JUDGMENT Petitioner-college is an affiliated Non- Government B. Ed. College of Jammu University (for short, Univer­sity) with sanctioned intake capacity of 334 students. The admission of stu­dents to the petitioner-college and other private unaided B. Ed colleges is made by the Central Admission Com­mittee of the University in accordance with the procedure known as Central­ized Counselling. In terms of the afore­said procedure, all the aspirants for admission to B. Ed. Course in private B. Ed. colleges apply to the University, are selected on the basis of their merit, participation in counselling and allotted to private colleges as per their pref­erence. 2. The University on 14th June, 2011 issued a notification inviting applica­tions from aspirants for admission to B.Ed Regular Course, its affiliation in Non -- Government B.Ed Colleges for the Session 2011-2012. In all, 18368 (twenty five thousand) candidates re­sponded to the advertisement and out of the candidates, who appeared for counselling, 14154 candidates were admitted and allotted to different col­leges as per their choice. In all, 6870 seats in different private B.Ed, colleges remained unfilled. Of candidates se­lected, only 18 candidates opted for the petitioner-college. In view of the option exercised by the candidates, 292 seats available in the petitioner-college re­mained unfilled. 3. The Association of private B. Ed colleges run under name and style of Forum of Recognized Colleges (for short, Forum) facing the same problem as faced by the petitioner-college, issued a notice on 20th December, 2011 sig­nifying its intention to make admis­sions on its own by spot counselling against the left over seats as per eligi­bility criteria laid down by the Univer­sity but without involving Central Ad­mission Committee of University. The notice dated 20th December, 2011 found sharp reaction from the Univer­sity. The University through a public notice dated 20.12.2011 published on 21.12.2011, reminded the aspirants for the B.Ed Course that admissions pro­posed to be made by the Forum were unauthorised and violative of the Uni­versity statute. 4. The respondent University, how­ever, to resolve the controversy decided to go for second round of counselling, give an option to the candidates, who had responded to the notification dated 20th December, 2011 issued by the Fo­rum, to appear before the Central Ad­mission Committee and get admis­sion, following the procedure provided in the University statute. The Univer­sity, accordingly, admitted 414 of the 516 students, who had responded to the Forum notification. 5. The Univer­sity, accordingly, admitted 414 of the 516 students, who had responded to the Forum notification. 5. However, the second counselling organized by the University did not give any relief to the petitioner-college, in­asmuch as, only 3 of the 414 students admitted in second counselling opted for the petitioner-college. The peti­tioner-college confronted with the shortage of students admitted 292 stu­dents on its own and vide its commu­nication dated 21st December, 2011 informed the University accordingly. 6. The respondent University ignor­ing the communication dated 21st De­cember, 2011 received from the peti­tioner-college did not regularize the admission of 292 candidates admitted by the petitioner-college on its own, returned the Bank Drafts in the amount of Rs. 15,11,100/- bearing Nos. 644926596 & 644926589 dated 7th May, 2012 forwarded by the petitioner-college on account of examination fee and other dues in respect of 292 stu­dents admitted by it. 7. Aggrieved with the refusal of Uni­versity to regularize 292 candidates admitted by the petitioner-college, it filed the writ petition registered as OWP No. 805/2012. The writ petition was filed primarily on the ground that the petitioner-college, deserved to be given same treatment as was given to other members of the Forum and the admis­sion of 292 students enrolled by it de­served to be regularized on the lines such admission was regularized in re­spect of 414 students admitted by the University. The writ petition was dis­posed of on 4th June, 2012 with a di­rection to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioners case having regard to the treatment given to similarly circumstanced colleges. 8. The University in compliance of the writ Court order accorded consid­eration to the petitioners case for regularization of 292 students enrolled by it on its own and vide Order No. CDC/ 12/3112-16 dated 29th June, 2012 re­jected the petitioners claim and di­rected the Bank drafts forwarded by the petitioner-college with its representa­tion, to be returned to it. 9. The petitioner-college through medium of writ petition on hand, seeks Writ of Certiorari quashing the im­pugned order No. CDC/12/3112-16 dated 29th June, 2012 issued by the respondent University as also Writ of Mandamus commanding the respon­dents to regularize admission of 292 students admitted by the petitioner-college and 24 students admitted un­der management quota on the analogy of 414 students admitted by the Forum and regularized by the respondent Uni­versity. 10. 