JUDGMENT In this writ application when it was filed on 29.8.2006, the prayer of the petitioners had read as follows:- “1. That the present writ application is being filed to issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to publish the result of Bachelor of Education final Examination for Session 2004-2005 held in the Month of March, 2006, for above named petitioners, which is pending.” 2. In the writ application, it was stated that upon entrance examination held on 29.8.2004 in S.M. Zaheer Alam Teacher’s Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the college’) for admission in Bachelor of Education Court (B.Ed.) on 29.8.2004 in 2004-05 session, the petitioners had been selected whereafter they were admitted in between 6.9.2004 to 25.9.2004 as would stand supported from the receipt granted by the college acknowledging deposit of tuition fee for the B.Ed. Course of the session 2004-05. The petitioners have also stated that subsequently, the L.N.M. University, Darbhanga had also registered them by issuing the registration receipt in support of which they have annexed one such registration slip as contained in Annexure-3 series. The petitioners have also claimed that in January, 2006 when the final examination was notified by the University, they had filled up examination form for which they were also issued admission card (popularly known as Admit Card) by the University, whereafter, they had appeared in the examination held in the month of March, 2006 which was followed by a practical examination held in the month of April, 2006. 3. According to the petitioners, the result of the aforementioned examination was declared by the University in July, 2006 but, the result of the petitioners was kept pending. Subsequently, the petitioners claim that their candidature itself was cancelled by the University by issuing press communiqué published in Dainik Jagran and Hindustan (Hindi) on 9.8.2006, whereafter, the Principal of the college had taken up the matter with the authorities of the University. The petitioners have alleged that the said cancellation of the candidature was made because of a biased report submitted by the Investigating Committee of the University constituted to examine the fairness of the admission procedure in the B.Ed. Course in the college. The petitioners have alleged that the members of the Investigating Committee consisting of Dr. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Dr. Course in the college. The petitioners have alleged that the members of the Investigating Committee consisting of Dr. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Dr. Ishwar Chandra Verma and other University Officers had demanded ten sheets for admission of the candidate in B.Ed. Course for the session 2006-07 and Dr. Balmiki Prasad Singh, one of the members of the Inspection Committee, had in fact sent documents and photographs of one Bhawani, his daughter-in-law for admission in the B.Ed. Course of Sessions 2006-07 and as the admission to Bhawani in the B.Ed. Course was not given by the authorities of the college, it had led to the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the respondent University had neither disclosed any reason for withholding of the result nor had given them any notice and/or opportunity of hearing before cancelling of their candidature. 4. To these simple looking averments in the writ application, the Registrar of the University in February, 2006 had filed his counter affidavit, wherein, it was stated that when the college, in question, had submitted its list of students for registration for conducting of the B.Ed. Examination of the year 2005, the University had constituted a Committee consisting of Dr. Balmiki Prasad Singh, Dean-Education and Dr. K.P. Singh, Controller of Examination in February 2006 to enquire into the process and genuineness of the admission of the students admitted in the college in 2004-05 session whose fees and forms were forwarded by the authorities of the College for their being permitted to appear in the annual B.Ed. examination to be held in the month of March 2006. The Registrar has further stated that all the records of such admission of the students were not given by the college authorities to the Inspecting Team of the University as a result whereof, the Enquiry Committee could not submit its final report within the prescribed period of time. 5. An explanation, however, has been given with regard to the holding of the B.Ed. Examination permitting the petitioners to appear in such examination wherein it has been stated that the University had found it necessary to proceed ahead with the university examination of the B.Ed. Course of 2004-05 sessions because the examination of even other students of the B.Ed. 5. An explanation, however, has been given with regard to the holding of the B.Ed. Examination permitting the petitioners to appear in such examination wherein it has been stated that the University had found it necessary to proceed ahead with the university examination of the B.Ed. Course of 2004-05 sessions because the examination of even other students of the B.Ed. Course of the other colleges were being also delayed and as such provisional Admit Cards were issued to the petitioners enabling them to appear in the examination held in the month of March and April, 2006. 6. It has, however, been clarified that the Committee had submitted its two interim and one final report on 4.7.2006, 21.7.2006 and 25.7.2006 respectively wherein, it had found gross irregularities in the admission of the petitioners. In this regard, it has been pointed out in the counter affidavit that the authorities of the college had committed bungling in admitting these seven petitioners, inasmuch as, their admission was shown to be taken by interpolating the records of the College against the names of seven such students who had passed the entrance examination conducted for admission in the B.Ed. Course by the college. The Committee of University infact had also arrived at its conclusion that the petitioners did not in fact appear in the entrance examination. In other words, it was the case of the University that these petitioners were shown to have appeared in the entrance test even though they were not applicants in the entrance test held for admission in the college and they were admitted by faking and changing their roll number by removing names of such of the seven candidates who though had filled their application for appearing in the admission test but did not actually appear in such entrance examination. The Committee, therefore, had recommended for not publishing the result of the petitioners. 7. The Committee, therefore, had recommended for not publishing the result of the petitioners. 7. In the counter affidavit, it has also been explained that the Vice Chancellor of the University, having examined the three reports of the Inspecting Committee, had initially directed for keeping the result of the petitioners pending and later on the entire matter including the report of the Inspection Committee was placed in the meeting of the Examination Board held on 8.8.2006, wherein, the following decision was taken by way of resolution against agenda item no.4 of the Examination Board:- “Agenda-4: To consider the pending result of seven students of S.M.Z.A.T.T. College Bahera on the recommendation of Enquiry Committee constituted for thorough verification of admission document of B.Ed. students, session 2004-05. Resolution: Considering the reports of the Enquiry Committee the Examination Board discussed the matter thoroughly and it was resolved that the candidature of seven students as mentioned in the reports viz. Roll Nos. 720, 783, 792, 819, 821, 836, 843 have been found unlawful as their admission taken by the college were not found as per norms and even the admission records were found tempered with cases of insertions. Therefore, the E.B. is of the opinion that the candidature of these seven students are rejected and hence the publication of results does not arise.” 8. