Judgment : (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.). 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner is a college which conducts the B.Ed. course falling within the purview of Solapur University. The college has sought to challenge a notice issued by the University on 1 June 2012 banning admissions to the college for Academic Year 201213 and has sought directions to allow it to admit students. 2. The Petitioner was granted permission by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to start a B.Ed. College in 2005. The State Government also granted its permission. Affiliation was granted by the University for each Academic Year, subject to the condition that the Petitioner maintains the required staff and infrastructure. The Local Enquiry Committee visited the College on several occasions and found that there were several deficiencies which had not been removed. The Academic Council of the University passed a resolution on 30 April 2012 by which a decision was taken not to allow the Petitioner to admit students for 201213. At this stage, it is common ground that the affiliation of the College has not been cancelled. The University has stated on affidavit that the decision to stop admissions for the ensuing Academic Year was taken as a limited measure to protect the interest of students who may otherwise be given admission to a College which does not meet the necessary academic and infrastructural requirements. 3. By a communication dated 1 June 2012, the University noted that the following deficiencies have been found: (i) Though the College was established seven years ago, it was only for three years during that period that a Principal was appointed and the present situation is that the College does not have a regular Principal; (ii) Out of the fifteen sanctioned posts of teachers, only two have been appointed on a regular basis on the recommendations of the University Selection Committee and thirteen posts are vacant; (iii) Though necessary under a Government Resolution, no steps have been taken by the College to obtain accreditation with the National Accreditation Council; and (iv) The College has not submitted periodical reports as required in regard to the attendance of students on the basis of the data recorded on a biometric machine. 4. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that: (i) On 29 March 2012 and subsequently in the month of May, an effort was made to fill up the post of the Principal and of teachers, but the University Selection Committee did not make any recommendation. The College has, therefore, taken necessary steps. In the absence of an adequate availability of duly qualified teachers and a Principal, no fault can be found with the College; (ii) A Division Bench of this Court had, on 3 December 2008, passed orders suo motu at the Bench at Nagpur, directing that if Colleges failed to fill up the posts of Principal by 31 May 2009, the University shall issue orders in June 2009, prohibiting admissions. The Supreme Court by an order dated 28 March 2011 set aside the order of the Division Bench observing that in the absence of a permanent Principal, admissions to a College need not necessarily be prohibited in the absence of statutory rules and what the High Court had done was to legislate upon the subject;(iii) Admissions may, therefore, be permitted to be carried out this year subject to such safeguards as may be imposed by the Court. 5. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the Director in the Board of Colleges and University Development of the University. The affidavit explains that sufficient opportunities were granted to the Petitioner to maintain the requisite infrastructure and to appoint staff. The affiliation has been granted on a year to year basis and, for the present year, admissions have been stopped in the interest of students because despite ample opportunities, the infrastructural and other deficiencies have not been removed. The affidavit states that the installation of a biometric machine was found to be necessary on the report of a Committee, which had paid a surprise visit to the College. For instance, one of the students, who was engaged in full time private employment was shown as attending the College. The University passed a resolution on 26 April 2011 making it compulsory to install a biometric machine and submit a monthly report from Academic Year 201112. Despite this, the College failed to submit a report. The University found that Colleges were responsible for improper recording of attendance and the installation of a biometric machine was mandated to ensure that such instances do not occur. Despite this, the College failed to submit a report. The University found that Colleges were responsible for improper recording of attendance and the installation of a biometric machine was mandated to ensure that such instances do not occur. Similarly, it has been submitted that the Petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of obtaining accreditation. The University furnished an opportunity to the Petitioner to comply with the requirements for continuation of affiliation for Academic Year 201213. The underlying documentary material has been annexed to the affidavit in reply. 6. The record before the Court, especially material which has been placed on record by the University in the reply, would indicate that sufficient opportunities were granted to the Petitioner to comply with the norms required for extension of affiliation. Though this documentary material is relevant to the issues raised in the Petitions, several important documents were not disclosed by the Petitioner. The infrastructural deficiencies which have been noted in the report, which forms part of the record, are not of a trivial nature. Of the fifteen posts of teachers, thirteen are vacant and only two teachers have been appointed by following the required procedure. The College has submitted that in March and May 2012, it had taken steps, but the University Selection Committee found that no suitable candidate could be recommended. This in our view, would provide no justification whatsoever. Taking such steps belatedly, virtually at the end of Academic Year 201112, would not amount to compliance. Besides, the issue in such a case is fundamentally about the quality of education that would be afforded to students where as many as thirteen out of fifteen posts have not been filled up by following the requisite procedure with qualified candidates. The paramount concern of the University must be the interest of education and the welfare of students. The economic interests of the college are subsidiary to those concerns. The Academic Council is a body of experts and it is no part of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to set aside a decision which has been legitimately taken in the interests of education on the basis of relevant considerations.. No case of mala fides has been urged at the hearing. The University furnished sufficient opportunities to the College to fill up the vacancies, install a biometric machine and obtain accreditation. No case of mala fides has been urged at the hearing. The University furnished sufficient opportunities to the College to fill up the vacancies, install a biometric machine and obtain accreditation. The decision of the University to mandate the installation of a biometric machine and to require the College to submit monthly reports of attendance is perfectly justifiable. Students must regularly attend their classes. The requirement of attendance ensures that the students have the benefit of a rigorous and sustained course of study. If the University in a considered opinion is of the view that the academic norms are being flouted and students who are enrolled actually do not attend classes, it is the bounden duty of the University to take remedial steps. Students studying in colleges of education are expected upon qualifying for the degree or, as the case may be, diploma to become teachers themselves. If the standards of their education are not maintained, the University has a legitimate apprehension as regards the quality of education that such persons will impart to the students whom they will eventually teach. Unfortunately, the bane of a large part of our educational system is that students treat attendance requirements with disdain. That leads to a situation where teaching exists only on paper and students enroll in colleges only to fulfill formal requirements. College education has a purpose beyond that. The journey to a degree is as important as the final goal. The latter has little substantive content if the process of imparting and receiving education is not holistic. Similarly, the requirement of accreditation is not a meaningless formality and is designed to ensure that the College meets necessary parameters, uniformly applicable to all institutions. Accreditation provides some assurance of quality. 7. A Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur had passed an order on 3 December 2008, acting suo motu, and a direction was issued that if the Colleges failed to fill in posts of Principals by 31 May 2009, the University shall issue orders in June 2009 prohibiting admissions. None of the Colleges were heard, nor were notices issued to them. None of the Colleges were heard, nor were notices issued to them. It is in this view of the matter that the Supreme Court, while setting aside the order, observed in its judgment dated 28 March 2011 that the suo motu directions issued by the High Court were not warranted and that the High Court, in failing to issue a notice or to hear the Colleges was not justified in taking action. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had indulged in judicial legislation. Moreover, in the absence of a permanent Principal, an acting Principal can officiate and admissions could not be prohibited in the absence of statutory rules. The Supreme Court, however, directed that the process of filling up of posts may continue in accordance with law. In the present case, the University as an expert statutory body has repeatedly called upon the College to comply with the deficiencies. Save and except for a period of three years in the seven years since its affiliation the college had no Principal. The issue which falls for determination is as to whether the University is justified in directing that admissions be stopped for the ensuing Academic Year for the nonremoval of deficiencies. Considering the material on the record, we are of the view that the action which has been taken by the University cannot be faulted. Allowing a College such as the Petitioner to admit students would result only in the interests of education being seriously affected. 8. For these reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.