10. The petitioner questions the role assumed by the University in taking upon itself task of making admission to the private B.Ed colleges. It is insisted that the University like the Uni­versities of Shimla and Punjab may at the most ensure that the private B.Ed colleges adhere to the merit while mak­ing admissions and cannot take over the admission process itself to the ex­clusion of the management of private B.Ed colleges. The petitioner relying on various Apex Court Judgments and, in particular, judgments in TMA PAI Foun­dation and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. and P.A. Inamdar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtraand the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Self Financed B.Ed. Col­leges Association Punjab (Regd.) and another Vs. State of Punjab and otherspleads that the management of a private college is to be given free hand in managing its affairs including admission of the students for undergo­ing course offered by the college. The petitioner reiterates the stand that once the University regularized the admission of candidates, enrolled by the Colleges associated with the Forum, it has no reason to deny such treat­ment to the petitioner-college. The or­der impugned in the petition, it is in­sisted is discriminatory in character, violative of constitutional mandate and liable to be set aside. 11. The University in its reply to the writ petition insists that the admis­sions to B.Ed course in private B.Ed col­leges and allotment of students to the colleges, is to made in accordance with the University Statutes. It is pleaded that in terms of the University Statute-4, the admission to private B.Ed col­leges is to be made through process of Centralized Counselling by Central Admission Committee of the Univer­sity and that the private B.Ed colleges affiliated with the University in terms of the University Statute-4 are prohib­ited to make admission on its own. The admissions to private B.Ed colleges, it is pointed out, are to be made by the University leaving no scope for any ad­missions by the private B.Ed Colleges and a duty cast on the University to regularize such admissions. 12. The University denies that it regularised admissions of 414 candi­dates admitted by the private B.Ed col­leges and singled out the petitioner B.Ed college for a discriminatory treat­ment. 12. The University denies that it regularised admissions of 414 candi­dates admitted by the private B.Ed col­leges and singled out the petitioner B.Ed college for a discriminatory treat­ment. It is pointed out that the appli­cations received by the Forum, were forwarded to the Central Admission Committee and after the university decided to have a second counselling and granted admission to such of the candidates out of 516, responding to the notification issued by the Forum, who appeared before the Central Admission Committee. The University pleads that the case set up by the petitioner-col­lege is different from the case of stu­dents admitted in second counselling inasmuch as the petitioner 10 college made admissions on its own without referring the aspirants for the admis­sion to the Central Admission Commit­tee. The petitioner college, it is pleaded, does not deserve same treatment as the candidates admitted by the Central Admission Committee, in second counselling. 13. I have gone through the plead­ings as also the record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. The matter relating to irregu­larities in the admissions made by private B.Ed colleges in the State surfaced in writ petition No. 879/96. A letter re­ceived from one Anita Kumari an as­pirant for admission to B.Ed Course, Session 1996-97 in Dogra College of Education, Shastri Nagar, Jammu, was taken as a wake up call, persuading the Court to treat it as a writ petition. The Court as interim measure on 15th May, 1997 passed the following order; "I direct the Vice Chancellor of Jammu and Kashmir Universities to appoint Committees under their own supervi­sion and control and select candidates for the ensuing B. Ed. session, for Privote Colleges imparting B.Ed, educa­tion, which stand affiliated to their respective Universities. The Vice Chan­cellors shall inform all such, colleges accordingly, and make selections af­ter inviting applications from eligible candidates. The selection for all the Private Colleges affiliated with Kash­mir University shall be made by one Committee to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor, on the basis of the merit. The admissions to Private B.Ed, col­leges in Jammu Province which stand affiliated with Jammu University, shall be made by the Committee to be appointed by the Vice chancellor of Jammu University". 15. The University in compliance of the writ Court Order constituted a Com­mittee comprising of Dean faculty of Education and after due deliberations decided to make Centralized Admis­sions to B.Ed. 15. The University in compliance of the writ Court Order constituted a Com­mittee comprising of Dean faculty of Education and after due deliberations decided to make Centralized Admis­sions to B.Ed. Course in non Govern­ment B.Ed. colleges of Education. The Court noticing that the methodology was evolved by the respondent Univer­sity to regulate admission to private B.Ed. colleges disposed of the petition ob­serving; "Since the University has now decided to centralise the admissions and made the admissions on merit basis, there is no necessity for this Court to continue with the interim order dated 15th of May, 1997. The order dated 15th May, 1997 was an interim order and it was made clear in that order that it will be an interim measure. Since the University of Jammu has responded and has framed a scheme, therefore, there is no necessity of keeping that order in force. The Uni­versity is free to make the admissions in accordance with the scheme pre­pared by it. The Court reminded the parties that the anxiety of this Court was that admissions to these private colleges should be regulated through a statutory body preferably the Uni­versity, which is conducting the exami­nations". 