1. Petitioner is a private college recognized by the State Government and is affiliated with Kashmir University. It admits students for B.Ed Course according to its intake capacity. It's sanctioned intake capacity as per Annexure - A to the petition initially was 100 students in addition to Non - Resident Indian (NRI) quota and over the years it has been enhanced to 240 seats in addition to management and supernumerary quota. 2. The petitioner claims to have like other private colleges approached Kashmir University for enhancement of its intake capacity and acting on the assurance given by the University authorities, to have on its own enrolled 60 students over and above its sanctioned intake capacity. 3. The petitioner's case is that as the admission fee with the penal charges of Rs.1700/- per candidate was accepted by the University in respect of aforestated additional 60 candidates on 14th November, 2009 as admitted in the communication No. KWCE/ Adm./ Forms/July, 09/831 dated 14th November, 2009 appended as Annexure E to the petition, the respondents are stripped of right to stop the students from taking examination or getting degrees. The petitioner claims to have deposit Rs. 2000/- per student over and above the usual charge with the University vide receipt dated 27th July, 2010. 4. It is next urged that while Kashmir University issued orders for the increase in intake capacity in favour of some of the private collages that had approached for enhancement in intake capacity, intake capacity of the petitioner college was unjustifiably not increased. The petitioner complaining that the Kashmir University though having accepted usual fee with penal charges for the additional section i.e. 60 students enrolled by the petitioner college over and above its sanctioned intake capacity, was declining to issue roll no.slips in their favour and regularise their admission. 5. The petitioner on the strength of grounds urged, seeks following reliefs:- 1. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents University to give to the petitioner College the same treatment in the matter of increase of intake capacity by one section of students in the identical circumstances and regularise the admissions made by the petitioner college on the assurance of the respondent University. 2. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents University to give to the petitioner College the same treatment in the matter of increase of intake capacity by one section of students in the identical circumstances and regularise the admissions made by the petitioner college on the assurance of the respondent University. 2. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondent University to regularise the admission of additional section of students granted by the petitioner college on the representation and promises of the respondent University and command the respondent University to accept their examination fee, RRs and take their examination alongwith their batch mates for the Session 2009-2010. 6. Alongside the writ petition, the petitioner college filed a Civil Miscellaneous petition IA No. 1153/2010 for interim mandatory injunction commanding the respondent University to accept the examination fee, RR forms of the additional section of students, issue Roll number slips in their favour and permit them to appear in examination along-with their batch mates admitted by the petitioner college in 2009-2010. The Court on 14th October, 2010 directed the respondents to allow, those of the students of the petitioner's college "who have been admitted by the respondent University" for the session 2009-2010 and whose examination fee, RR forms have been accepted, to take the examination. However, the ad interim order was granted subject to objections and it was made clear that order would not entitle the students to claim any equity under the order. 7. The respondents oppose the writ petition on the grounds that the petition was grossly misconceived. The respondents point out that the admission of the students is not granted by the respective private institutions/colleges affiliated with the University but by the respondent University and that after such admission, the students are allotted to various colleges having regard to their respective sanctioned intake capacity. It is denied that the private colleges including the petitioner college is authorised to make any admissions on its own. The respondents while admitting that the petitioner college has been granted temporary affiliation by the respondent University and that intake capacity of 240 students has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner college, deny that at any point of time any assurance was given or promise made to the petitioner college that its intake capacity would be increased. 8. The respondents while admitting that the petitioner college has been granted temporary affiliation by the respondent University and that intake capacity of 240 students has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner college, deny that at any point of time any assurance was given or promise made to the petitioner college that its intake capacity would be increased. 8. The respondents point out that sanctioned intake capacity of college is determined on the basis of recommendations of inspection committee; that the Committee on making a spot inspection, makes an assessment of infrastructural facilities available in the college and thereafter, makes its recommendation for enhancement in intake capacity, if warranted under facts and circumstances of the case. It is insisted that in the present case no inspection was made and question of extending assurance to the petitioner, therefore, college would not arise. The respondents reiterate that as the petitioner college on its own without adhering to rules and regulations, had taken 60 students over and above its sanctioned intake capacity, on its rolls, the respondents were under no obligation to regularize their admission or permit them to appear in the examination. The respondents while admitting that late fee in respect of the additional section was accepted by the officials of the respondent University, clarify that the fee was accepted by the officials at the lower level under the mistaken belief that the late fee related to the students admitted in accordance with rules and the sanctioned intake capacity. 9. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard counsel for the parties. 10. The main plank of petitioner's case is that the petitioner college admitted one section of students i.e. 60 students, over and above its sanctioned intake capacity on the assurance and promise made by the respondent University that intake capacity of the petitioner college i.e. 240 students, would be enhanced by one section or 60 students. In other words, the petitioner claims to have proceeded to admit the students in anticipation of the sanction by the respondent University, to be accorded in its favour. The petitioner is not in a position to place any material on record that would lend support to its case. There is no document, whatsoever on the file to even remotely suggest let alone, established that any promise was made or assurance extended to the petitioner college that its intake capacity would be enhanced. The petitioner is not in a position to place any material on record that would lend support to its case. There is no document, whatsoever on the file to even remotely suggest let alone, established that any promise was made or assurance extended to the petitioner college that its intake capacity would be enhanced. Needless to state that, even if, such an assurance would have been there, it would not ipso facto entitle the petitioner college to rush for the admissions for the seats yet to be sanctioned in his favour. What is come across is a letter under No. KWCE/Add-Section/Estt/8813-14 dated 9th May, 2008, addressed by the Chairperson of the petitioner college to the Vice Chancellor of the Kashmir University — respondent no. 2 herein, bringing it to his notice that though intake capacity of 34 private colleges of the State was enhanced, the petitioner college and 16 other colleges were left out notwithstanding merit in claim step by some of the left out colleges. In the letter while Chairperson of the petitioner college expressed pleasure that some "good colleges" were encouraged by sanctioning additional sections, made a request for increase in intake capacity of the petitioner college. A similar communication was addressed on 19th May' to Dean College Development Council of the respondent University — respondent no. 3. This was followed by the letters dated 2nd June, 2008,30th June, 2008,23rd August, 2008, 11th November, 2008,16th January, 2009, 28th March, 2009, 7th September, 2009, 20th October, 2009. 20th March, 2010. In all these communications Chairperson of the petitioner college reiterated her stand and repeated her request for accord of sanction to enhancement in the intake capacity of the petitioner's college. 11. The material on the file, thus, sufficiently indicates that at no point of time during the period in question, any promise or assurance was extended to the petitioner that intake capacity of the petitioner college would be enhanced or increased. It was for the first time on 1st September, 2010 that the principal of the petitioner college informed the respondent no. 2 that the college on its own, on the assurance received from the respondent no. 2 had admitted 60 additional students over and above sanctioned strength and that the petitioner added the additional students with the students admitted under sanctioned capacity while depositing fee/late fee of its students. 2 that the college on its own, on the assurance received from the respondent no. 2 had admitted 60 additional students over and above sanctioned strength and that the petitioner added the additional students with the students admitted under sanctioned capacity while depositing fee/late fee of its students. Had there been any promise or assurance from the respondents that the intake capacity of the petitioner college would be enhanced there was no reason for the Chairperson of the petitioner college to make repeated requests, to the respondents to consider its request for enhancement in intake capacity. The petitioner's stand, thus, does not find support from the record placed by the petitioner on the file and is rather belied by the documents available on record. 12. The petitioner's case is that as late fee in respect of 60 students, admitted over and above, intake capacity was received by the respondent University on 27th July, 2010, the respondents were duty-bound to regularise their admission, does not sound convincing. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner college did not forward the late fee of 60 students admitted, over and above sanctioned intake capacity, separately indicating sufficiently to the respondents that these students though not part of its sanctioned intake capacity, were nonetheless admitted by the college on the promise and assurance made by the respondents and that thereafter the respondents received their late fee. The petitioner instead played a trick, joined the aforesaid 60 students with other students within the sanctioned intake capacity and forwarded late fee of all these candidates together for deposit and the Dealing Assistant not alive to the mischief received the late fee of all 133 students. Inadvertence on part of the Dealing Assistant to appreciate that 133 students in respect of whom late fee was forwarded by the petitioner college included 60 unauthorised students, would not create a right in favour of the petitioner college