with the direction issued by the learned single judge. 8. The Appeal is contested by the learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh appearing for the College. He has particularly relied upon the counter affidavit and the copy of the advertisement published by the College on 30th May 2011. He has submitted that after having noticed that the advertisement dated 22nd May 2010 is not in conformity with the direction issued by the learned single judge, a fresh advertisement was issued on 30th May 2011. He has also taken us through the records of the writ petition to establish that the College has removed the deficiencies pointed out by the Council from time to time. He has also submitted that even today the College is prepared to remove any deficiency that may be pointed out by the Council. 9. We are of the opinion that in the matter of higher education Court shall not interfere with the opinion of the Council, a statutory body created for that purpose. Once certain deficiencies were pointed out, the College was obliged to remove all those deficiencies before commencing the course. In the present case before the learned single judge, the College agreed to remove the deficiencies within ten days, meaning thereby that the College tacitly agreed that there were certain deficiencies yet to be removed. So long as the College does not remove the deficiencies it cannot be allowed to commence the proposed educational course, more so when it proposes to commence the post graduate courses. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Singh has also made allegations of malafides against the council without naming any individual person/s. 11. We are not impressed by vague allegations of malafides made by the college. In view of the fact that the College did not remove the deficiencies before the commencement of the Academic session, it can not be allowed to commence the courses for the academic year 2011-2012 as proposed. As recorded hereinabove, the inspecting team of doctors noted several deficiencies as late as on 10th June 2011. 12. We are at pains to note that the advertisement published by the college on 22nd May 2011 was not in conformity with the direction issued by the learned single judge. As recorded hereinabove, the inspecting team of doctors noted several deficiencies as late as on 10th June 2011. 12. We are at pains to note that the advertisement published by the college on 22nd May 2011 was not in conformity with the direction issued by the learned single judge. Apparently both advertisements, published on 22nd May 2011 and on 30th May 2011 appear to be an eyewash. In all probabilities the college had granted admission to the post graduate students before the date of filing of the writ petition. 13. The college can not be permitted to meddle with the students’ career when the validity of the courses offered by the college is under cloud. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. Impugned order dated 19th May 2011 made by the learned single judge pending above C.W.J.C. No. 8021` of 2011 is set aside. Legal consequences shall follow. The parties will bear their own cost.