16. The observations made by the Court led the University to incorporate necessary changes in its statute and prescribe a mechanism for admission to private or non Government colleges of education. The University Statutes 4 and 11 need to be noticed. "4. CENTRALISED ADMISSION: 4.1 No Non-Government college of education other than M.C. Khalsa College of Education shall made ad­mission of the candidates to the B.Ed. course on its own. Selection of candi­dates for all seats in B.Ed course in each Non-Government affiliated col­lege of education shall be made by the University. Upto 20% of the sanc­tioned seats in each college shall be free seats and the remaining 80% seats shall be payment seats. 11. PROCEDURE AND MODE OF SELECTION: 11.1 Admission of all eligible candi­dates to B.Ed. Course shall be made by the Central Admission Committee (to be constituted by the Vice-Chan­cellor) in accordance with the Stat­utes". 17. A bare look at the above repro­duced University Statutes would make it clear that the admission to B.Ed. col­leges is to be made by Central Admis­sion Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor of the University in accor­dance with the Statues. A B.Ed. college affiliated with the respondent Univer­sity is prohibited from making admis­sion to B.Ed. 17. A bare look at the above repro­duced University Statutes would make it clear that the admission to B.Ed. col­leges is to be made by Central Admis­sion Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor of the University in accor­dance with the Statues. A B.Ed. college affiliated with the respondent Univer­sity is prohibited from making admis­sion to B.Ed. course on its own. Having regard to the University Statutes, an affiliated college, notwithstanding the difficulties -- financial or otherwise, has no power to make admissions on its own. Any admission made in violation of University Statutes would not be binding on the University and the Uni­versity would be under no obligation to regularize such admission. The Uni­versity Statutes incorporate the condi­tions subject to which affiliation is granted by the University to private B.Ed. colleges. 18. The petitioner-college, in the said background, was not competent to admit 292 students on its own. The University, in the circumstances, is under no obligation to regularize the admissions made by the petitioner-col­lege in violation of the University Stat­utes. This takes us to the question as to whether the University regularized the admissions made by other private colleges through the Forum of Recog­nized Colleges. 19. From perusal of the record avail­able on the file, it transpires that the Forum, of which the petitioner-college claims to be a member, on 19th Decem­ber, 2011 issued the following notifica­tion, published in local dailies on 20th December, 2011; "Forum of Recognized Colleges B. Ed ADMISSION (Session 2011-12). In continuation to the admission no­tice of University of Jammu for admis­sion to B.Ed Regular Course for the session 2011-12 to Non-Gout. B.Ed Colleges the counselling for which ended on 21st September, 2011. As­sociation of Non Government, Self Fi­nanced unaided Colleges Affiliated to University of Jammu is holding on Spot counselling for the left over seats in various B.Ed Colleges with effect from 22.12.2011 to 30.12.2011 for the can­didates have eligibility criteria as laid down by the University of Jammu for the session 2011-12 in terms of the law laid down in Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment TMA PAI and P.A. Inamdar cases. The candidates are advised to bring with them two bank drafts issued by any Nationalised/ Scheduled bank for Rs. 1400/- and Rs. 25130/- drawn in favour of Forum of Recognized Colleges (Regd.) pay­able at Jammu along with photo­graphs, application form (can befitted on spot) original documents with two sets attested photocopies. The candidates are advised to bring with them two bank drafts issued by any Nationalised/ Scheduled bank for Rs. 1400/- and Rs. 25130/- drawn in favour of Forum of Recognized Colleges (Regd.) pay­able at Jammu along with photo­graphs, application form (can befitted on spot) original documents with two sets attested photocopies. Venue: Kawa Tower, NH Bye-Pass Road, Narwal Jammu J&K-180004 Timing: 10.00 am to 5.00 pm (All Days) Note: Further details can be had from WWW.forcejk.com Phone No. s: 0191-2476817, 09419187855 Sd/- S. Harbans Singh (Former Minister) No: B. Ed Admission/2011/323 Presi­dent Dated: 19-12-2011 Forum of Recognised Colleges, Jammu". 