JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Sri Saumitra Singh, learned counsel for the Lucknow University as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kanpur University. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-committee of management contends that the institution has been granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education on 23rd December, 2010, therefore, it is entitled to take admission of students in the Session 2010-11. Sri Srivastava, further submits that the counseling for the said session is continuing in other institutions under the relevant Government Order which had been earlier extended till 25th December, 2010 and has now been extended till 3rd January, 2011. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner-institution can be allotted students and had accommodated those students, who have qualified for admission in the said session. 3. The matter had been adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to inform the Court about the academic calender of the Kanpur University in order to ascertain as to how the minimum of 180 days would be available to the students if they are admitted as per the claim of the petitioners. 4. Sri Srivastava has today produced a copy of the academic calender of the Kanpur University of 2010-11 which is quoted below : “i=kad fnukad N=ifr 'kkgw th egkjkt fo’ofo?kky;] dkuiqj ,dsMfed dys.Mj l= 2010&11 dze la0 fooj.k frfFk 1 izos’k izkjEHk 25 twu 2 f’k{k.k dk;Z izkjEHk 25 tqykbZ 3 izos’k dh vfUre frfFk 31 tqykbZ 4 fo’ofo?kky; esa izos’k Qykih Hkstus dh frfFk 11 vxLr 5 fo’ofo?kky; }kjk egkfo?kky; dks laLFkkxr 11 vxLr ijh{kk QkeZ fuxZr djus dh vfUre frfFk 6 fo’ofo?kky; esa QkeZ Hkstus dh vfUre frfFk 30 flrEcj 7 feM VeZ lsesLVj ijh{kk,a 01 vDVwcj 08 vDVwcj 8 v}Zokf’kZd ijh{kka, o lslsLVj 1] 2] 3] 4 15 fnlEcj] 15 tuojh] ds ,oa 5 dh fo’ofo?kky; ijh{kk,a e/; egkfo?kky; dh lqfoèkkuqlkj 9 izk;ksfxd ijh{kk,a 1&28 Qjojh 10 ijh{kk dh rS;kjh dk vodk’k 23&28 Qjojh 11 fo’ofo?kky; ijh{kk,a laLFkkxr ,oa O;fDrxr 02 ekpZ ls 18 ebZ ,oa lsesLVj 2] 4] 5 ,o 8 12 xzh’ekodk’k 01 ebZ ls 30 twu 13 l= 2011& 2012 gsrq izos’k izkjEHk 25 twu dqy f’k{k.k fnol 180 laLFkkxr layXud & 1 5. The appendix indicating 180 days however, has not been placed before the Court. Nonetheless, the said calender categorically states the dates of the academic session. The appendix indicating 180 days however, has not been placed before the Court. Nonetheless, the said calender categorically states the dates of the academic session. In the instant case, the recognition itself has been granted on 23rd December, 2010. In such a situation and keeping in view the calender of the University, it is not possible to conceive that the students who would be admitted will get 186 days as per the calender of the University. 6. The recognition order itself entails that the recognition will operate for the Session 2010-11 only if the requirement of 180 teaching days in the session is fulfilled as per the calender of the affiliating University. Reference may be had to the conditions which are are contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition. 7. As noticed above, the calender of the University as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not establish the fulfillment of 180 teaching days after 23rd December, 2010 and, therefore, the petitioner institution would be entitled to take admissions only in the forth coming session of 2011-12. 8. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. —————