JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to grant affiliation to the newly inducted courses for the session 2011-2012. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent to conduct separate exams of rest of the students who were not permitted to seat in the exam. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner’s college is recognized and aided college and its basic motive is to impart education to women and other charitable activities according to vedic principles as propagated by the reformist movement Arya Samaj. It is further alleged that petitioner’s college has a history in providing quality education in the field of B.A. (Home Science), B.Sc. (Home Science) and P.G. Courses in Home Science and Political Science, M.Sc. (Food & Nutrition), P.G. Diploma in Nutrition and Dietetics in M.Com.- 1st Year (Self Finance Course). The petitioner’s college is aggrieved by by the action of the respondent for not granting affiliation to the newly inducted courses in M.A.(Music) and M.Com. for the year 2011-2012. 3. It is further pleaded that petitioner’s college received a letter dated 26.7.2011 from the respondent’s office in regard to extension of affiliation to the previous courses and induction of three new course in 2 the stream of B.B.A., M.A.(Music) and M.Com. for the Sessions 2011-2012. By the aforesaid letter the respondent appointed a Panel of experts for the survey of petitioner’s college for granting affiliation to new courses including the course of the petitioner’s college and the extension of affiliation for the previous courses. Thereafter survey of the petitioner’s college was conducted by team of experts on 12.8.2011 and the college was informed on 15.10.2011 that certain deficiencies were found in the new courses being conducted by the petitioner’s college for which appropriate steps were to be taken by the college after which affiliation was to be granted to the new courses. The petitioner’s college after removing all the defects informed the respondent on 21.10.2011. When the affiliation was not granted some of the students of M.A. (Music) and M.Com. approached this Hon’ble Court for getting permission to appear in examination and preferred Writ Petition No. 2566 of 2011(M/S), Km. Meenakshi Dhiman Vs. The petitioner’s college after removing all the defects informed the respondent on 21.10.2011. When the affiliation was not granted some of the students of M.A. (Music) and M.Com. approached this Hon’ble Court for getting permission to appear in examination and preferred Writ Petition No. 2566 of 2011(M/S), Km. Meenakshi Dhiman Vs. H.N.B. (Garhwal) Central University and another and also filed another Writ Petition No. 2565 of 2011 (M/S) Km. Rubia Vs. H.N.B. (Garhwal) Central University and another. The High Court vide order dated 12.12.2011 directed the university to permit the students of the college to appear in the examination. It is also alleged in para-14 of the writ petition that the respondent vide order dated 29.11.2011 had granted affiliation to the newly opened courses i.e. B.B.A., M.Com and M.A.(Music). By the said order affiliation to 30 seats in B.B.A. Course has been granted for the academic sessions 2011-2012 and further has granted affiliation to 25 seats each in M.Com. and M.A. (Music) courses from academic sessions 2012-2013 instead of academic sessions 2011-2012. By the said action the respondent has tried to spoil the one precious year of the students who were enrolled for the sessions 2011-2012. It is further pleaded that the Methodist Girls College had also applied on the same time and the respondent has granted the affiliation to the Methodist Girls Degree College on 3.11.2011 for the Sessions 2011-2012. The petitioner’s college is also entitled to get affiliation to the newly inducted courses for the sessions 2011-2012. 4. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed and along with supplementary affidavit copy of application of petitioner’s college dated 24.12.2010 and copy of order dated 12.11.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2565 of 2011 (M/S) have been filed. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent university and it is stated therein that the petitioner’s college applied late for the affiliation of new courses. The petitioner’s college applied on 24.12.2010 for affiliation of new courses for the sessions 2011-2012 and the said application of the petitioner was in violation of the Rule 13.11 of the University Statutes. Rule 13.11 says that for the affiliation of new courses the application shall be given in such a manner that it reaches to the office of the Registrar before 15th August of the previous year of the year for which the affiliation is sought. Rule 13.11 says that for the affiliation of new courses the application shall be given in such a manner that it reaches to the office of the Registrar before 15th August of the previous year of the year for which the affiliation is sought. It is further alleged in para-5 of the counter affidavit that even if inspection was done the petitioner’s institute was not having the required infrastructure for the new courses and when on 15.10.2011 the university was pointing out the deficiencies and the process of alleged affiliation was still going on, any admission done by the petitioner’s institute in the month of July 2011 were illegal as per Rule 13.10 of the University Statutes which clearly prohibits the admission of the new students before the completion of the affiliation process. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The controversy to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner’s college could be granted affiliation for the new courses of M.Com. and M.A. (Music) from the academic sessions 2011-2012. 