20. The University lost no time in questioning the power and authority of the Forum to make admissions and clarifying its stand as regards the ad­missions proposed to be made by the Forum issued following Public Notice on 20th December, 2011, published in lo­cal dailies on 21st December, 2011. "UNIVERSITY OFJAMMU COLLEGES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE It has come to the notice of the Uni­versity of Jammu that an advertise­ment (B. Ed. Admission/2011/323 dated 19.12.2011) has been pub­lished in the daily newspapers dated 20.12.2011 issued by the Forum of Recognized Colleges, the advertise­ment invites applications from the students for on spot counselling for B.Ed. Course from the University of Jammu for the session 2011-12. By this notice, all concerned are informed that the University of Jammu has not authorized anybody to issue such an advertisement or to initiate a process of on spot coun­selling. The advertisement and pro­posed action are unilateral, irre­sponsible and, in the Universities opinion, illegal. The University takes no responsibility for the ad­vertisement or any action flowing from it. It is further informed for the benefit of all concerned that no so-called admission consequent to the advertisement will be regularized. Any candidate who chooses to par­ticipate in the process does so at his/her own risk. Any affiliated in­stitution found participating in the process will face punitive action, which may even include disaffiliation under University Statute 63, clauses 6 and 7. Statute 4 of B. Ed. admission norms clearly states that no Non-Government College of Edu­cation can do admission on its own. It also states that the admission to the B. Ed. course shall be done by the Centralized Admission Commit­tee to be constituted by the Vice-Chancellor. Statute 4 of B. Ed. admission norms clearly states that no Non-Government College of Edu­cation can do admission on its own. It also states that the admission to the B. Ed. course shall be done by the Centralized Admission Commit­tee to be constituted by the Vice-Chancellor. No Non-Government College of Education, other than minority institutions recognized as such by the State Government, is permitted to make admission to the B. Ed. Course on its own, except for the permitted Management Seats, Selection of candidates for all seats, other than Management Seats, in B. Ed. Course in each Non-Govern­ment College of Education affiliated to the University shall be made only by the University. Please note that the Centralized Admission Process of the University of Jammu is car­ried out on the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in the writ petition titled Anita kumari versus Principal, Dogra College of Education dated 24.07.1997. No. CDC/2011/5232 Dated: 20.12.2011 Sd/- Director College Development 21. The University later to resolve the controversy decided to organize/ hold a second counselling session from January 10, 2012 to January 25, 2012 for 516 candidates who approached the Forum for admission to private B.Ed colleges in response to Forums notice dated 19.12.2011, so that they have a chance to get selected for B.Ed course in different colleges. The counselling was accordingly conducted and out of 516 aspirants, only 414 candidates ap­peared before the Central Admission Committee of the respondent Univer­sity. The 414 candidates were allotted to different B.Ed. colleges as per their choice/preference. Only 3 candidates out of 414 candidates appearing for the second counselling session opted for the petitioner-college. 22. The petitioner-college, unmind­ful of University Statutes made admis­sions on its own, did not forward appli­cations to Central Admission Commit­tee and did not ask the candidates to approach or appear before the Central Admission Committee, so as to be ad­mitted by the Committee and allotted to the petitioner-College. The peti­tioner-college, therefore, cannot claim parity with the admissions made by the University on second counselling orga­nized at the request of the Forum and cannot on the said ground, allege dis­crimination or seek same treatment as given to 414 out of 516 candidates referred to the respondent University by the Forum. 23. The peti­tioner-college, therefore, cannot claim parity with the admissions made by the University on second counselling orga­nized at the request of the Forum and cannot on the said ground, allege dis­crimination or seek same treatment as given to 414 out of 516 candidates referred to the respondent University by the Forum. 23. The stand taken by the petitioner-college that the respondent University in view of the settled legal position laid down in TMA PAI Foundation & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors and P.A. Inamdar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra cases has no role in regu­lating admission by private Educational Institutions and, therefore, cannot de­prive the petitioner-college of its right to manage its own affairs including making admissions, is of no help to the petitioner-college. It is pertinent to point out that once the petitioner col­lege approached the University for af­filiation, it is taken to have agreed to follow and abide by the Statutes of the University. The petitioner college is, therefore, bound by the University Stat­utes including Statute-4 and Statute-11 that give exclusive power to the University to make admissions to pri­vate B.Ed. College through its Central Admission Committee. 