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that insertion of the roll number and the names of the petitioners were found to be unlawful by the Enquiry Committee of the University constituted for checking of the examination procedure and genuineness of the entrance test and the Committee, after a detailed examination, had reached to its conclusion that very admission of these petitioners was vitiated. The Registrar of the University in the counter affidavit has also denied the allegation of personal malice against Dr. Balmiki Prasad Singh wherein it has been stated that though his daughter-in-law may have applied for admission in the B.Ed. Course for 2006-07 Sessions but she did not take admission in the College because she had already been admitted in the Post Graduate Course. 9. A supplementary counter affidavit was also filed enclosing the three reports of the Inspection Committee. Balmiki Prasad Singh wherein it has been stated that though his daughter-in-law may have applied for admission in the B.Ed. Course for 2006-07 Sessions but she did not take admission in the College because she had already been admitted in the Post Graduate Course. 9. A supplementary counter affidavit was also filed enclosing the three reports of the Inspection Committee. From the first report dated 4.7.2006, it would transpire that the authorities of the college did not submit the complete records despite written and oral direction given by the Inspecting Team and only the register of the application, admission register and receipt book showing payment of admission fee was produced by the authorities of the college and the all important original application of the petitioners seeking admission in the college was never produced. In the said report dated 4.7.2006, the Inspection Committee had observed that the application register was wholly unauthentic document which neither contained signature of authorized person of the college nor the pages of such register were numbered. In the said register, in fact, names of several applicants were struck off as was found at serial no.7, 15, 101, 166, 167, 294, 295, 348, 354, 355 and 357. 10. A similar adverse inference was drawn as with regard to the receipts showing conclusion of admission fee from the petitioners, inasmuch as, there was obvious discrepancy in the roll number allotted to them. The Committee had also in its report dated 4.7.2006 mentioned that despite written instruction dated 13.6.2006 to the Vice Principal of the college for producing the original application filed by the petitioners and other applicants, the same was not produced and when on 20.6.2006 a reminder was sent for production of the original application of the petitioners and others, the same was again not produced on a plea of illness of the concerned dealing assistant and again on 26.6.2006 and 27.6.2006, when the convener of the college was contacted by the members of the Inspection Committee, he had informed that all the papers relating to admission in the B.Ed. Course in the college had been seized and taken away by the Vigilance Department of the State Government. In the said interim report dated 4.7.2006, the Inspection Team, therefore, had recommended that the result of all the students of the college including the petitioners of the 2004-05 B.Ed. Course in the college had been seized and taken away by the Vigilance Department of the State Government. In the said interim report dated 4.7.2006, the Inspection Team, therefore, had recommended that the result of all the students of the college including the petitioners of the 2004-05 B.Ed. University Examination should not be published till the enquiry as with regard to the process of admission of the petitioners were not verified from the original documents of the College. 11. In the second interim report dated 21.7.2006, which was in continuation to the earlier report dated 4.7.2006, it was mentioned that in the list of admission of the students of the B.Ed. Course of the college, there was interpolation and changes with regard to the roll number 192 & 592 as also pasting on the application register at page 9-10 in between serial no. 79 to 104. It was also pointed out that as against serial no.49, 64, 77, 78, 192 & 225, the names of the students written earlier were struck out and in their places, other names were inserted. It was further mentioned that when the authorities of the college were asked to authenticate and declare as with regard to genuineness of the register produced by them in course of enquiry, the Vice Principal of the college, who was authorized to appear before the Committee, had declined to give any undertaking to this effect. The Committee had further referred to a communication of the Principal of the college challenging the jurisdiction of the University in the internal matter of the college who had taken a stand before the Enquiry Committee that the jurisdiction of the University was confined only to examine as to whether the admitted student had secured 45% marks in the Bachelor Examination. The Inspecting Team, therefore, had shown its inability to complete the enquiry entrusted to it. 12. In the third inspection report dated 25.7.2006, the Inspecting Committee, having found that there was definite interpolation in the records of the college as with regard to the admission of the petitioners, inasmuch as, in the application register, their names were inserted at serial no. 125 Wazda Tabassum, 192 Md. Abdul Hakim, 232 Sayed Sadik Akhtar, 282 Vimal Pd. Mandal, 298 Kumari Rakhi Mandal, 300 Md. Alam and 592 Savita Verma and as such, it had recommended for withholding of their result. 125 Wazda Tabassum, 192 Md. Abdul Hakim, 232 Sayed Sadik Akhtar, 282 Vimal Pd. Mandal, 298 Kumari Rakhi Mandal, 300 Md. Alam and 592 Savita Verma and as such, it had recommended for withholding of their result. From the same report, it appears that the Vice Chancellor on perusal of the report had passed an order dated 27.7.2006 that the result of the seven candidates i.e. the petitioners should be withheld and the result of the rest of the students of the college should be published. 13. As noted above the whole matter was placed before the Examination Board which on the basis of the findings recorded in the aforementioned three reports of the Committee had cancelled their candidature of the petitioners which automatically brought curtains to the petitioners' claim for declaration of their B.Ed. result. 14. When this supplementary counter affidavit was filed, the petitioners had filed I.A. No. 5882 of 2008, wherein, the following additional prayers were made:- “(i) For quashing the enquiry report dated 4.7.2006, 21.7.2006 and 25.7.2006 submitted by two men enquiry Committee who recommended to withhold the result of the petitioners as contained in Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit filed by the University. (ii) For quashing the Agenda No.4 of the proceeding of the Meeting of the Examination Board held on 8.8.2006 whereby candidature of the petitioners have been rejected and hence the publication of result does not arises as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the University.” 15. Along with the interlocutory application, the petitioners had enclosed the admit card of the petitioners for their appearing in the entrance test for their admission in the college in the B.Ed. Course 2004-05 and from that, it would transpire that they were issued on two dates with the different application numbers and enrollment number which can be appreciated in a better manner if they are put in a tabular form:- Petitioner Name Application Enrollment Center Date of No. No. No. Issuance of admit card 1 Sayed Sadik Akhter 007 232 Bahera 26.8.2004 2 Mohammad Abdul 1465 292 College 28.8.2004 Hakim Campus 3 Md. Alam 1498 300 28.8.2004 4 Kumari Rakhi 1500 298 College 28.8.2004 Mandal Campus 5 Vimal Prasad Mandal 1497 296 28.8.2004 6 Wazda Tabassum 1194 125 College 26.8.2004 Campus 7 Smita Verma 882/Pc 882 Ideal Children 27.8.2004 High School, Tarkeshwar Path, Chiraiyatar, 16. Alam 1498 300 28.8.2004 4 Kumari Rakhi 1500 298 College 28.8.2004 Mandal Campus 5 Vimal Prasad Mandal 1497 296 28.8.2004 6 Wazda Tabassum 1194 125 College 26.8.2004 Campus 7 Smita Verma 882/Pc 882 Ideal Children 27.8.2004 High School, Tarkeshwar Path, Chiraiyatar, 16. The Principal of the college respondent no.4, however, had filed his separate counter affidavit on 28.2.2009 wherein it has been stated that 1282 students including the petitioners had applied for admission in B.Ed. Course of the college for 2004-05 sessions and out of them, 1110 had appeared in the entrance test held on 29.8.2004. He has further stated that of the 1110 candidates who had appeared in the entrance test, only 150 including the petitioners had qualified and their names were included in the merit list. He has also stated that the name of the petitioner nos. 1, 6 & 7 was included in the merit list published on 2.9.2004 whereas the names of petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 were not included in the second merit list published on 7.9.2004 whereafter they were admitted. In paragraph no. 14, the Principal on his own had volunteered to submit the answer book of the entrance test, marks foils submitted by the examiner, original cross/result chart of all the applicants including the petitioners and admission register. 