8. By a perusal of order dated 12.12.2011, passed by this court in W.P. No. 2566(M/S) of 2011, only two students of M.Com. (Ist Semester) were permitted provisionally to appear in the examination, 2011. Rest of the students of College were not permitted provisionally to appear in the examination, as the writ petition had been filed only by two students. This fact is also clear by prayer-B in the writ petition. 9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner’s college has vehemently contended that the action of respondent university is arbitrary in not granting affiliation to the college for the academic sessions 2011-2012. He has contended that process of granting affiliation was started, inspection was made on 12-8-2011 and thereafter some deficiencies were pointed out which were removed by the College and even then the affiliation was granted only to B.B.A. Course for academic sessions 2011-2012 and for rest of courses affiliation was not granted for academic sessions 2011-2012 and it was granted for the next academic sessions 2012-2013. It is also contended that when the university entertained the application of the petitioner after prescribed period, now the university is estopped to take otherwise stand on the pretext of the regulations. 10. It is also contended that when the university entertained the application of the petitioner after prescribed period, now the university is estopped to take otherwise stand on the pretext of the regulations. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-university has contended that as per regulation 13.10 of University Statutes the petitioner’s university could not have given admission to students before the completion of the admission process and if the petitioner’s college has admitted students in the college that has been done on their own risk. The process for granting affiliation takes some time, inspection is to be made and if the deficiencies fournd there, that are to be removed by the university and only thereafter the university takes decision on the point of granting or refusing affiliation. 11. Rule 13.10 of University Statutes clearly provides that no admission could be made by the institute who applies for affiliation of new courses untill the inspection is made by Vice-Chancelor or team of experts and after inspection certificate has been issued that the institute has completed the terms and conditions required by the University. In the case at hand the inspection of petitioner’s college was made by team of experts on 12.8.2011 and the pettioner was informed on 15.10.2011 that certain deficiencies were found in the new course being conducted by the petitioner for which appropriate steps were to be taken by the petitioner and only after that affiliation was to be granted. 12. Admittedly the respondent university after inspection of petitioner’s college has written letter dated 15.10.2011 to the petitioner pointing out some deficiencies and had informed the petitioner that only after removing the deficiencies the granting of affiliation would be considered. According to petitioner’s college the informations sought by University were completed and its information was given to university vide letter dated 21.10.2011. This letter dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) simply mention that after completion of the informations sought, were being sent to University, whereas in the letter dated 15.10.2011 written by university specific kind of deficiencies were noted. There is also no certificate issued by University that the deficiencies pointed out have been rectifed. This matter remains there whether all the deficiencies pointed out by University were completed by the petitioner’s college or not. There is also no certificate issued by University that the deficiencies pointed out have been rectifed. This matter remains there whether all the deficiencies pointed out by University were completed by the petitioner’s college or not. The University vide its letter dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure No. 7) sent to the writ petition had granted affiliation to petitioners’ college for 25 seats in B.B.A. Course for the academic sessions 2011-2012 and 25 seats each in M.A.(Music) and M.Com. for the academic session 2012-2013. 13. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioner also contended that as the University had granted affiliated to petitioner’s college for B.B.A. Course for the academic sessions 2011-2012 and likewise it should have granted affiliation to M.A. (Music) and M.Com. also for the academic session 2011-2012. 14. As stated in the in foregoing paragraphs the petitioner’s college had violated regulation 13.10 of University Statutes by admitting students on its own risk prior to granting affiliation to the College by the University and if the University had granted affiliation to B.B.A. Course for the academic sessions 2011-2012, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s college cannot claim affiliation to M.A. (Music) and M.Com Courses for the academic session 2011-2012 also as a matter of right. It might be that the petitioner’s college had not completed the all formalities to grant affiliation to M.A.(Music) and M.Com. and the University did not grant affiliation to academic session 2011-2012 to these subjects and it granted affiliation to coming academic sessions 2012-2013. 15. It is also pertinent to mention here that the exams of academic session 2011-2012 would have been completed and no useful purpose would be served if the University is directed to grant affiliation for the closed session of 2011-2012. 16. For the reasons above, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. 18. Now order as to costs.