24. The petitioner-college has not thrown challenge to Statute-4 and Stat­ute- 11 of the University statues. In the circumstances, the argument that University lacks power to make admis­sions in light of above referred Apex Court Judgments is of no avail to the petitioner-college. The petitioner col­lege, on the other hand, has assailed the order No. CDC/12/3112-16 dated 29th June, 2012, whereby the Univer­sity has rejected its representation for regularizing admission of 292 candi­dates admitted by it on its own. For the said reasons, reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Civil Writ Petition No. 10091 of 2009 titled Self Financed B. Ed. Colleges As­sociation Punjab (Regd) & Anr Vs. State of Punjab & Anr is also misplaced. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had questioned the authority of the State Government to conduct entrance test through Universities in Punjab for se­lection of students for admission to B.Ed. course and thrown challenge to the Government Notification dated 19th May, 2009 pleading that the Govern­ment lacked authority to issue such notification. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had questioned the authority of the State Government to conduct entrance test through Universities in Punjab for se­lection of students for admission to B.Ed. course and thrown challenge to the Government Notification dated 19th May, 2009 pleading that the Govern­ment lacked authority to issue such notification. In the present case, the petitioner college without questioning the University Statutes under which the University has exercised its power to make admissions, has questioned the order, whereby the University has declined to regularize admissions made on its own by the petitioner-college. The facts of the present case are mark­edly different from the facts of the case relied upon by the petitioner-college. This apart, Statute-4 and Statute-11 of the University Statutes are based on the writ Court order in Anita Kumaris case (Supra) and have found approval of the Court as reflected in its judgment dated 24th July, 1997. 25. Having held that the 292 candi­dates have been admitted by the peti­tioner-college in violation of the Uni­versity Statues, the next question that calls for consideration is whether the Court notwithstanding illegality com­mitted by the petitioner-college, must show indulgence to the 292 admitted candidates and grant any relief in their favour, in the name of saving their aca­demic career. 26. The educational institutions af­ter admitting the students in wilful dis­regard of the University statutes, more often make an effort to get the irregu­larities condoned in the name of aca­demic interest of the students admit­ted in violation of the University Stat­utes. The erring educational institu­tions try to give the controversy colour and complexion of an emotional issue and argue that the students enrolled though in violation of University stat­utes should not be exposed to any pen­alty for the wrong committed by the in­stitution. The Courts often fall prey to such persuasion made by the educa­tional institutions and permit some­thing that is not permissible under University Statutes. Such practices has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in more than one cases. 27. Though the State because of stu­pendous task of imparting education and training allows private actors a role in the field of education -- essentially a sovereign power of the State, yet it can­not and must not permit academic in­discipline on part of such actors. The Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev Univer­sity V. Parminder Kr. 27. Though the State because of stu­pendous task of imparting education and training allows private actors a role in the field of education -- essentially a sovereign power of the State, yet it can­not and must not permit academic in­discipline on part of such actors. The Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev Univer­sity V. Parminder Kr. Bansal and an-other (1993) 4 SCC 401 , while setting aside the High Court order whereby admission of two candidates to intern­ship was directed, though the they did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for such admission, observed; "We are afraid that this kind of ad­ministration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill con­ceived sympathy masquerades as in­terlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degener­ating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to seri­ous impasse in academic life. Admis­sions cannot be ordered without re­gard to the eligibility of the candi­dates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the inter­locutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complica­tions might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such or­ders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass aca­demic authorities by itself taking over their functions ". 28. Again in C.B.S.C. and another Vs. P. Sunil Kumar and others Etc. (1998) 5 SCC 377 , the question before the Court was whether the students, enrolled by the institutions not affili­ated with Central Board of Secondary Education, were to be permitted to pur­sue their courses, and prosecute fur­ther studies. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court or­der whereby the students were directed to be granted certificates pursuant to declaration of results on the ground that the students were not to be allowed to suffer, held; "The learned counsel appearing for the students in different appeals did not dispute the position that the schools from where their clients have perused their studies are not yet af­filiated to the Central Board of Sec­ondary Education. But they mainly contended that the students having been permitted to appear at the ex­amination and they having been suc­cessful and certificates have been is­sued in their favour, it would work out great injustice, if the impugned direc­tions of the High Court are set aside at this length of time. In support of this contention they placed reliance on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary education v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998)3 SCC 5 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1205 ). In the aforesaid case, this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future but did not interfere with the ultimate di­rection of the High Court on the ground that found hopes have been raised in the minds of the students and there­fore it would be inappropriate to in­terfere under Article 136 of the Con­stitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case, inasmuch as there is no iota of mate­rial placed before us to indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Edu­cation, the appellants herein, either directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time that the institutions in which they are pros­ecuting their studies have been affili­ated or are going to be affiliated at a near future. We are conscious of the fact that out order setting aside the impugned directions of the High Court would cause injustice to these stu­dents. But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the court and then to compel the Board to issue cer­tificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tan­tamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of students. The Court further observed; "This Court in several cases dep­recated the practice of allowing students to appear provisionally in the examinations of the Board or the University and then ulti­mately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. The Court further observed; "This Court in several cases dep­recated the practice of allowing students to appear provisionally in the examinations of the Board or the University and then ulti­mately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the case of A.P. Chris­tians Medical education Society V. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 667 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ), this Court held that the court will not be justified in issu­ing direction to the University to protect the interest of the students who had been admitted to the medical college in clear transgres­sion of the provisions of the Uni­versity Act and the regulations of the University. It was also ob­served that the court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law. In the case of the Tamil Nadu V. St. Joseph Teach­ers Training Institute, JT 1991 (2) SC 343, this Court held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorised educational institu­tions and permitting them to ap­pear at the examination has been looked with disfavour and the stu­dents of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination con­ducted by the Education Depart­ment of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed er­ror in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination. All these cases were again considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, JT 1992 (5) SC. 175: (AIR 1993 SC 1926), and it was held that the students of unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. The Court ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court". 29. The matter again fell for consid­eration of Supreme Court in Abhyudya sanstha V. Union of India & ors.( 2011 (4) Supreme 148 ). The Court ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court". 29. The matter again fell for consid­eration of Supreme Court in Abhyudya sanstha V. Union of India & ors.( 2011 (4) Supreme 148 ). It was held that the students granted admission by the Edu­cation Institutions, not granted affilia­tion by National Council for Teachers Education, were not entitled to any regularisation and even directed the degree if awarded not to be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever. It would be profitable to reproduce hereunder para 17 and 19 of the judgment; "17. The question which remains to be considered is whether the Court should direct regularisation of the admission of the students, who were allotted to the appellants by the State Government etc. pursuant to the direc­tions given by this Court. Although, in the absence of cogent material, it is not possible to record a finding that the students were party to the patently wrong and misleading statement made by the appellants, the Court cannot overlook the fact that none of the appellants has been granted rec­ognition by WRC, Bhopal and in view of the prohibition contained in Section 17A of the Act read with Regulation 8(12), the appellants could not have admitted any student. However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admis­sion made by the appellants in a clan­destine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the na­tional interest. The students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based edu­cation to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to issue di­rection for regularising the admis­sions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court. 