JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. Since these appeals, which arise out of different writ applications involve similar question of law, they were taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been filed by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack questioning the correctness of the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2983 of 2010 and other connected similar writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the same and directed the appellant herein to declare the results of the students of the respondent-institutions, who appeared in the Madhyama Examination, 2010 pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions. 3. The aforesaid direction of the learned Single Judge is under challenge by the appellant-Board of Secondary Education, Orissa urging various legal contentions, namely, the students who have been admitted in the respondent-institutions are neither regular candidates nor ex-regular candidates or quasi-regular candidates or private candidates under the. “Regulations of Prathama and Madhyama Examination, 2003 and onwards”. Further strong reliance has been placed upon Regulation 12(a) thereof, which provides for Compartmental candidates that a candidate who fails in examination for not having secured the required pass mark in one or more subjects but who secures 300 marks or more in the aggregate will have the option to clear his deficiency by appearing at the examination to a maximum of three consecutive examinations immediately following the one in which he/she failed. 4. It is further contended that learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the respondent - institutions in which the students have been admitted are un-recognized Schools as per the provision contained in Section 6 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter called as "Act, 1969") as none of the respondent-institutions had obtained recognition, though permission has been granted to open the institutions in anticipation of recognition on fulfilling the required criteria as mentioned in the above provision of the Act. Therefore, the Committee constituted by the State Government has not granted recognition to them as they have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Hence, the students of the said institutions are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions filed before this Court. 5. Therefore, the Committee constituted by the State Government has not granted recognition to them as they have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Hence, the students of the said institutions are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions filed before this Court. 5. It is also contended that the correspondence course is not applicable to Madhyama Examination, but the permission granted by the Government till 2008 in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1953 (in short, "Act, 1953") allowing the students of the respondent-institutions to appear in the examination, is contrary to the circular instructions which was issued pursuant to the order dated 7.4.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3399 of 2008 wherein the State Government was directed not to allow the students of un-permitted and unrecognized High Schools as well as the students of Prathama and Madhyama of Sanskrit Schools/Tols to appear through correspondence course which was intimated by the Government to the Board vide Govt. Letter No. 13862 dated 8.7.2008 and the Board also circulated the same vide its Notification No. 723 dated 16.10.08. In spite of the said notification, the authorities of the respondent-institutions did not take any step as per the notification to enable their students to appear in the Madhyama Examination conducted in 2009-10., 6. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has not noticed the well-established legal principles laid down by the Apex Court holding that ineligible students are not entitled to appear in the examination and has passed the impugned order and in absence of such consideration, exercise of the judicial review power is not only contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act, 1969 but also violative of the Regulations of Prathama and Madhyama Examination framed by the Board in exercise of its statutory power under the provisions of the Act, 1969. 7. Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of his contentions places strong reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC 515 , National Board of Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy and others; AIR 2010 SC 2221 , Rajasthan Pradesh v. S. Sardarshahar and another v. Union of India and others, at paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 whereof the apex Court, with reference to earlier decision in Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. Guardian and others v. C.B.S.E. and others reported in AIR 2007 SC 458 and also another decision in the case of T.V.V. Narasimham and others v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1963 SC 1227 and in State of Tamil Nadu and others v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and another reported in (1991) 3 SCC 87 , has clearly laid down the law that students of un-recognised institutions are not entitled to appear in any public examination held by the Government and it is not permissible for the Court to grant relief on humanitarian grounds contrary to law to the person who claim to have passed any examination from such institutions. In support of the said submission, he has also placed reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. Guardian and others v. C.B.S.E. and others reported in AIR 2007 SC 458 , wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 22 has held that the Apex Court has persistently deprecated the practice of admitting the students without having requisite recognition and affiliation. Therefore, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge permitting the students of the respondent-institutions to take examination and subsequently the judgment rendered allowing the writ petitions giving direction, referred to supra, to the Controller of the appellant-Board is contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court referred to supra. Thus, Mr. Pattnaik contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. Mr. J. Rath, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - institutions in all the Appeals have sought to justify the orders of the learned Single Judge contending that the learned Single Judge in all the writ petitions, vide order dated 19.1.2011, permitted the students of the respondent-institutions to take examination and the said order was not challenged by the Appellant Board and that has been given effect to by allowing the writ petitions giving directions to declare the results of the examination in which the students of the respondent-institutions have appeared. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has placed strong reliance on an un-reported decision of this Court in. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has placed strong reliance on an un-reported decision of this Court in. Writ Appeal No. 457 of 2010 (Utkal University and another v. Jayashree Dash and others) disposed of on 22.3.2011 wherein this Court has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409 wherein the apex Court with reference to Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, 1940 FCR 84 = (AIR 1941 FC 5) has held that the Court of appeal is entitled to take into account even facts and events which have come into existence after the decree appealed against to mould the relief to be granted in a case on appeal. Mr. Rath, learned Sr. Advocate also places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. Managing Committee of Ekalavya Model Residential High School, Rengalbeda, Mayurbhanj and others (W.A. No. 197 of 2010 disposed of on 27.9.2010) also submitted that Regulations 6(a) & 6(d) are attracted to the facts of the present case for the reason that the respondent-institutions are not recognized is an undisputed fact and then the students have studied the Madhyama course in the respondent-institutions to which permission was accorded in anticipation of recognition. As the admission of the students in Madhyama course was given by the respondent-institutions and the said course was completed, interim orders were passed allowing the students of the respondent institutions to appear in the Examination which were complied with and thereafter the writ petitions have been allowed for which the appellant cannot challenge the same now. Instead of complying the same, Writ Appeals have been filed which, if allowed, will cause great injustice to the students who are not responsible in getting admission in Madhyama course in the respondent-institutions in whose favour, the permission was granted under the provision of Act, 1969. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeals. 9. On the rival contentions the points that would arise for consideration by this Court are as follows: (i) Whether the students admitted in the respondent-institutions without recognition are eligible to appear in the examination which will be conducted by the Board? Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeals. 9. On the rival contentions the points that would arise for consideration by this Court are as follows: (i) Whether the students admitted in the respondent-institutions without recognition are eligible to appear in the examination which will be conducted by the Board? (ii) Whether the students who admitted in the respondent-institutions in whose favour permission is granted can be treated as private candidates as defined under Regulation 6(d)? (iii) Whether unreported decisions shall be applied in the facts and circumstances? (iv) What order? 10. The aforesaid points are to be answered against the respondent institutions and in favour of the appellant for the following reasons. It is an undisputed fact that, in all these appeals, none of the respondent-institutions has got recognition as required under Section 6 of the Act, 1969, after fulfilling the requirements as provided under the said Section. No doubt the permission was granted in favour of the respondent institutions in anticipation of considering their applications for grant of recognition subject to fulfillment of the criteria as enumerated in Section 6 of the Act, 1969. Fact remains that the required conditions as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 1969 were not complied with by the respondent institutions as a result of which recognition was not accorded to them. The students have been admitted in the unrecognized respondent-institutions and they have approached this Court seeking for a direction to the Board to permit them to appear in the examination as they have completed their Madhyama course and are eligible for appearing in the Madhyama examination which was conducted by the Board. Since the respondent institutions are unrecognized institutions, they have no right to admit the students in their institutions. In this regard reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh v. Sardarshahar v. Union of India (supra), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder. “18. This Court has persistently deprecated the practice of an educational institution admitting the students and to allow them to appear in the examinations without having requisite recognition and affiliation. This kind of infraction of law has been treated as of very high magnitude and of serious nature. Students of a unrecognized institution cannot legally be entitled to appear in any examination conducted by any government, university or board. (Vide Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. This kind of infraction of law has been treated as of very high magnitude and of serious nature. Students of a unrecognized institution cannot legally be entitled to appear in any examination conducted by any government, university or board. (Vide Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. Guardian and others v. C.B.S.E. and others AIR 2007 SC 458 ) (2006 AIR SCW 5862). 