to get the admissions made in violation of rules and in addition to its intake capacity, regularised or cast a duty on the respondents to regularise such admission. Seen from any angle, the material on the file and the rules in vogue do not lend support to the petitioner's case. 13. Seen from any angle, the material on the file and the rules in vogue do not lend support to the petitioner's case. 13. What emerges from the above discussions is that the petitioner college on its own unilaterally without any authority whatsoever and in absence of any promisejDr assurance on part of the respondents, motivated by pure commercial interest, granted admission to 60 students over and above its sanctioned intake capacity. The petitioner therefore having failed to establish infringement of any of its rights, is not entitled to the relief sought in the petition. It however, does not clinch the matter. What remains to be seen is whether the 60 students un-authorizedly admitted by the petitioner college in violation of rules and its sanctioned intake capacity are entitled to pursue their course, appear in the university examination and get B.Ed Degree in the event they are successful. 14. Constitution of India, in its preamble, incorporates a sacred pledge that obligates the State to strive for securing justice, in all its manifestations-social, economic and political for all the citizens and equality of status and opportunity amongst them. Education is to play a pivotal role in realizing these Constitutional goals. To impart education, in the said background, is not only amongst sovereign functions of the State but is also one of its constitutional obligations. Article 21 (A) added by Constitution, 86th amendment Act, 2002, recognizes right to education. Article 45 makes early childhood care and education to children between six years of age as one of the directive principles of State policy. However, the State because of lack of sufficient financial resources cannot single handedly accomplish the task and having regard to its importance, has to co opt and allow private actors to play a key role in the field of education. 15. One of the areas that is of primary importance, is training teachers so that country has well trained manpower to impart quality education to the students enrolled in our schools, who undoubtedly are future of India. 15. One of the areas that is of primary importance, is training teachers so that country has well trained manpower to impart quality education to the students enrolled in our schools, who undoubtedly are future of India. However, when private actors step in and claim a role in this stupendous task, they have to realize the role they claim is essentially one expected to be played by the State and rules that regulate such role are to be strictly followed and that they are not to have a free hand in organizing their affairs like admission of students, appointment of teachers, availability of infrastructure, but have to follow the norms and guidelines as strictly as are by laid down for and followed by the Government institutions. Otherwise the very purpose of associating the private players in the task of imparting education to our children and training manpower would be of no consequence. It would be rather counter-productive in as much as private institutions would be adding to our national human resource pool, ill equipped, ill trained and under educated manpower. The duty to adhere to the bench marks becomes more onerous when one takes upon oneself duty to train teachers who in turn have to lay foundation for our future generation of doctors, engineers, technocrats and lawyers etc. 16. It is to ensure that the private colleges follow the rule book and play an effective rule in imparting quality education to the students that the State Legislature has enacted the J&K Private Colleges (Regulations and Control) Act, 2002. Section 3 of the Act prohibits setting up of private college without prior permission, in writing, of the Government or the competent authority constituted by the Government. The purpose is to ensure that the person or body of persons known as "educational agency" under the Act, desirous to set up a private college has sufficient resources like infrastructure manpower etc. to set up and run private college. In terms of Section 2 (C) of the Act, "college" includes an educational institution set up to run B-Ed course. The purpose is to ensure that the person or body of persons known as "educational agency" under the Act, desirous to set up a private college has sufficient resources like infrastructure manpower etc. to set up and run private college. In terms of Section 2 (C) of the Act, "college" includes an educational institution set up to run B-Ed course. In order to ensure that a private college adheres to the Rules and Regulations and satisfies the prescribed standards, the college is required to follow Section 4 to 16 that incorporate requirements as regards management, selection and appointment of teaching and non teaching staff, conditions of service of staff, periodic returns, maintenance of accounts, Audit, fees and admissions made by the private colleges. 17. The State Government vide Government order No. 142/HE of 2007 dated 19th July, 2007 accorded sanction to policy for rationalization and regulations of private B. Ed colleges in the Jammu and Kashmir State made by the High Level Committee constituted vide Government Order No. 69-HE of 2006 dated 15th March, 2006 subject to the recommendations/modifications made by Cabinet Sub Committee constituted vide Government Order No. 266-GAD of 2007 dated 10th March, 2007. In terms of Jammu and Kashmir Private Colleges (Regulations and Control) Act, 2002 read with the aforestated Government order, the private college once set up has to get affiliated to the University so that the students enrolled, can appear in the examination conducted by the University and are awarded degrees on successful completion of the course. The University has complete freedom to lay down Rules and prescribe standards that are to govern affiliation of private college. The University obviously has the power to determine the intake capacity of a affiliated private college. 