19. We also declare that none of the students, who had taken admission on the basis of allotment made by the State Government, shall be eligible for the award of degree etc. by the affili­ating body. 19. We also declare that none of the students, who had taken admission on the basis of allotment made by the State Government, shall be eligible for the award of degree etc. by the affili­ating body. If the degree has already been awarded to any such students, the same shall not be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever". 30. This Court in Kashmir Womens College Vs. Kashmir University & Ors. 2012(1) JKJ 100 (HC), when asked to grant a writ of Mandamus directing Kashmir University to regularize ad­mission of 60 candidates admitted by the petitioner-college over and above its intake capacity, dismissed the writ petition observing; "In view of the settled legal position it would not be permissible to regularise the 60 candidates admit­ted by the petitioner college over and above its intake capacity even though the students might have appeared in the examination pursuant to the Court direction that asked the respondents to accept the examination fee, RRs forms of those of the students of the petitioner-college who have been ad­mitted by the University in the session 2009-10 and thereafter to enable this class of the student(s) to take exami­nation. The petitioner college moti­vated by pure commercial interests, while granting admission over and above its intake capacity, ignoring that it had volunteered to be a part­ner with the State in the sacred task of training Teachers who would in turn educate future generation and thus expected to follow the fundamen­tal values of truth, honesty and fair play, cannot get its irregularity legitimised by pushing forward cause of the students who have been en­rolled without any authority. The power of judicial review and writ ju­risdiction cannot be exercised to held the petitioner college to secure its com­mercial interests other than in accor­dance with law". 31. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that any direction to the respondent University to regularise the admission of 292 students enrolled by the petitioner college in violation of University Statutes, would be imper­missible and not in tune with prin­ciples that must guide exercise of writ jurisdiction. 32. This, however, does not end the matter. Would it be just and fair to leave 292 students enrolled in violation of University Statutes, high and dry with­out any relief and remedy, is the ques­tion that calls for an answer. 32. This, however, does not end the matter. Would it be just and fair to leave 292 students enrolled in violation of University Statutes, high and dry with­out any relief and remedy, is the ques­tion that calls for an answer. Though the public Notice issued by the Univer­sity on 14th June, 2011 informing the aspirants for admission to B.Ed. Course in private colleges, that the colleges had no power to make admissions and that the University had the exclusive power to admit and allot students, ought to have put 292 candidates enrolled by the petitioner-College on caveat and dissuaded them from seeking admis­sion in the petitioner college, yet the petitioner-college cannot be allowed to get enriched at the cost of the illegally enrolled students. The petitioner col­lege, therefore, as one of the measures to undo the wrong done to the students has to return the fee received from the 292 students enrolled in violation of University Statutes. 33. The other measure required to be taken by the petitioner-College is to compensate students enrolled in vio­lation of the University Statutes for loss of one academic year. It would not be fair on the part of the petitioner college to push the 292 students enrolled in violation of University Statutes to any litigation on question of compensa­tions. The petitioner-college may on its own consider payment of a reasonable compensation say Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per student to each of the 292 students admitted in violation of the University Statutes. 34. The discussion made while deal­ing with the controversy arising out of pleadings and the material available on the file, points to an important issue, requiring immediate consideration of the Jammu University, Kashmir Uni­versity and other Universities set up in the State. The present mechanism evolved by the University to make ad­missions to private B.Ed. colleges and allotment of students selected to the colleges, leaves scope for chasing out one or more such colleges from the field and pushing them to financial disas­ter and bankruptcy. The record reveals that out of 21024 B.Ed. seats for the session 2011-12 available in Non-Gov­ernment private B.Ed. Colleges affili­ated to the University, only 14154 can­didates have been selected leaving 6870 seats unfilled. The private B.Ed. colleges, therefore, do not get the stu­dents up to their intake capacity. The record reveals that out of 21024 B.Ed. seats for the session 2011-12 available in Non-Gov­ernment private B.Ed. Colleges affili­ated to the University, only 14154 can­didates have been selected leaving 6870 seats unfilled. The private B.Ed. colleges, therefore, do not get the stu­dents up to their intake capacity. The Promoters of such colleges, therefore, have