19. Similarly, recognition must be there with the school to make it subject to the provisions of the Act. Recognition Signifies an admission or an acknowledgment of something existing before. To recognize is to take cognizance of a fact, it implies an overt act on the part of the person taking such cognizance. (Vide T.V.V. Narasimham and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 1963 SC 1227 ) 20. In State of Tamil Nadu and others v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and another (1991) 3 SCC 87 , this Court held that students of un-recognized institutions are not entitled to appear in any public examination held by the government and it is not permissible for the Court to grant relief on humanitarian grounds contrary to law to the person who claim to have passed any examination from such institutions. In view of the above, it is evident that any institution which is not recognized cannot impart an education and students thereof cannot appear in the examination held by the Government, University or Board." So also reliance has been placed on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Minor Sunil Draon Thr. Guardian and others v. C.B.S.E. & others., AIR 2007 SC 458 and the observation made in paragraph 22 of the said decision is applicable to the fact situation of the case on Board. 11. Learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order on the basis of the Govt. letter dated 31.7.2008 addressed to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar intimating that the un-permitted/un-recognized High Schools whose applications are said to be pending shall be asked not to enroll students henceforth from the academic session 2009 onwards till they receive permission from the prescribed authority in due process and the said circular instructions has been issued in exercise of Section 34 of the Act, 1953. In Clause (iv) & (v) of the said circular instruction-letter of the Govt., it has also been intimated as follows:- “(iv) The Inspector of Schools shall ensure that the students already enrolled in such un-permitted High Schools in Class-VIII and IX during the academic year 2007-2008 shall be shifted to the nearby recognized aided or Govt. High Schools. (v) The Un-recognized High Schools whose applications are said to be pending till temporary/permanent recognition is granted by the H.P.C., will enroll their students if they like under correspondence Course of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa during current academic year in order to facilitate their students to appear in annual H.S.C. Examination, 2009.” This may not have application to the facts of the present case. Such circular instruction is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 1969 and it was not tenable on the part of the Government to issue such circular instruction to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa. In fact, Section 34 of the Act, 1953 enables the State Government to issue circular instructions, if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the said Act. But, such circular instruction cannot be traceable to Section 34, even assuming that Section 34 does not indicate the difficulty that may arise before the Government for implementation of the Act, 1953. If the said circular instructions cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the Act, 1969, the educational institutions, who have applied for grant of recognition but do not fulfill the terms and conditions as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 1969 which prescribes about the procedure and the terms and conditions for grant of recognition, shall not be entitled to admit students. Therefore, the second point must be answered against the respondent-institutions and in favour of the appellant. 12. Learned Single Judge has erred in applying the said circular instructions without noticing the fact that the circular instruction issued under Section 34 of the Act, 1953 without indicating the difficulty that had arisen before the Government for implementation of the said Act, the said circular instruction cannot be applied to supersede the statutory provisions of Act, 1969. This important aspect of the matter has not been noticed by the learned Single Judge while exercising the jurisdictional power by directing the Board to declare the results of the students who appeared in the Madhyama Examination from the respondent-institutions. This important aspect of the matter has not been noticed by the learned Single Judge while exercising the jurisdictional power by directing the Board to declare the results of the students who appeared in the Madhyama Examination from the respondent-institutions. The learned Single Judge has further permitted the students to appear in the future examination to be conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which is totally impermissible in law. 13. The contentions raised by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent institutions that the students can be treated as private candidates as they have right to appear in examinations is also not tenable and hence the same cannot be accepted. As the students had been admitted by the un-re-cognised institutions, even the appellant permits the respondents cannot be allotted the status of the recognized institutions although their 'students have passed the Prathama examination. As a matter of fact, the respondent-institutions, in respect of which permission was accorded by the competent authority in anticipation of fulfillment of certain conditions as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 1969, have not fulfilled the said conditions. The respondent-institutions could have approached this Court even before four years. For that reason, the submission in this regard is rejected. Reliance placed upon an unreported decision of this Court in this regard cannot be applied to the fact situation of the present case for the reason that the interim order passed was contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to supra. 14. Writ Appeal is a continuation of the writ and the appellant Board in the present Writ Appeals has made out a case as the learned Single Judge has passed the interim order as well as the final order without properly examining the provisions of law and the decisions referred to supra but placing of strong reliance upon the circular instruction of the Govt. dated 31.7.2008, which is wholly inapplicable to the fact situations. Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated in law and the same-cannot be allowed to sustain. Hence, the appellant-Board of Secondary, Education, Orissa must succeed in the these Appeals. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Order accordingly.