JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. : This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 05.01.2012 and the modified order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Case No.20463 of 2011 and Misc.Case No.401 of 2012 arising out of W.(C) No.27972 of 2011 urging various facts and legal contentions. Further the appellant has prayed to set aside/quash the aforesaid impugned orders by applying the law laid down in catena of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in W.A. No.41 of 2010, which has been subsequently followed in a similar writ petition by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.11.2011 in W.P.(C) No.8006 of 2009. 2.The ground of attack in this writ appeal is with regard to the interim direction issued vide order dated 05.01.2012 in Misc. Case No.20463 of 2011 and the modified order dated 10.01.2012 passed in Misc.Case No.401 of 2012 arising out of W.P.(C) No.27972 of 2011. In the impugned order dated 05.01.2012 it is directed that let the students of 2009-2010 batch of the petitioner-institution fill up their forms for the ensuing examination which is going to be held on 30th January, 2012 but their result shall not be declared without leave of this Court. It is submitted that the said interim order passed in exercise of discretionary power during pendency of the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 therein, is bad in law for the reason that no recognition has been obtained by respondent No.1 as required under Section 10 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 (for short, “INC Act”) and Rules/Regulations framed thereunder. There is also no recognition for admission of the students into ANM course by the institution. Therefore, the impugned orders are totally illegal. 3.Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant places strong reliance upon a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1986 SC 1188 ; State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao, Roundale, AIR 1992 SC 1926 ; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, AIR 1993 SC 2412 ; St. John's Teacher Training Institute (for women), Madurai v. State of Tamilnadu and others, AIR 1994 SC 43 ; Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719 and Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Bansal, AIR 1993 SC 2412 ; St. John's Teacher Training Institute (for women), Madurai v. State of Tamilnadu and others, AIR 1994 SC 43 ; Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719 and Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian and others., v. C.B.S.E. and others, AIR 2007 SC 458 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nageshwaramma’s case (supra), while examining the powers of the Apex Court and the High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India has interpreted Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and held that establishment of the institution without permission is unauthorized and the students trained in such institutes cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. In the case of Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian (supra), wherein the students admitted in the institution having no affiliation from C.B.S.E., filed writ petition with a prayer to allow the students to appear in the examination conducted by the C.B.S.E. and to publish their result. Though initially the Hon’ble Court permitted the students to appear in the examination by an interim order, subsequently the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the school was not affiliated to C.B.S.E. The said order was challenged in the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of Educational Institution admitting the students without the requisite recognition and affiliation. 4.In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mr. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the admission of students without prior permission or recognition by the Board as required under the INC Act and the interim order passed permitting the students to appear in the examination and direction not to declare the result is not legal and valid, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5.Further Mr. Mohanty, submits that the learned Single Judge should not have issued such interim orders during pendency of the writ petition. Such interim orders affect careers of the students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to the authorities. Further placing strong reliance in the case of Minor Sunil Oraon (supra) that in respect of the aforesaid proposition of law where the similar Writ Appeal No.41 of 2010 has been allowed after extracting the relevant provisions of Sections 11,12 and 13 of the INC act with reference to the more or less similar facts pleaded therein, Mr. Further placing strong reliance in the case of Minor Sunil Oraon (supra) that in respect of the aforesaid proposition of law where the similar Writ Appeal No.41 of 2010 has been allowed after extracting the relevant provisions of Sections 11,12 and 13 of the INC act with reference to the more or less similar facts pleaded therein, Mr. Mohanty, reiterated that in relation tot he qualification of the students and recognition of institution in consultation with INC and the State Nursing Board and directing the Board not to declare the result in the said case is held to be bad in law. Though the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment dated 13.09.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.41 of 2011 and order dated 23.11.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.8006 of 2009 were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the same have not been considered. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law and liable to be quashed. 6.Mr. J. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents places strong reliance upon the order dated 18.08.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.16201 of 2009 wherein direction was given to the opposite party No.1-State Government therein to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner-institution within four weeks and further opposite party No.4 was directed to consider such NOC and grant permission/affiliation to the respondent-institution for the session 2009-2010 as required under law. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, respondent No.1 has obtained NOC for establishment of ANM Centre. It is further submitted that pursuant to order passed in W.P.(C) No.16201 of 2009 the Government was pleased to grant NOC for establishment of ANM Centre under the name and style of “Acharya Harihar ANM Training School, At/P.O. Anlabereni, P.S. Tumusingha, Dist : Dhenkanal” with annual intake of 40 students with effect from the sessions 2009-10 to 2011-12 subject to stipulation made therein. Thereafter the office of the Orissa Nurses & Midwifes Council, Bhubaneswar vide its letter dated 21.09.2011 granted provisional recognition for ANM course for the session 2011-12 and that is the subject matter which is challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court has issued notice to the parties and the matter is still pending consideration at that stage since the examination was scheduled to be held on 30th January, 2012. A Misc. Therefore, this Court has issued notice to the parties and the matter is still pending consideration at that stage since the examination was scheduled to be held on 30th January, 2012. A Misc. Case was filed seeking interim direction as stated above and that has been considered after hearing the parties. Learned Single Judge in exercise of discretionary power has passed the impugned order after having satisfied that the NOC has been granted by the State Government. Therefore, the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. It is further submitted that the Division Bench judgment of this Court as well as decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, have no application to the facts situation of the case. 7.Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel also sought to justify the impugned order placing strong reliance upon paragraph 17 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.41 of 2010 which supports the case of the institution and in view of the fact that the NOC has been granted by the Government and the INC has also given provisional recognition for ANM Course for the session 2011-12. Therefore, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, this Court should not interfere with the same as there is no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Hence, Mr. Routray, prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 8.On the rival legal contentions advanced by the parties, the following questions that would arise for consideration :- (i)Whether grant of recognition for the year 2011-12 is legal and valid ? (ii)Whether NOC is given without there being consultation with the INC and whether the approval of recognition by the Board is for the purpose of attending examination for the session 2009-2010 and they are entitled to permission to take examination ? (iii)Whether the order of the learned Single Judge is vitiated in law for non-consideration of the provisions contained in the INC Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in W.A. No.41 of 2010 ? (iv)What order ? (iii)Whether the order of the learned Single Judge is vitiated in law for non-consideration of the provisions contained in the INC Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in W.A. No.41 of 2010 ? (iv)What order ? 9.The aforesaid questions are required to be answered in favour of the appellant for the following reasons :- It is an undisputed fact that the writ petition was filed by the institution seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order/direction to opposite party No.4 to modify the order dated 20.07.2011 under Annexure-6 and grant permission for the academic year/session 2009-2010 in addition to the academic year 2011-12 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Court. Undisputedly, there is no recognition granted in favour of respondent No.1-Institution for the academic year 2009-2010. Therefore, NOC upon which strong reliance is placed by learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 is not helpful for them stating that NOC has been granted by the Health and Family Welfare Department for the year 2009-2010 in addition to the year 2011-2012. Condition No.II in the NOC is very important for consideration which reads thus : “II. The Institute will not be allowed to entertain admission without approval of India Nursing Council and State Nursing Board.” 10.Insofar as the academic year 2009-2010 is concerned, neither the INC nor the State Nursing Board has accorded the provisional recognition upon which reliance is placed. Therefore, the NOC is not applicable to the case of the respondent-institution. Further the impugned order dated 05.01.2012 was sought to be modified by issuing a writ of mandamus in the writ petition that the approval has been granted for the year 2011-2012 and further it is very relevant for the purpose of the provisional recognition letter upon the which strong reliance is placed by both the learned Senior Advocate J. Das and B. Routray must be read in the backdrop of the conditions stipulated therein which reads thus : “.... that the institution will be issued PROVISIONAL RECOGNITION for ANM Course for the session 2011-12 and the institution will comply the following deficiencies within 3 months from the date of issue of this letter, failing which, action as deemed proper will be initiated against the institution as per rules.” 11.Therefore, there is no provisional recognition in favour of the first respondent for the year 2009-2010. When there is no recognition in favour of the institution, the question of admission of the students in the institution for that academic year to the course in question does not arise and grant of interim order directing the appellant to permit the students to appear in the examination which was scheduled to be held on 30.01.2012 is in blatant violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, upon which Mr. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has rightly placed reliance. In fact, the said legal principles laid down in the aforesaid cases to exercise power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India and grant of discretionary relief is totally impermissible in view of the fact that no right is accrued in favour of the students without having affiliation. If they are admitted without there being recognition then approaching this Court seeking judicial discretionary relief is totally impermissible in law in view of the catena of decision relied upon by Mr. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel which are also rightly applicable to the case of the appellant. If they are admitted without there being recognition then approaching this Court seeking judicial discretionary relief is totally impermissible in law in view of the catena of decision relied upon by Mr. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel which are also rightly applicable to the case of the appellant. In fact, in similar cases with reference to the similar legal contentions, after referring to the relevant provisions of Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the INC Act and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court after interpreting the same, this Court has held that recognition for admission of students to the ANM course is a must that has not been considered by the learned Single Judge at the time of passing the impugned order and further this Court in Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.41 of 2011 after referring to the judgment of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Oraon (supra) rightly observed in respect of the principles that time and again the High Court has deprecated the practice of admission of the students in the institutions without having recognition/affiliation is also not considered which was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge according to learned counsel for the appellant. The said decision is rightly applicable to the facts situation of the case. Therefore, the interim order which is impugned in this writ appeal is erroneous in law and warrants interference by this Court. Hence, the interim order dated 05.01.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.20463 of 2011 and the modified order dated 10.01.2012 in Misc.Case No.401 of 2012 arising out of W.P.(C) No.27972 of 2011 are liable to be set aside and accordingly we set aside the same. 12.With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ appeal is allowed. W.A. allowed.