to carry on their day to day affairs from admission Fee and other dues re­ceived from 50% or less number of stu­dents of its intake capacity. This is only one aspect of the matter. The other and more disastrous aspect of the problem confronting private B.Ed. colleges is the absolute choice given to the students to opt for the college of their choice. Nothing can be a more appropriate ex­ample in this regard, than the plight of the petitioner-college. The petitioner college, as already pointed out has an intake capacity of 334 candidates. How­ever, only 18 out of 13740 have given preference to the petitioner college and have been admitted by the college. The promoters of the petitioner-college, therefore, have to carry their day to day affairs from the admission fee and other dues deposited by the 18 candi­dates. The petitioner-college has em­ployed manpower and set up infrastruc­ture to cater to the requirements of 334 students. It obviously would be difficult for the petitioner college to keep its head above water and avoid closure. Same may be true about other private colleges. 35. While, academic discipline can­not be sacrificed for the financial in­terest of one or more private educa­tional institutions and the private edu­cational institutions cannot be permit­ted to add to the national human re­sources pool, inefficient and incapable professionals, who may conveniently cover up their inefficiency under the degrees awarded after an academic/ training course undergone in such pri­vate colleges. Still their genuine griev­ance cannot be ignored or left unaddressed. To illustrate, it would be highly unjust to allot less than 20 students to a college having intake capacity of 334 students, debar it from making admis­sions on its own and allot 75 students to private B.Ed. college having intake capacity of 100 students. There is to be some reasonable nexus between the number of students allotted and the intake capacity of a private educational institution. college having intake capacity of 100 students. There is to be some reasonable nexus between the number of students allotted and the intake capacity of a private educational institution. In the circumstances, the decision to give absolute discretion to a student to go for a private college of his choice and make decision as re­gards allotment of selected candidates to the private B.Ed. colleges exclusively on the basis of the option exercised by the selected candidates, may require a fresh look. Needless to state that the decision taken by a student as regards the college may not always be an in­formed decision and may at times be manipulated. 36. The Jammu University, Kash­mir University and other Universities set up in the State and granting affili­ation to Non-Government Educational Institutions/Colleges would be well ad­vised to constitute a High Level Com­mittee/ees to examine the matter and make its/their recommendation for rationalising distribution of selected students amongst private B.Ed. colleges and for that matter other private edu­cational institutions, so as to ensure that they get fair share of the admis­sions made by the Central Admission Committee having regard to their in­dividual intake capacity. 37. The Committee(s) constituted is/are to have coopt a representative of the private educational institutions and an Officer of the rank of Secretary from State Education Department. The Committee(s) after looking into all as­pects of the matter is/are expected to make its/their recommendations to the University concerned within eight weeks and the University to take a de­cision on the recommendations made within four weeks, so that a mecha­nism is evolved for allotment of fair share from the selections made by the Central Admission Committee, to each of the private B.Ed. colleges. 38. In view of the big gap between the number of selected candidates for B.Ed. course and total intake capacity of all the B.Ed. colleges in Jammu, the Committee is also required to look into mode, mechanism and criteria for grant of permission by the State Gov­ernment and affiliation by the University to new private B.Ed. colleges, so that economic viability of such colleges attracts due attention of the State Gov­ernment and University authorities as also promoters of such new colleges. A balance is to be struck between the to­tal intake capacity and number of as­pirants for the course. colleges, so that economic viability of such colleges attracts due attention of the State Gov­ernment and University authorities as also promoters of such new colleges. A balance is to be struck between the to­tal intake capacity and number of as­pirants for the course. Any reckless increase in intake capacity by permit­ting and granting affiliation to new private/Non-Government Colleges or en­hancement in intake capacity of exist­ing colleges, is bound to compound the problem, make private educational in­stitution like sick industrial units plagued by financial crisis and compel them to grant admission in violation of University Statutes, compromising the academic standards. This shall in turn pollute the academic atmosphere, lead to unhealthy trends in the Sector and last of all, add ill/under educated and ill/under trained manpower to the na­tional human resource pool. 39. The writ petition with above ob­servation is dismissed. 40. The parties are left to bear their own costs.