18. Chapter IV, University of Kashmir statutes (Calander-2012) Vol.-I deals with "Affiliation and Recognition of Colleges and other Institutions" Condition precedent for granting affiliation and recognition in terms of para 4.9 (Chapter IV) is that the application must have concurrence of the State Government. In order to have college affiliated to the University, the colleges must satisfy the requirement detailed in para 4.1 chapter IV of the statutes. It is only after the application is found in order by the University Syndicate that it is referred to Board of Inspectors so as to verify on inspection of the College, whether the requirement laid down in para 4.1 are satisfied. It is only after the application is found in order by the University Syndicate that it is referred to Board of Inspectors so as to verify on inspection of the College, whether the requirement laid down in para 4.1 are satisfied. Grant of affiliation depends upon manpower and infrastructural resources of the College. The affiliation in the circumstances, even when granted governs the intake capacity of the college. The affiliation cannot be open-ended permitting the college to enrol and admit any number of students, at its choice. The University having regard to said resources duly verified by the Board of Inspectors, determines the intake capacity of college or the number of students the college has capacity to admit. I terms of regulations appearing next to para 4.12 chapter -IV of the statutes, the Board of Inspectors is to make periodical inspection of the affiliated colleges to ensure that the affiliated colleges maintain / retain, initial infrastructural and manpower resources found at the time of the affiliation and also may on such periodical inspection recommend increase or decrease in sanctioned intake capacity taking into note the additions, if any, made to the infrastructural and manpower resources or deficiency in such resources as against the level of resources at the time of grant of affiliation. 19. In the present case the Board of Inspectors did not conduct any fresh inspection of the petitioner college and the question of accord of consideration to increase intake capacity did not at all arise. The petitioner college admitted 60 students over and above its in intake capacity in gross violation of the University statutes. The wilful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the University statutes cannot be condoned 20. The students, who have been admitted by the petitioner college on its own over and above the sanctioned intake capacity, cannot be permitted to proceed with their course, get their admissions regularised, appear in the examination and obtain the degree in the name of equity and fair play. 21. The practice of allowing students enrolled by private colleges in violation of University Statutes has been deprecated by the highest court of the country in a number of authoritative judicial pronouncements. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. 21. The practice of allowing students enrolled by private colleges in violation of University Statutes has been deprecated by the highest court of the country in a number of authoritative judicial pronouncements. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another (1993) 4 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court order whereby admission of two candidates to internship was directed, though the students did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for such admission, observed:- "We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenera ting into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions." 22. In C.B.S.E. and another v. P. Sunil Kumar and others etc. (1998) 5 SCC 377 ), the question before the Court was whether the students, enrolled by the Institutions not affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education, were to be permitted to pursue their courses, and prosecute further studies. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court order whereby the students were directed to be granted certificates pursuant to declaration of results on the ground that the students were not to be allowed to suffer, held: "The learned counsel appearing for the students in different appeals did not dispute the position that the schools from where their clients have pursued their studies are not yet affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. But they mainly contended that the students having been permitted to appear to the examination and they having been successful and certificates have been issued in their favour, it would work out great injustice, if the impugned directions of the High Court are set aside at this length of time. In support of this contention they placed reliance on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998) 3 SCC 5 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1205 ). In the aforesaid case, this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future but did not interfere with the ultimate direction of the High Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of the students and therefore it would be inappropriate to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case, inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein, either directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of that the institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have been affiliated or are going to be affiliated at a near future. We are conscious