Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—The intra Court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of order dated 20.4.2011 passed by Single Bench in S.B.C.W.P. No. 4391/2011, dismissing the writ application in the matter of refusal to permit additional section of the students of 40 seats. 2. The appellant is an educational institution. It applied for affiliation with the University of Rajasthan (for short "the University") for M.Sc. (Bio-Technology) Course for the academic year 2003-2004, which was provisionally granted with intake capacity of 40 students and the same was extended from time to time. However, for the academic year 2010-11, the appellant-institution prayed for increase in intake capacity of students from 40 to 80 seats. An application was filed for this purpose on 29.12.2009. A team of the inspectors visited the institution on 28.09.2010 and submitted summary of recommendations to the University on 29.09.2010. It was recommended by team of the inspectors that intake capacity be increased from 40 to 60 students with certain deficiencies to be completed by the institution with respect to library and appointment of the faculty, as per the norms prescribed by the University. 3. The report submitted by team of the inspectors was considered by the Board of Inspection (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in its meeting dated 21.10.2010 and decision was taken not to permit the increase in the intake capacity of the students from 40 to 60/80. The decision was communicated to the appellant-institution on 16.11.2010. As regular Vice-Chancellor namely Professor Furqan Qamar resigned, Professor A.D. Sawant, Ex-Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Mumbai was authorized to carry on the functions of the office of the Vice Chancellor of University of Rajasthan till a new Vice Chancellor is appointed under Section 12(1) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Professor B.L. Sharma was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur for a period of three years from the date of joining the duties of his office vide order dated 28.11.2010. In-charge Vice Chancellor, Professor A.D. Sawant handed over the charge on 3.12.2010. The appellant-institution filed an application on 2.12.2010 regarding increase in the students' intake capacity from 40 to 80 in academic session 2010-11. In-charge Vice Chancellor, Professor A.D. Sawant handed over the charge on 3.12.2010. The appellant-institution filed an application on 2.12.2010 regarding increase in the students' intake capacity from 40 to 80 in academic session 2010-11. On this application, In-charge Vice Chancellor, before handing over the charge on next day, endorsed that, "As the rule made is 40 per section is after the admissions are done, the college is permitted for 2 sections. To report to BOI". 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the Vice Chancellor is a Member in the Board, which had taken the decision on 21.10.2010 not to increase the intake capacity of the students. Thereafter, the matter was again considered, as ordered by the In-charge Vice Chancellor, by the Board on 20.12.2010 in which regular Vice Chancellor participated and it was decided not to permit additional intake capacity of the students more than 40 seats. However, again, one of the Syndicate Members wrote a letter and thereafter, the Board again considered the matter in its meeting dated 7.2.2011 and it was decided not to permit additional section for the Session 2010-11 in the subject of M.Sc. (Bio Technology). Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant-institution filed a writ application at the fag end of March, 2011, submitting therein that acting upon the oral assurance given by the team of inspectors that they would recommend to increase the students' intake capacity from 40 to 60 seats, the institution had admitted 20 additional students on 30.9.2010 and the In-charge Vice Chancellor had exercised the emergency power envisaged under Section 13 of the Act, while granting permission. It was also submitted that decision taken by the Board for not increasing students' intake capacity was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Deficiencies, which were pointed out by the team of inspectors were not such, so as to deny the increase in intake capacity for additional section. In similar cases, while granting affiliation or extending the provisional affiliation, similar conditions with respect to improvement in library and appointment of teachers in accordance with the University norms had been imposed by the respondent, but in the case of the appellant, similar treatment has not been given. Thus, there was no rhyme and reason with the Board to take a discriminatory decision in the case of the appellant-institution. Thus, there was no rhyme and reason with the Board to take a discriminatory decision in the case of the appellant-institution. The Board ought to have accepted the recommendations made by the team of inspectors and once Vice Chancellor had exercised the emergency power to grant permission, it was not open for the Board to again reconsider the matter and refuse additional section. 