17. In view of paragraph no.14 of the counter affidavit of the Principal of the college as also had a prima-facie perusal of the documents appended in the counter affidavit filed by the Principal, this Court by an order dated 25.7.2009 had directed the Principal to produce the relevant documents but the Principal of the college for one reason or the other did not produce them and had taken a plea that the original copy thereof has already been submitted to the University and the University having retained a few of them had only returned the rest. The University on its part, however, had denied to have retained any original document of the college and in this regard had filed its affidavit that the college right from beginning was not submitting the original documents. As a matter of fact, when after a period of more than a year some Photostat copies of the documents were filed in this court, they were directed to be kept under sealed cover. 18. As a matter of fact, when after a period of more than a year some Photostat copies of the documents were filed in this court, they were directed to be kept under sealed cover. 18. From their perusal, it however became clear that things were not in order, inasmuch as, all important answer books of the petitioners being the proof of their appearing in the entrance examination was not produced. Though, the Principal had produced the cross-list of B.Ed. entrance test of 1282 students who had applied for the admission in the course but on a first look it was found that there is only mention of enrollment number whereas in the result sheet, there is reference to roll number. The enrollment number also given to all the candidates, as shown in the cross-list, was in four figures, namely, 0001 to 1282 but the admit cards produced by the petitioners as with regard to the entrance examination not only contains the application number up to 1500 but also the result of the B.Ed. test produced by them go to show such roll numbers were only in three figures. A bare comparison of the documents produced by the petitioners and the Principal had also gone to show that there is no uniformity in preparation of the merit list which is both typed and hand written (that too in different inks). What makes the entire thing suspicious is that the Principal of the college has produced the application form of the petitioners wherein the application number has been filled up by hand. 19. It also becomes clear from perusal of the Admit Card of the entrance examination of the petitioners that in some of them, the course, date of entrance test and the center as also the signature of Principal was fixed with rubber stamp while in others it was filled up by hand. Again in the case of the petitioner no.3 Md. Alam and petitioner no.5 Vimal Prasad Mandal, neither the course nor the entrance test on nor the center was filled up. What is still surprising is that the application no. 882/PC with enrolment number also as 882 and the center for examination being Idle Children High School, Tarkeshwar Path, Chiraiyatar, Patna. It may be noted that for rest of the six petitioners, it is claimed that their centre was in the college at Bahera itself. What is still surprising is that the application no. 882/PC with enrolment number also as 882 and the center for examination being Idle Children High School, Tarkeshwar Path, Chiraiyatar, Patna. It may be noted that for rest of the six petitioners, it is claimed that their centre was in the college at Bahera itself. The petitioners have also enclosed the result of the entrance rest wherein it would appear that on 2.9.2004, two merit lists one for muslim minority category and other for the general category merit list was published with a waiting list whereafter on 7.9.2004, another waiting list no.2 was published for both the Muslim minority category and the general category. Most of the petitioners’ claim to be covered by the result dated 7.9.2004 which also contains cutting by way of printed 292 changed by serial no.192. There is also no explanation as to whether the entire waiting list published on 2.9.2004 had already been exhausted necessiting publication of second waiting list. 20. Another revealing feature of the application as contained in Annexure-A series of the petitioners is that there is no justification of allotment of enrollment number, inasmuch as, the application of the petitioner no.6 submitted on 25.8.2004 has been given enrollment number 125 whereas an application filed by the petitioner Smita Verma on 21.8.2004 has been given enrollment number 882. Similarly, the application of Vimal Prasad Mandal submitted on 24.8.2004 has been given enrollment number 296 whereas the application submitted by Md. Abdul Hakim has been given enrollment number 192. These applications which despite repeated demands of the Inspecting Team of the University was not produced before the competent authorities holding inspection would, therefore, not inspire confidence as with regard to the projected case of the Principal of the college that everything at the time of submission of the application and holding entrance test was done in a fair and objective manner. To that extent, there has been specific averments on behalf of the University in paragraph no.4 of the supplementary counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated as follows:- “4. ------------- The Enquiry Committee in its final report dt. 25.7.06 has clearly mentioned the name of two petitioners namely Md. Abdul Hakim and Savita Verma (petitioner no. 2 and 7) do not find place in the selection list of the college concerned. Besides the application of the candidates appearing entrance examination, Roll nos. ------------- The Enquiry Committee in its final report dt. 25.7.06 has clearly mentioned the name of two petitioners namely Md. Abdul Hakim and Savita Verma (petitioner no. 2 and 7) do not find place in the selection list of the college concerned. Besides the application of the candidates appearing entrance examination, Roll nos. 125, 232, 282, 298 and 300 have been manipulated by inserting their names in lieu of other appearing candidates which would also be evident from Annexure-H of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5. The said matter was placed before the Examination Board at its meeting held on 8.8.06 vide Agenda no.4 and the Examination Board resolved that considering the report of the Enquiry Committee, candidatures of 7 students as mentioned above, have been found unlawful as their admission taken by the college was not found as per norms and even the admission records were found tampered with cases of insertions. Therefore, the examination Board rejected the candidature of the seven students and was of the opinion that question of publication of results did not arise. It is submitted that, had the University been biased, the results of the remaining 141 out of 148 students would not have been published.” 