1. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 claim to be the representative body of Non-Governmental Affiliated and other Colleges in the State; whereas petitioner No. 3 claims to be the Chairman of the un-aided Atman College of Education. 2. The Bachelor of Education (for short B.Ed) Colleges in Jammu province are set up with the permission of Government and the admission for B.Ed courses is made on centralized admission process by the University of Jammu. 3. It is claimed that good number of students were available, but still intake capacity of the Colleges was not filled up by the centralized admission process of the University of Jammu. 4. The respondent No.3-Director, Colleges Development Council, University of Jammu and respondent no.4 in addition to his duties as Professor is functioning as Director, Colleges Development Council, Bhaderwah Campus of the University of Jammu. It is these two respondents who are stated to have called a meeting of the Principals of the Non- Governmental Affiliated private Colleges and have handed over a new admission-cum-registration form for the B.Ed Session 2012. The proforma has been given in two colours, which are to be submitted by the students, one at the time of submission of admission form and one at the time of submission of examination forms. Apart from the photographs and signatures, the left hand thumb impression of the candidates is also required to be affixed. According to the petititioners, putting thumb impression of the candidates is objected to by the students. 5. Picking up the thread from the said point, the petitioners have challenged the position of respondent Nos. 3 & 4, so have sought issuance of Writ of quo-warranto to declare respondent Nos. 3 & 4 as usurper of public office of Director, Colleges Development Council, University of Jammu. 6. It has been prayed that selection for appointment to the post of Director, Colleges Development Council shall be directed to be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 (i) (b) of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities, Act 1969 and to direct the respondents to constitute the Colleges Development Council and then Council to perform the functions in terms of Statute 18 (a) (b) of Chapter-II of the Statutes and Regulations of the University of Jammu. 7. It is also projected that respondent Nos. 7. It is also projected that respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have not been appointed as Director, Colleges Development Council on the recommendation of the selection Committee constituted for the purpose under Sub-Section (1) (b) of Section 36 of the Act. It is further added that the Registrar who has issued the order in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, has no authority to issue such orders and even if said order is taken to be issued under orders of Vice-Chancellor, same is not permissible even under Section 13 (4) of the University of Jammu Calendar 2010. 8. The respondents in their detailed reply have stated that University in its endeavour to fill up the post of Director, Colleges Development Council on substantive basis has already issued the Advertisement Notice way back in the year 2007 dated 8th of August 2007 and then pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 17th of September 2010 interview for the said post was held on 1st of July 2011 by selection Committee constituted by the University in this regard and the panel was also sent to the Honble Chancellor but said panel has not been returned in view of the fact that the Writ Petition was filed by one Jai Kumar and vide order dated 30th of July 2011 passed in SWP No. 1523/2011, process of selection was directed not to be finalised. 9. In view of this position, the contention of the petitioners that the University has not initiated the process for filling up the post of Director, Colleges Development Council falls to the ground. 10. The next contention is that the Registrar was not competent to issue the order dated 31st of October 2011 to ask the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to function as Director, Colleges Development Council, University of Jammu and to function as Director of Bhaderwah Campus of the University. The said submission is without any substance because in the order it is recorded as By order The contention that such order could not be issued by the Vice Chancellor is also without substance because the post of Director, Colleges Development Council could not be permitted to remain vacant. The said submission is without any substance because in the order it is recorded as By order The contention that such order could not be issued by the Vice Chancellor is also without substance because the post of Director, Colleges Development Council could not be permitted to remain vacant. The position as noticed above i.e., the selection process is forestalled in view of the matter being subjudice in the Court in another petition therefore, an emergency situation arose which was to be taken care of by the Vice Chancellor and rightly recourse to Section 13 (4) of Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 has been resorted to. Sub Section 4 of Section 13 of the said Act, reads as under: (4). The Vice-Chancellor may take action as he deems necessary in any emergency which, in his opinion, calls for immediate action. He shall in such a case and as soon as may be thereafter, report his action to the officer, authority or other body of the University concerned who or which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter. 11. Furthermore in terms of Sub-Section 7 of the said Section the Vice-Chancellor is to exercise such other powers as may be prescribed by the Statutes and Regulations. 12. The situation as noticed above, was emergent in nature therefore, arrangement i.e., to ask respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to function as Director, Colleges Development Council, University of Jammu as well as Director, Bhaderwah Campus of the University is in conformity with the Rule. 13. Section 21(16) of Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 empowers the Director, Colleges Development Council to perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the College Development council and the Vice-Chancellor from time to time. 14. The respondents in their objections have highlighted that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have undertaken certain measures so as to streamline B.Ed admission in the B.Ed Colleges as there has been public outcry about the functioning of the Colleges and the sanctity of the B.Ed qualification was adversely affected. To check the menace in the system and to improve the image of the University, various revolutionary steps were taken by respondent no.4 after he took over as Director, Colleges Development Council. To check the menace in the system and to improve the image of the University, various revolutionary steps were taken by respondent no.4 after he took over as Director, Colleges Development Council. The revolutionary/reformative measures irked the B.Ed College functionaries and it is in the same backdrop petitioners claim to be the body representative of these B.Ed Colleges have filed the Writ Petition with an oblique motive to pressurise the authorities so as to deter them from proceeding ahead with the reformative initiative as taken. 15. In the reply, respondents have highlighted the functioning of the centralized admission process and the position of vacancies and other allied matters. The University has not worked in any manner so as to cause any damage to the B.Ed Colleges but has put in strenuous efforts to streamline the system so as to ensure that quality education is imparted. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the status of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 is attractive because their adjustment is by way of arrangement and in the interest of administration so as to meet the emergent situation as had arisen for the reasons detailed above. Directors or In-Charge Directors cannot be appointed according to the choice of the petitioners. It is none of the business of the petitioners to say as to who should be or who should not be appointed as Director, Colleges Development Council nor it is their domain to challenge the authority of the Vice Chancellor, when the Vice Chancellor in conformity with the Rules had issued the orders. The petitioners despite having presented a very lengthy Writ Petition have not been able to carve out a case, which would warrant indulgence of this Court. 17. The petition on thoughtful consideration of its averments coupled with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties is found to be without any merit as such, is not worth to be admitted so is dismissed along with all connected CMPs.