5. It was the stand of the respondent that decision has been taken objectively and the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Relevant facts have been suppressed. The decision was taken by the Board on the basis of report of the team of inspectors. Decision taken on 21.10.2010 was communicated to the petitioner also. Again, the matter was considered by the Board in the meeting dated 20.12.2010, which decision was also communicated to the appellant-institution on 6.1.2011. However, again a Member of Syndicate wrote a letter, the matter was again re-considered and decision was reiterated by the Board in its meeting on 7.2.2011. The role of the inspection team is to collect relevant material regarding management, staff, financial resources etc. and the same was placed before the Board along with summary of recommendations. Section 24-I provides for the composition of the Board. Decision has been taken by the competent authority, which is based on objective consideration. the institution could not have acted upon the oral assurance if any of the team of inspectors. They were also not competent to extend such assurance. It was also one of the stands of the respondents that writ petition was filed belatedly. 6. The Single Bench, after examining the matter and considering arguments advanced by the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 20.4.2011. Hence, the special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-institution. 7. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that recommendations of the team of inspectors ought to have been accepted by the Board. He has further submitted that the order passed by In-charge Vice Chancellor on 2.12.2010, allowing the college for additional section, was binding upon the University and the matter could not have been reconsidered by the Board in its meetings dated 20.12.2010 and 7.2.2011. The action taken by the respondent in the matter of rejection of prayer of the appellant-institution for sanction of the additional section is illegal and arbitrary. The action taken by the respondent in the matter of rejection of prayer of the appellant-institution for sanction of the additional section is illegal and arbitrary. Deficiencies pointed out by the team of inspectors were not such, so as to deny the additional intake capacity of the students. Appellant-institution has been discriminated by the Board, as while providing affiliation for the first time and extending provisional affiliation with the similar deficiencies, which were found in the case of the appellant, time has been given to the other institutions to make improvement, whereas similar treatment has not been given in the case of the appellant-institution. Syndicate has allowed the non-collegiate students of other colleges/institutions to appear in examinations, who had been admitted in excess of the sanctioned intake capacity. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, in spite of having not sanctioned additional intake capacity of the students, 8 additional students have been allowed to appear in the examinations over and above the sanctioned strength of 40 students. Thus, there is no room for the University to discriminate with the appellant-institution and counsel has prayed that on the basis of equity, justice and oral assurance given by the team of inspectors, additional in intake capacity of students be allowed by this Court. 8. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University has submitted that it was not open to the team of inspectors to make any oral assurance if any given and it was not permissible on the part of the appellant-institution to act upon such unauthorized oral assurance. There was no emergent situation as such, Vice Chancellor could not have exercised the power under Section 13 of the Act. Decision had already been taken by the board, in which the Vice-Chancellor is a Member. Thus, it was not open to the Vice Chancellor to exercise power again on 2.12.2010 and place the matter before the Board. However, the matter was again considered on the application dated 2.12.2010 as the Vice Chancellor had also directed the matter to be reported to the Board, hence it was placed for reconsideration in its meeting dated 20.12.2010 and it was decided not to sanction the additional section. However, the matter was again considered on the application dated 2.12.2010 as the Vice Chancellor had also directed the matter to be reported to the Board, hence it was placed for reconsideration in its meeting dated 20.12.2010 and it was decided not to sanction the additional section. As gain a letter was written by one of Syndicate Members, the matter was reconsidered second time by the Board in its meeting dated 7.2.2011 and again a decision was taken not to sanction additional intake capacity of students. He has further submitted that the course, for which additional intake capacity of students has been sought, is of M.Sc. (Bio Technology), which is a post graduation course, thus, the appellant cannot compare its case with the new colleges, which were permitted to be started and other colleges in which graduation courses were permitted to be carried. As it is a post graduation course, for which the additional intake capacity of students was prayed for by the appellant-institution, the same has rightly been declined. The faculty members of the appellant-institution were not having requisite qualifications, as prescribed in the Ordinance 65. They were not possessing NET qualification and most of them were not M.Phil or Ph.D. Even the deficiencies were pointed out by the team of inspectors with respect to one section. This Court cannot sit in appeal particularly in considering matters while exercising writ jurisdiction. It is for the academic bodies to take such decisions. No case for interference is made out, as the decision of the Board has also been approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 28.2.2011. 