21. When these conflicting claims were made by the management of the college represented by respondent no.4 and the authorities of the college in their respective counter affidavit, this Court having regard to the fact that it is the National Council for Technical Education (NCTE) which had given recognition to the college and was under the bounden duty to ensure that the admission of the students as per its Regulations has been made in a correct and legal manner, had directed the Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, NCTE to hold an enquiry as with regard to the admission procedure undergone by the college in the case of the petitioners. It has to be noted that under the regulation framed by the NCTE, not only the intake eligibility and admission procedure has been prescribed but there is also a complete control of NCTE over such institutions. It has to be noted that under the regulation framed by the NCTE, not only the intake eligibility and admission procedure has been prescribed but there is also a complete control of NCTE over such institutions. In the regulation framed by the NCTE, admission procedure has been laid down as follows:- “(3) Admission Procedure Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the policy of the State Government/U.T. Administration and the University.” 22. Thus, under the orders of this Court dated 27.4.2011, the NCTE vide its resolution in the meeting held on 8th to 10th June, 2011 had resolved as follows:- “The matter was placed before the Committee in connection with CWJC No. 10607 of 2006 Sayed Sadik Akhter & Others Vs. L.N. Mithila University & Others. The Committee has gone through the Judgment dated 27.4.2011 given by Hon’ble High Court of Patna. As this is related to seven students (Sayed Sadik Akhter and others) of S.M. Zaheer Alam Teachers Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga (Bihar) and the L.N. Mithila University, Kameshwaranagar, Darbhanga (Bihar) regarding dispute on publication of results of those students by L.N. Mithila University, it was decided that the following visiting team experts associated with NCTE be constituted for making enquiry on the above said matter as directed by Hon’ble High Court. (1) Prof. K.M. Lahiri, West Bengal. (2) Shri S.N. Kumar, Officer of Bihar Education Service in Govt. of Bihar. “The above team shall find out the correctness or otherwise of the allegation relating to alleged malpractice committed by the college in question S.M. Zaheer Alam Teacher’s Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga.” All relevant records shall be sent to the aforesaid expert members for their reference. The date and time of the enquiry will be fixed by the expert members after mutual consent and information to this effect shall be intimated to the University as well institution. However the report of the same shall be submitted to the ERC, NCTE at an early date so as to place the same before the Hon’ble High Court immediately. In the meantime, NCTE shall move Hon’ble High Court for extension of time of minimum two months. The concerned institution and the affiliating university be informed to facilitate the Enquiry Committee in the enquiry process.” 23. In the meantime, NCTE shall move Hon’ble High Court for extension of time of minimum two months. The concerned institution and the affiliating university be informed to facilitate the Enquiry Committee in the enquiry process.” 23. The NCTE had subsequently filed its affidavit enclosing the enquiry report relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “An enquiry report submitted by the members of the visiting team of N.C.T.E. consisting of Dr. S.N. Kumar and Prof. K.M. Lahiri constituted by N.C.T.E. in the light of judgment of Hon’ble High Court, Patna in CWJC No. 10607 of 2006 vide N.C.T.E. letter no. ERC/7-118(iii.3) 2011/7754 dated 17 June 2011). Both the members attended the meeting at ERC Bhuvaneshwar on 24 June 2011 convened by Chairperson and Regional Director of ERC N.C.T.E., Bhuvaneshwar to appraise the members regarding the aforesaid dispute as ordered by Hon’ble High Court, Patna dated 27.04.2011. The Chair Person and the R.D. discussed the above case in detail with these two members and they have directed us to enquire these dispute to establish its genuineness or truthfulness by enquiring with the L.N. Mithila University as well as the concerned college i.e. S.M. Zaheer Alam Teachers Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga. Accordingly we visited to enquire the above facts with the college on and from 11 July to 15 July 2011. On the very date the college authority including Secretary, Joint Secretary, Chairman, Vice Principal and Principal of the College were reluctant to co-operate with us and mentioned some unceremonious words against N.C.T.E. as well as the university and the Hon’ble High Court Judge too. But in actuality on verification it was revealed that they were in fault regarding the admission procedure as well as sending college records on several dates in place of one time. Selling of college application form, Receiving college application form as well as seriality of answer books were found not in order. Further it is found that some impersonification have been found in the selling of application forms i.e. one person has purchased an application form within stipulated time but that form was filled by another candidate who have not been bought even the application form in stipulated time. The authority of the college admitted the facts before us on 15th July 2011. The authority of the college admitted the facts before us on 15th July 2011. In addition we have found the attendance register of the students of 2004-05 session were not in order i.e. in the attendance register only roll numbers of the candidates were seen while the column of the names of the students were left vacant. It appears that some ulterior motives of the college authority have been felt. We have requested them to keep it in order so that any one may not raise any objection against the institution. It was reported by the college authority that the present session i.e. 2011-12 has been commenced on and from 7th July 2011. But we are sorry to state that we have not noticed any student in the classroom as well as in the open space inside the campus. Moreover as per our written request and verbal request to produce the relevant records of the preceding and succeeding session of the concerned session i.e. 2004-05. The college authority did not produce the relevant records besides the concerned session of 2004-05. We have also visited the concerned L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga from 12.07.11 to 15.07.11 and enquired the mater with the high officials of the university viz the Vice-chancellor, the Registrar, Controller of Examination and the members of the then enquiry committee of the University. They have cooperated with us in all possible ways to sort out the dispute amicably. We have placed the relevant records with the university authorities the above dispute from 2006 to 2011 by elaborating the different orders of the Hon’ble High Court from time to time and we are able to convince them that this dispute may not run in perennial form i.e. non-ending process and so they sat with us on and from 12-07-11 to 15-07-11 and at last the Hon’ble Vice-chancellor took special interest in the matter to solve the problem for ever. Because the university has convened the special and emergent meeting of Examination Board of the university to solve this problem permanently. On 15-07-2011 they have informed the decision of the University i.e. the publication of the result of the seven candidates of 2004-05 session within a week by submitting the relevant resolutions of the University (which is enclosed as an annexure-1 to 4) In pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court order dt. On 15-07-2011 they have informed the decision of the University i.e. the publication of the result of the seven candidates of 2004-05 session within a week by submitting the relevant resolutions of the University (which is enclosed as an annexure-1 to 4) In pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court order dt. 27-04-11, hereby we are submitting our above mentioned findings with the N.C.T.E., Bhubneshwar for information and necessary action pl.” 24. As noted above, repeated hurdles were created by the authorities of the College in course of visit of Inspection Team of NCTE and the Regional Director, on perusal of the said inspection report, had accordingly recorded as follows:- “On verification of records it was found that they were in fault regarding the following points: o Admission procedures o Sending college records on several dates in place of one time o Selling of college application forms. o Receiving college application forms. o Serial no. of answer books not in order. o Application form purchased by one candidate and filled and submitted by another candidate. o Attendance register of the students of 2004-2005 section were not in order, only Roll numbers of the students without their names were mentioned in the register. o The academic session commenced since 7th July 2007 but no student in the class room and in the campus was seen. o The college did not produce any relevant record except the concerned session of 2004-2005.” 