of the fact that our order setting aside the impugned directions of the High Court would cause injustice to these students. But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of students." The Court further observed: "This Court in several cases deprecated the practice of allowing students to appear provisionally in the examination of the Board or the University and then ultimately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Education Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 667 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ) this Court held that the Court will not be justified in issuing direction to the University to protect the interest of the students who had been admitted to the medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. It was also observed that the Court cannot by its fiat direct the university to disobey the Statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law. In the case of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute, JT1991 (2) SC 343, this Court held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorised educational institutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination. All these cases were again considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, JT 1992 (5) SC 175: (AIR 1993 SC 1926) and it was held that the students of unrecognized and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. The Court ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court." 23. The controversy, though in different context, also surfaced in Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India & ors ( 2011 (4) Supreme 148 ). It was held that the students granted admission by the Education Institutions, not granted affiliation by National Council for Teacher Education, were not entitled to any regularisation and even directed the degree if awarded not to be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever. It would be profitable to reproduce hereunder para 17 and 19 of the judgement: "17. It was held that the students granted admission by the Education Institutions, not granted affiliation by National Council for Teacher Education, were not entitled to any regularisation and even directed the degree if awarded not to be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever. It would be profitable to reproduce hereunder para 17 and 19 of the judgement: "17. The question which remains to be considered is whether the Court should direct regularisation of the admission of the students, who were allotted to the appellants by the State Government etc. pursuant to the directions given by this Court. Although, in the absence of cogent material, it is not possible to record a finding that the students were party to the patently wrong and misleading statement made by the appellants, the Court cannot overlook the fact that nine of the appellants has been granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal and in view of the probity contained in Section 17A of the Act read with Regulation 8(12), the appellants could not have admitted any student. However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court. 18.XXXX 19. We also declare that none of the students, who have taken admission on the basis of allotment made by the State Government, shall be eligible for the award of degree etc by the affiliating body. If the degree has already been awarded to any such students, the same shall not be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever." 24. 18.XXXX 19. We also declare that none of the students, who have taken admission on the basis of allotment made by the State Government, shall be eligible for the award of degree etc by the affiliating body. If the degree has already been awarded to any such students, the same shall not be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever." 24. In view of settled legal position it would not be permissible to regularise the 60 candidates admitted by the petitioner college over and above its intake capacity even though the students might have appeared in the examination pursuant to the Court direction that asked the respondents "to accept the examination fee, RR's forms of those of the students of the petitioner-college who have been admitted by the University in the session 2009-10" and thereafter "to enable this class of the student(s) to take examination". The petitioner college motivated by pure commercial interests, while granting admission over and above its intake capacity, ignoring that it had volunteered to be a partner with the State in the sacred task of training Teachers who would in turn educate future generation and thus expected to follow the fundamental values of truth, honesty and fair play, cannot get its irregularity legitimised by pushing forward cause of the students who have been enrolled without any authority. The power of judicial review and writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to help the petitioner college to secure its commercial interests other than in accordance with law. The students enrolled over and above intake capacity by petitioner college, however are not to go without remedy. They have right not only to ask the petitioner college to return their fee and other charges but also a right to maintain proceedings for recovery of damages from the petitioner college for having falsely extended assurance that petitioner college had right to admit them to the B.Ed, course and bring them on its rolls, and seek compensation for having wasted precious part of their life and made it barren and unproductive. Needless to mention that had the petitioner college not persuaded the students to go for admission in the petitioner college they might have been very well, able to get enrolled in some other College without violating the University Statutes. The petition is accordingly dismissed.