9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that Vice Chancellor is one of the Members of the Board and the Board has taken the decision on 21.10.2010 not to allow additional Section of 40 students. Section 24-I of the Act reads thus:- "The Board of Inspection-Composition 24I. The Board of Inspection shall consist of the following namely:- (i) the Vice-Chancellor; (ii) the Director of Education, Rajasthan; and (iii) the Deans of Faculties." The functions of the Board are provided under Section 24J of the Act, which is quoted below: "The Board of Inspector-Functions 24J. Section 24-I of the Act reads thus:- "The Board of Inspection-Composition 24I. The Board of Inspection shall consist of the following namely:- (i) the Vice-Chancellor; (ii) the Director of Education, Rajasthan; and (iii) the Deans of Faculties." The functions of the Board are provided under Section 24J of the Act, which is quoted below: "The Board of Inspector-Functions 24J. (1) The Board shall deal with applications for affiliation, recognition or approval of colleges and institutions within the territorial jurisdiction of the University, arrange for their inspection in the manner prescribed by the Statutes, and make recommendations to the Syndicate in regard to their affiliation, recognition or approval, as the case may be; (2) The Board shall appoint two committees consisting of five members each, one to deal with applications for affiliation of colleges and another to deal with applications for removal of institutions. The committees shall be appointed for a period of three years; and (3) Subject to approval by the Syndicate, the Board may make rules for the approval, recognition and affiliation of institutions and colleges." As per Section 24J, the Board is competent to deal with the applications for affiliation, recognition or approval of colleges and institutions, which includes addition in intake capacity of students or grant of permission to start additional section. It has to make recommendation to the Syndicate in the matter, as enumerated under Section 24J(1) of the Act. Section 21 of the Act deals with Syndicate, which is executive body of the University, in which the Vice chancellor is also one of the Members. The functions of Syndicate are enumerated in Section 22 of the Act. In the instant case, the Board has taken the decision under Section 24J(1) of the Act thrice i.e. on 21.10.2010, 20.12.2010 and 7.2.2011 and Syndicate has approved the aforesaid decision taken by the Board in its meeting dated 28.2.2011. The Vice Chancellor was present and had participated in all these meetings of Board and Syndicate, which has not been disputed at bar. 10. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts the question arises for our consideration is whether the In-charge Vice Chancellor was competent to exercise emergency power under Section 13 of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that the power exercised by the In-charge Vice Chancellor on 2.12.2010 was totally vitiated in the instant case. 10. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts the question arises for our consideration is whether the In-charge Vice Chancellor was competent to exercise emergency power under Section 13 of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that the power exercised by the In-charge Vice Chancellor on 2.12.2010 was totally vitiated in the instant case. Propriety required that the In-charge Vice Chancellor ought not to have even entertained the application dated 2.12.2010, firstly as he was a Member of the Board, which had taken the decision not to allow additional intake capacity of the students in its meeting dated 21.10.2010. Secondly the In-charge Vice Chancellor was not hearing an appeal. He was well aware of the decision and bound by decision, which was taken by the Board in its meeting, in which he had participated. There was n change of situation, neither any improvement had been made in the factual scenario of the deficiencies pointed out by the team of inspectors. There was absolutely no emergent situation in the instant case, as decision had already been taken by the competent body i.e. the Board. Thirdly the Incharge Vice Chancellor has passed the order in undue haste on the application itself. What led the In-charge Vice Chancellor to pass order on the application itself, without due application of the mind, is not understandable from the order endorsed by the In-charge Vice Chancellor on the application itself, as we have quoted above, which is bereft of process of reasoning. The power could not be exercised under Section 13 as already regular Vice Chancellor was appointed three days ago, i.e. on 28.11.2010. In such circumstances, it was not at all proper and there was no justification available to the In-charge Vice Chancellor to pass the order in undue haste, particularly when he had handed over the charge on very next day i.e. on 3.12.2010 to the regularly appointed Vice Chancellor. 