25. With the aforementioned findings, the Regional Director, NCTE had gone to record his following observations and conclusions:- “Comments: Taking the above facts into consideration, the following points are observed: 1. The institution during the admission process committed gross irregularities and admitted seven students unlawfully. 2. Since the Institution neither cooperated with the inquiry committee of the NCTE nor with the inquiry committee of the University by not providing the required documents sought for the required documents related to admission of the students for the session 2004-05, it violated the clause 14 of the Regulation- 2009 which states as follows: “The institution shall make the information or documents available to the National Council for Teacher Education or its authorized representatives as and when required by them. Failure to produce or show any of the required documents, shall be treated as a breach of the conditions of recognition”. 3. Failure to produce or show any of the required documents, shall be treated as a breach of the conditions of recognition”. 3. On the basis of the above facts, this also appears that the institution has violated clause 15 of the NCTE regulation- 2009 by not maintaining records, registers and other documents properly which are essential for running of an educational institutions. The regulations says as follows: “The Institution shall maintain records or registers and other documents etc., which are essential for running of an educational Institution especially those prescribed in the relevant norms and standards and guidelines or instructions or rules etc., of the Central or State or Union Territory Governments, affiliating or examining bodies”. 4. Instead of facilitating the inquiry committees of the ERC/University, the institution’s authority misbehaved with them which is ethically immoral and any law does not permit to do so. 5. Hence it is prima-faci contravention of provisions of the NCTE Act/Regulation.” (underlining for emphasis) 26. The NCTE in its affidavit has also explained that pursuant thereto the report of the Enquiry Committee and the observations of the Regional Director, NCTE were placed before the Board of NCTE and the following decision was taken:- “The original file of the institution viz-a-viz provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules, Regulations and guidelines issued by NCTE-HQrs from time to time were considered by ERC. The Committee noted that as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court Patna, ERC has constituted an enquiry Committee consisting of two experts Dr. S.N. Kumar & Dr. K.M. Lahiri. They had submitted their report which was vetted by the Regional Director as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court. As per the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Patna the report as well as all the relevant enclosures may be sent to concerned Learned Counsel to place the matter before the Hon’ble Court, Patna. The ERC also decides that basing on the report of the enquiry Committee, the institution be issued Show Cause Notice u/s 17 on violation of Section 8(14) & 8(15) of the NCTE Regulations 2009, which reads as under:- 8(14): The institution shall make the information or documents available to the National Council for Teacher Education or its authorized representatives as and when required by them. Failure to produce or show any of the required documents, shall be treated as a breach of the conditions of recognition. Failure to produce or show any of the required documents, shall be treated as a breach of the conditions of recognition. 8(15): The institution shall maintain records or registers and other documents etc which are essential for running of an educational institution especially those prescribed in the relevant norms and standards and guidelines or instructions or rules etc of the Central or State or Union Territory Governments, affiliating or examining bodies.” The institution shall submit the above details/clarification alongwith all necessary documents accompanied with an Affidavit in support of reply of the above points. Hence the ERC decides to seek above details/clarification under section 17 of the NCTE Act on the above points and direct the institution to submit the reply as per provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules & Regulations within 21 days.” 27. It also appears that thereafter on 12th August, 2011, a show-cause notice was issued to the Secretary of the college directing the authorities of the college to submit its show-cause reply. 28. Surprisingly, in the aforesaid affidavit of the NCTE, a letter of the Controller of the Examination was enclosed wherein the members of the Enquiry Committee constituted by the NCTE, when they had asked for certain documents from the University, an information was given to them that the Examination Board in its meeting held on 15.7.2011 had resolved to publish the result of all the seven students, the petitioners of this case. Along with the said communication of the Controller of the Examination, the resolution of the Examination Board was enclosed. 29. In view of the aforesaid changed stand of the University, which had already brought on record not only three inspections report of the Committee but also its decision dated 8.8.2006 as discussed above but had also opposed the prayer of the petitioners for declaration of result of the petitioners on the ground of their cancellation of candidature this Court on 3.8.2011 had passed a reasoned order wherein apart from other things, the Vice Chancellor of the University was directed to show-cause as to why he should not be now saddled with payment of exemplary amount of damages to the petitioners for the inordinate delay in publication of their result. This Court had also directed the authorities of the College to file their show-cause reply in response to the allegations made by the members of the NCTE. 30. This Court had also directed the authorities of the College to file their show-cause reply in response to the allegations made by the members of the NCTE. 30. In the show-cause reply filed by the Principal of the college, all the insinuation made against the authorities of the college by the members of the NCTE was denied while the University in its show-cause reply had relied on an order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.10.2009 in CWJC No. 17281 of 2008 for taking a decision for publication of the result, wherein, it was held as follows:- “Once a candidate has been permitted to appear at the examination, the procedural lapse on the part of the University cannot prejudice the students. The University heard cannot be heard now to say that even though the fault lay as its door, the candidate must suffer. The Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 376 has held that once the authorities have permitted the candidate to appear at the examination any procedural lapses become irrelevant and the institution is bound to publish the result.” 31. As a matter of fact, the two members of the Inspecting Team of NCTE had also thereafter filed their separate counter affidavit wherein apart from the other things, it was stated as follows:- “10. The statement, which has come from the Principal of the institution that the visiting team has inspected the institution only on 15 of august after noon, is not correct. the visiting team had been there at the institution on 11th August 201 at about 9.30 A.M. and prior to that an information had also been given to the authority concerned albeit the visiting team be permitted to go into the premises at about 11 AM and it is fact that the inspecting team has tried their best to see all the records of the institution for the compliance of the order of the Hon’ble court and to that effect a written request was made to the principal to furnish the document. 11. 11. That the principal of the college was pleased to give an information that record of the institution is with the Hon’ble court and they are not in a position to produce the record and to that effect the principal had given a written information dated 11.07.2011 address to myself and K.lahiri which shows the presence of the inspecting team in the college premises on 11.07.2011.” 32. In paragraph no.14, the member of the Inspecting Team of NCTE had also stated as follows:- “---------But in actuality on verification it was revealed that they were in fault regarding the admission procedure as well as sending college records on several dates in place of one time. Selling of college application form, Receiving college application form as well as serially arrangement of answer books were found not in order.” (underlining for emphasis) 33. The aforesaid affidavit sworn by Sri S.N. Kumar, a member of the Inspecting Team constituted by the NCTE was further reiterated in the affidavit of another member Sri Kiranmay Lahiri by filing his separate affidavit. In presence of these materials, when this Court had found that the Controlling Body, namely, NCTE having itself come to a conclusion that the authority of the college were at fault in admitting the petitioners right from the stage of selling of college application form as also receiving those applications and not serially arranged the answer books, this Court had required the Vice Chancellor of the University to submit his explanation as with regard to the change of decision by the University superseding earlier resolution of the Examination Board dated 8.8.2006 in the matter of withholding of the result of the petitioner and cancellation of their candidature. 34. 34. The Vice Chancellor in his affidavit had taken a plea that such result were published on the advice of the members of the NCTE and that having regard to the materials on record, he had examined the matter and had considered the relevant factors and is of the view that the result of the petitioners had been published by mistake and their result should not have been published and, therefore, he had decided to withdraw/cancel the publication of result of the petitioners immediately after fulfilling the procedure i.e. by bring the decision before the Examination Board rectifying the mistake which the Examination Board had conducted in its meeting dated 15.7.2011 by publishing the result of the writ petitioners. In this regard, it would be useful to quote the order of this Court dated 20.9.2011, which reads as follows:- “Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned Senior counsel now appearing on behalf of L.N.Mithila University and its Vice Chancellor, has submitted a supplementary affidavit, paragraph 26 whereof gives an indication that the University is going to reconsider its decision as with regard to declaration of result of the petitioners. Mr. Giri further submits that in this affidavit filed today the University has projected the whole picture as to how a mistake was committed in declaration of result of the petitioners and that the University proposes to amend its action. Mr. Faiz Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would react to the said stand of the University by taking a plea that only when this Court had issued a notice to the Vice Chancellor to show cause as to why the petitioners should not be compensated for the delay caused in declaration of the result, that such action has been proposed to be taken now again questioning the manner of declaration of result of the petitioners. He would accordingly submit that the University has been changing its view and is not seriously applying itself to the issue in hand. Mr. S.N.Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NCTE and its two members, who had conducted the enquiry in compliance of the directions of this Court, has filed two counter affidavits, one by Mr. S.N.Kumar and other by Mr. Mr. S.N.Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NCTE and its two members, who had conducted the enquiry in compliance of the directions of this Court, has filed two counter affidavits, one by Mr. S.N.Kumar and other by Mr. Kiranmay Lahiri, wherein it has been specifically alleged that when the inspecting team went on 11th July, 2011 and has asked for a number of documents, the Principal of the College had taken a specific plea that such records are in custody of the High Court and would be produced as soon as they are made available to them. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary learned counsel appearing on behalf of the College and its Principal, however, when asked as to whether the documents requisitioned by the two members of the Committee on 11.7.2011 were in custody of the Court, would request for adjourning this case so that he can have full instructions in the matter. Inasmuch the issue of non- cooperation by the management of minority College and particularly its Principal would not only get limited to obstruction to the enquiry but also directly causing impediment in carrying out the orders of this Court and hence, making them liable to contempt proceeding, this court would accede to the request of Mr. Choudhary and would give an indulgence to the Principal of the College to file a clear reply affidavit by 12.10.2011 as with regard to the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed by the two members of the Committee in the Court today. List this case on 13th October, 2011 at the same position.” 35. Followed by the aforesaid affidavit, the University has filed second counter affidavit enclosing an order dated 3.10.2011, whereby and whereunder, it has taken a decision to withdraw the result of the petitioners as would be apparent from reading of Annexure-B:- “OFFICE-ORDER In the light of the advice of the Examination Board vide additional item no-01 of its meeting dated 30.09.2011, the Vice-Chancellor, after careful consideration of the legal status as well as available materials on records, has been pleased to withdraw the result of the following seven examinees of B.Ed. Examination, 2005 of the session 2004-05 of S.M.Z.A. Teachers Training College, Bahera published on 25.07.2011 and issued under memo no- XC/13319/11 dated 25.07.2011:- Sl. Name of the University Name of the College No. Examinees Examination 1. Sayed Sadik 843 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 S.M.Z.A. T.T. College, Bahera 2. Examination, 2005 of the session 2004-05 of S.M.Z.A. Teachers Training College, Bahera published on 25.07.2011 and issued under memo no- XC/13319/11 dated 25.07.2011:- Sl. Name of the University Name of the College No. Examinees Examination 1. Sayed Sadik 843 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 S.M.Z.A. T.T. College, Bahera 2. Wajda Tabassum 819 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 Do 3. Md. Abdul 792 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 Do Hakim 4. Bimal Prasad 821 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 Do Mandal 5. Kumari Rakhi 720 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 Do Mandal 6. Md. Alam 783 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 Do 7. Smita Verma 836 B.Ed. Exam, 2005 Do Consequently, the results published and issued under memo no. XC/13319/11 dated 25.07.2011 in respect of above noted seven examinees of B.Ed. Exam of 2005 of S.M.Z.A. Teachers Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga are withdrawn with retrospective effect. Sd./- (M.M. Pandey) Controller of Examinations Memo No. Conf. Exam 572-84 Date 3/10/2011” 36. After the aforesaid affidavit was filed and the authorities of the college had found that they had stood exposed by giving a false statement to the members of the NCTE as with regard to the documents being demanded by them for enquiry to be in possession of this Court, an effort was made by the Principal of the college to get this case transferred from this bench for which an I.A. No. 6849 of 2011 was filed on 17.10.2011. However, when no order was passed on such transfer petition, this Court after hearing the parties on 24.10.2011 had reserved the judgment. It is on record that such transfer petition filed by Respondent no. 4 the Principal of the College was later on dismissed. 