11. In the instant case, we find that order dated 2.12.2010 passed by the In-charge Vice Chancellor was totally illegal, improper and uncalled for, apart from that he had himself ordered the matter to be placed before the Board and on that said application dated 2.12.2010, on which the In-charge Vice Chancellor endorsed his decision, matter of grant of additional section was reconsidered by the Board in the meeting dated 20.12.2010, in which the regular Vice Chancellor had participated. Thus, the decision of the In-charge Vice Chancellor, which was patently illegal, does not advance the case of the appellant-institution in any manner. In fact, it indicates that anyhow or somehow, the appellant-institute was bent upon and had in fact procured illegal order from the In-charge Vice Chancellor on the last day before he demitted his office. Thus, no fruit can be permitted to be ripened in favour of the appellant, on the basis of such illegal order dated 2.12.2010 of In-charge Vice Chancellor procured by the appellant-institution. 12. Coming to the submission raised by Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant-institution has been discriminated with inasmuch as in the case of some other institutions/ colleges having the similar deficiencies, a fresh affiliation/extension of provisional affiliation has been granted by the University. The same treatment ought to have been meted out to the appellant-institution also in the matter of subject of M.Sc. (Bio Technology) for sanction of additional Section of 40 students. In fact, only 20 students had been admitted. This argument has to be dealt with in the back drop of the fact that the Course in question, i.e. M.Sc. (Bio Technology) is the post graduation course. It is the course of specialization and it is prerogative of the academic bodies whether to allow additional section or not. Firstly, it is a matter of policy and secondly, deficiencies had also been pointed out in the instant case by the team of inspectors with respect to existing one section of staff. Library was not well equipped, so as to fulfill the need of existing section much less for additional intake capacity of students. In fact, the library was insufficient even for 40 students and with respect to existing section of 40 students, it was mentioned that faculty was not as per the norms fixed by the University. A list of the faculty members had also been provided to the University along with the application for inspection. Bare reading of the said list makes it clear that most of the faculty members were not possessing the requisite qualification, as per prescribed norms of the University in its Ordinance. We cannot sit in appeal, while judging the decision of academic bodies in such matters. There were deficiencies with respect to even one existing section of the appellant-institution. Bare reading of the said list makes it clear that most of the faculty members were not possessing the requisite qualification, as per prescribed norms of the University in its Ordinance. We cannot sit in appeal, while judging the decision of academic bodies in such matters. There were deficiencies with respect to even one existing section of the appellant-institution. Thus, it was rightly considered inappropriate to allow further section of students. The decision taken by the Board cannot be faulted. 13. Now a days there is tendency in the institutions not to comply with the norms and to get the extension of provisional affiliations without fulfilling the norms. In the instant case, the University had extended affiliation of the appellant-institution from time to time inspite of deficiencies, as pointed by Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. It is clear that even though the similar deficiencies were continuing for the years together in the case of appellant-institution. They were not removed with respect to existing one section. We are not happy with such a situation. When an institution fails to remove the deficiencies after running for 4-5 years, the University should take strict action, when deficiencies are not removed. Here, it is not the case where the appellant-institution was established one year ago. It was granted affiliation initially in the year 2004 and it had continued for six years. Still, there were deficiencies with respect to one section hence it was not open to ask for another section. Faculty was also not as per the norms. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Board and the Syndicate were fully justified in not granting permission to the appellant-institution to start another section. The interest of education is not well served, while granting affiliations or permissions etc. in casual manner. 