37. Having given the brief survey of the proceedings of this case, this Court is shocked to find that the educational institutions i.e. both the University and the college have been functioning in a very casual and cavallier manner. The University, on its own part having taken a clear stand that the candidature of the petitioners had already been cancelled in view of the decision of the Examination Board dated 8.8.2006 had subsequently sought to become benevolent on account of change of the Vice Chancellor. The new Vice Chancellor also found the report of NCTE and an order of this Court even in a different case as an excuse for reversing the order of the earlier Examination Board dated 8.8.2006. The new Vice Chancellor also found the report of NCTE and an order of this Court even in a different case as an excuse for reversing the order of the earlier Examination Board dated 8.8.2006. As a matter of fact even when nothing had happened in between five years so as to make the petitioners bonafide candidate and fit for declaration of their result a tainted decision was taken by the University and its Vice Chancellor on 15.7.2011 by way of declaring the result of the petitioners. In fact, when this Court wanted to saddle an exemplary cost on the Vice Chancellor for delaying the decision in declaration of the result of the petitioners, he had found it difficult to stick to his stand and came out with an explanation that it was due to oversight and lack of knowledge on his part that a decision had been taken by him for publication of result. 38. This Court is literally amazed at the manner in which the University and the college have been functioning. Initially, it was the University which in its wisdom had constituted a Committee on 9.2.2006 of two Dean Faculties of Education and Commerce along with Examination Controller as its convener and on the basis of the three reports had taken a firm decision to not publish the result of the petitioners as their admission was made by committing forgery by way of tampering and insertion in the admission records of the college. Such decision of the Examination Board in its meeting held on 8.8.2006 quoted above was not capable of being reviewed specially when the matter was pending before this Court and the N.C.T.E. was still holding enquiry as has been explained earlier in this judgment. 39. This Court does not find the explanation of the Vice Chancellor of the Mithila University convincing that he got misled because of non-production of relevant records or the earlier affidavits filed in this case before him inasmuch as, he had joined the post of Vice Chancellor only in the year 2010. His further plea that there was an order of the learned Single Judge as quoted above which made him to review the decision of the Examination Board dated 8.8.2006 is equally misconceived because in that case, there was no question of any forgery and change of records. His further plea that there was an order of the learned Single Judge as quoted above which made him to review the decision of the Examination Board dated 8.8.2006 is equally misconceived because in that case, there was no question of any forgery and change of records. In any event, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 as referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge was not to be made applicable in all such cases as has already been explained by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Lalit Narain Mithila University (F.B.) reported in 1987 PLJR 591, wherein it was held as follows:- 6. One may now revert to the uncontroverted factual matrix that emerges herein. The L.N. Mishras Teachers' Training College, of which the petitioners purport to be students, is more a fiction than a fact because of the repeated stand of the respondent University that no such institution exists. By a fraudulent collusion with the Principal of the Government Teachers' Training College, Saharsa, the names of the petitioners and others so similarly situated were inveigled in by masquerading them as the ex-students of the Government Teachers' Training College, Saharsa. On this fraudulent basis, admit cards for the petitioners and other purported students of L.N. Mishra Teachers' Training College were secured and the petitioners and others sat in the examination. The respondent University however, when it discovered the fraud, forthrightly declined to allow the petitioners and others to take advantage of their own wrong and did not declare the result. On this factual position, the issue is whether the petitioners can claim the relief of a writ of mandamus for the declaration of their result. 7. Now the sheet-anchor of the learned counsel for the petitioners stand was that the University had rightly or wrongly issued the admit cards to the petitioners on the basis of which they had taken the examination, and, therefore, the respondent University could not retrace its steps and was estopped from questioning its fraudulent nature. It was contended that due to the negligence of the University's employees in issuing the admit cards and permitting the petitioners to take the examination the matter had become sacrosanct and cannot be reversed. 8. It was contended that due to the negligence of the University's employees in issuing the admit cards and permitting the petitioners to take the examination the matter had become sacrosanct and cannot be reversed. 8. To my mind, the submission aforesaid is untenable on principle and precedent. There cannot possibly be any legal estoppel resting on fraudulent representation or sharp practice. It has been rightly said as a hallowed rule that fraud vitiates everything. For the petitioners to contend that by virtue of a fraudulent collusion with the Principal of the Government Teachers' Training College, Saharsa and the dubious and under-hand securing of the admit cards they have laid foundation of a legal or equitable estoppel in their favour appears to me as an argument utterly unwarranted. 9. It would be wasteful to elaborate the issue on principle because it appears to be covered by a precedent of long standing within this jurisdiction with which I would unreservedly agree. The virtually identical point was raised and categorically repelled by a strong Division Bench presided over by S.K. Das, J., (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in the following words in Prasun Kumar v. Governing Body of Raja Sivaprasad College, Jharia, AIR 1954 Pat 486 :- "The next point that has been raised by the learned Counsel is the point of estoppel, and the basis for this contention is the issue of Admit Cards by the University. The learned counsel has contended that the University is now estopped from contending that the petitioners were not entitled to sit at the examination because they had issued Admit Cards to them, and he has further submitted that this Court should grant the writ 'ex debito justitiae', because the principles of natural justice have been violated. It is, however, to be noted that the issue of Admit Cards was only a ministerial act of an officer of the University. There could be no presumption that the college had been granted affiliation up to the I.Sc. standard, and nobody could act on such assumption without ascertaining the true facts, the true facts being that no affiliation had been granted or announced. The issue of the Admit Cards could, therefore, create no estoppel against the University. If there had been no affiliation according to law then acts done in ignorance or on account of carelessness or inadvertence could create no estoppel. The issue of the Admit Cards could, therefore, create no estoppel against the University. If there had been no affiliation according to law then acts done in ignorance or on account of carelessness or inadvertence could create no estoppel. A representation or admission on matter of law cannot constitute any basis for estoppel. When the statute says that it is only the senate which can grant affiliation, recommendation by Inspectors and Correspondence, and personal talks with the Vice-Chancellor and even the careless issue of Admit Cards cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting a writ under Art.226, of the Constitution of India." 40. In the present case also, once this becomes clear in view of the three reports of the authorities of the University and the report of the two members of the NCTE had shown that the admission of the petitioners was obtained by interpolation of records and changes made by erasing the names of the original applicants, there would be no difficulty in holding that the fraud committed by the petitioners in collusion with the college authorities would not entitle them to raise the question of estoppel, an aspect which was considered by the Full Bench of this case in the case of the same L.N. Mithila University in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh (supra). 41. As a matter of fact, this Court has itself gone into the photocopies of some of the documents including application and entrance test registers of the college as also the individual application forms including that of the petitioners and though they are wholly in sufficient to reach to any final conclusion in absence the other documents withheld so far by the authorities of the college, this much becomes evident that the names of the petitioners were inserted against some of the applicants who had not appeared in the entrance examination. It would not however like to hold anything more for the present inasmuch as the entire issue is pending enquiry of N.C.T.E. One thing however is very clear that the College authorities, have not produced the answer books of the entrance test including those of the seven petitioners either before the authorities of the University or N.C.T.E. or this Court. It would not however like to hold anything more for the present inasmuch as the entire issue is pending enquiry of N.C.T.E. One thing however is very clear that the College authorities, have not produced the answer books of the entrance test including those of the seven petitioners either before the authorities of the University or N.C.T.E. or this Court. The way in which entire tabulation of marks of entrance test has also been shown to have been done containing a lot of cuttings and in different ink by itself would also not inspire confidence but, then, this Court would not like to draw any adverse inference on the basis of the incomplete records for the present inasmuch as, the NCTE, after issuing the show-cause notice as noted above, is said to be holding its enquiry. Such enquiry as with regard to the admission of the students in the college including that of the petitioners and/or teaching work undertaken in the college may have some serious repercussion in the matter of continued recognition of the College and therefore it would not be prudent on the part of this Court to give any conclusive finding against the authorities of the college in the matter of taking admission of these seven petitioners. 42. As far as the declaration of the result of the petitioners of the B.Ed. Examination is concerned, the same could not have been declared by the University only because they had been issued Admit Card and appeared in the University examination. In this regard, it has been noted that the enquiry was already going on since February, 2006 when the University had constituted the Committee and thus when the petitioners were issued provisional Admit Cards for the examination to be held in the month of March and April, 2006 they cannot claim any right for declaration of their result specially when the competent authority of the University namely the Examination Board headed by the Vice Chancellor on 8.8.2006 on the basis of findings of the three enquiry reports had taken a decision to cancel their candidature. In any event in view of the three reports of the University and the enquiry report of N.C.T.E. as discussed above there would be no difficulty in holding that the admission of the petitioners being vitiated by fraud and interpolation in the records of the College both the decision of the University dated 8.8.2006 and 3.10.2011 for withholding the result and cancelling the candidature of the petitioners does not suffer from any infirmity. 43. As with regard to the submission of the college authorities that the college was a minority college and, therefore, the University had no role to play in examining the admission of the petitioners taken in the college, it has to be noted that the college is affiliated to the University and examinations are being conducted by the University. The University, therefore, has every reason to look into the eligibility of the candidates who are being sent up by the college for appearing in the University examination. True it is that the college has received the recognition of NCTE but even the NCTE authorizes the University to ensure that the provision made in the regulation for admission and teaching in the B.Ed. Course is followed in letter and spirit. 44. The impression of the authorities of the college that the only thing the University could have seen as to whether the students had secured 45% marks at the time of their admission is also wholly incorrect both on fact and in law. The authorities of University were required to be satisfied that the students of the college were admitted in a proper manner and strictly in terms of the regulations framed by the NCTE and they had also undergone and completed the course before being sent up for appearing in the examination. This aspect of the matter as with regard to the autonomy of the minority institutions has been gone into at length in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sindhi Education Society & Anr. Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2010 (8) SCC 49 wherein it has been held as follows:- “A minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission as well as the selection of students but it has to be a fair and transparent method. Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2010 (8) SCC 49 wherein it has been held as follows:- “A minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission as well as the selection of students but it has to be a fair and transparent method. The State has the power to frame regulations which are reasonable and do not impinge upon the basic character of the minority institutions. This Court, in some of the decisions, has taken the view that the width of the rights and limitations thereof of even unaided institutions, whether run by a majority or by a minority, must conform to the maintenance of excellence and with a view to achieve the said goal indisputably, the regulations can be made by the State.” 45. Once, therefore, in view of the three reports of the University authorities and the report of the members of the NCTE, this Court has come to a finding that the admission of the petitioners in the B.Ed. Course was manipulated at the instance of the college authorities, it would essentially follow that the petitioners would not be entitled for declaration of their result. To that extent, the two orders passed by the University the first one dated 8.8.2006 and subsequent order passed by the University cancelling the result of the petitioners by an order dated 3.10.2011 does not suffer from any error. 46. Before parting with, this Court would only observe this much that when autonomy has been given to the minority institutions in the matter of administering the educational institution under Article 29 of the Constitution of India, such power is also coupled with the duty to act fairly, inasmuch as, if Article 29 and 30 are the part of the fundamental right so is the Article 14 which itself envisages fairness and transparency in the action of the authority. 47. This Court for the present would not like to say anything more and would restrain itself because a proceeding as noted above against the college has been initiated by NCTE and, therefore, all that can be stated by way of epilogue is that the respondent no.4 should not have become desperate in supporting the case of the petitioners by deliberately crossing the line of decency. The respondent no.4, being the Principal of the minority college, heads an educational institution where humility, humbleness and honesty has to be preached and practiced in the true sense of the term for attaining the goal of producing the trained teachers with high moral value and academic excellence. 48. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.