14. It passes comprehension how the team of inspectors could have assured that they would recommend additional intake capacity of students, it is shocking that on such an unauthorized assurance how appellant could have given admission to 20 additional students. In our opinion, it was not open to the team of inspectors to make such oral assurance if any. This would itself amounts to impropriety on the part of the team of inspectors. In our opinion, it was not open to the team of inspectors to make such oral assurance if any. This would itself amounts to impropriety on the part of the team of inspectors. When their recommendation is not final and they are not having any authority to take final decision in the matter, they cannot extended any assurance and they could not have in fact disclosed what recommendation they were going to make to the Board. We stop on that. We advise the University to ensure that in future no unauthorised oral assurance are made by the team of inspectors. In the instant case making of oral assurance by the team of inspectors is also doubtful. However, even if it was made, it could not have made basis to admit students as the team of inspectors was not competent to take final decision and had no authority to extend any such assurance. Principles of promissory estoppel can only be attracted in the case where assurance is given by a competent authority. It is not the case of the appellant that any assurance was extended by the Board. In the instant case, the Board was competent to take decision and it has taken the decision in its meeting on 21.10.2010, in which the In-charge Vice Chancellor had also participated. Thus, the In-charge Vice chancellor was bound by the decision of the Board. It was not open on the part of the In-charge Vice Chancellor to exercise emergency power in the instant case. It was also not legally permissible to the appellant-institution to admit 20 students in addition to the sanctioned strength and to create one more section. The appellant has acted illegally and unauthorizedly in the matter. The institution has to suffer for an illegal action taken by it. Merely on the basis of the fact that the institution has acted illegally and has admitted 20 students illegally, we cannot allow the institution to claim any right on the basis of any equitable principle, as equity cannot be exercised to defeat the provisions of law and to perpetuate the illegality. Thus, equitable considera-tions cannot be invoked by the appellant-institution in the instant case. 15 . Hon'ble Apex Court in Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Thus, equitable considera-tions cannot be invoked by the appellant-institution in the instant case. 15 . Hon'ble Apex Court in Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 238 has laid down that when students have been admitted in an educational institution in excess of the permitted seats, in such circumstances, the department can disallow the excess students to take the examination. No relief can be granted to such students, who have been admitted illegally. such students have no right to appear in the examination. In case, we allow such state of affairs to prevail, we would be perpetuating the illegality, as numerous instances exist which shows that institutions violate not only their sanctioned strength, but make illegal admissions in several other manners. The Court cannot come to their rescue in such matters and provide cover to regularize the illegality. Writ cannot be issued to perpetuate the illegality. It was not at all open to the appellant-institution to admit even a single student in excess of the sanctioned strength before decision was taken by Board granting permission to it to have additional section. Thus, we find that no case is made out, so as to interfere in the appeal. 16. It has also been pointed out that in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, the University has allowed 8 more students to appear in the examination than the sanctioned strength. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the University submitted that the University has not sanctioned additional strength in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Medical College. It has been made clear in the affidavit, which has been filed by the University that action has been taken against the erring officials, who have allowed 8 students more than the sanctioned strength of 40 students. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant cannot take any advantage of illegality committed by some members of the staff of the University which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. the plea of discrimination cannot be raised in such a situation. Plea of discrimination cannot be invoked to claim illegal treatment, negative equality cannot be claimed nor plea of equal treatment is available to the appellant-institution in the instant case. Courts are not meant for enforcing illegal action. the plea of discrimination cannot be raised in such a situation. Plea of discrimination cannot be invoked to claim illegal treatment, negative equality cannot be claimed nor plea of equal treatment is available to the appellant-institution in the instant case. Courts are not meant for enforcing illegal action. Not writ can be issued and no relief can be granted to the appellant in such factual scenario, so as to perpetuate the illegality. 17. We find no ground to interfere in the decision rendered by the Single Bench. Special Appeal is, hereby, dismissed. Cost is made easy.