Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 476 (JK)

Association Of ETT Students v. State Of J&K

2013-08-23

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2013
1. By this common judgment, I propose to decide and dispose of the eight writ petitions, founded on identical material facts, seven of which have been filed by the Elementary Teachers Training Institutions established by private individuals or Associations in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; whereas one, the lead case, is shown to have been filed in representative capacity on behalf of those persons who claim to have been admitted by these institutions of their own as trainee students. 2. In all these petitions, the facts pleaded are more or less identical and the petitioners have sought writs in the nature of Mandamus, inter alia, commanding the respondents to regularize the admission of students made by the petitioner Institutions of their own during the Session 2011-13 and to allow them to sit in the examinations conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education (BOSE). However, in the lead case, OWP no.845/2013, the petitioners have also challenged communication no.Edu/ETT/35/09 dated 21.05.2013 addressed by Deputy Secretary to Government, School Education Department to the Chairman, J&K State Board of School Education, Srinagar, communicating to the latter the observations made by the General Administration Department that Section 32 of the BOSE Act in no way can be interpreted to regularize an illegal act of admissions of students done with the sole commercial purpose. 3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties, it becomes necessary to give a short resume of the facts having bearing on the controversy involved in these petitions. 4. On the basis of the guidelines of National Council for Teachers Education Programme, the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education has introduced two years Elementary Teachers Training Course (ETTC) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir from the year 2002. The minimum eligibility qualification for admission to the course has been fixed as 10+2 with minimum of 45% marks for general category candidates and 40% marks for reserved category candidates. It is stated that presently there are 585 non-governmental ETTC Institutes in the State imparting such training to the students and each such Institute has a sanctioned intake capacity of students. Fixation of Course Calendar lies within the competence of the Government in the Education Department and the schedule for completing the various processes, including admissions and counseling is done through Centralized Admission Committee of BOSE. 5. Fixation of Course Calendar lies within the competence of the Government in the Education Department and the schedule for completing the various processes, including admissions and counseling is done through Centralized Admission Committee of BOSE. 5. It may also be relevant to mention here that establishment, maintenance and running of such Institutions is governed by the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder. Besides, the incorporation of the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education, its composition, powers, functions etc. etc. are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education Act, 1975. Reference to the provisions of these Acts, insofar as relevant for purposes of deciding these petitions, would be made at appropriate place in this judgment. 6. At this stage it would suffice to say that in terms of the laid down procedure, a candidate, desirous of taking admission to such Course, is required to apply to the BOSE, as and when notification in that regard is issued, indicating in the application form his/her choice of the Institution where he/she would wish to be admitted for undergoing the Course. The Centralized Admission Committee prepares the select list and allots the students to the various Institutes to the extent of their respective intake capacities on the basis of the choice of candidates so made by them in their application forms. However, each such Institute is also entitled to fill 6% of seats in the management quota of their own, but the names and particulars of such candidates have got to be registered with the BOSE. 7. The Calendar for the Elementary Teachers Training Institutions was issued by the Government in the Education Department vide Government order no. 100-Edu of 2011 dated 10.02.2011, which was later partially modified vide Government order no. 452-Edu of 2011 dated 10.08.2011. The Calendar so prescribed by the Government, as modified, is quoted hereunder: S. No. Issue Time frame 1 Submission of the applications by entrepreneurs for issuance of NO C or renewal of the Institutions to the administrative department & issuance of NOCs / renewals after getting inspection report from the authorized committee. 1st March to ending August every year. 2 Issuance of notification for admission by J&K BOSE 1st week of June every year 3 Receipt of applications for pursuing ETTC including Management Quota for existing ETTs and new ones by J&K BOSE. 1st March to ending August every year. 2 Issuance of notification for admission by J&K BOSE 1st week of June every year 3 Receipt of applications for pursuing ETTC including Management Quota for existing ETTs and new ones by J&K BOSE. Ending August every year 4 Allotment of candidates by J&K BOSE to affiliated ETT Institutes. 1st Sept. to 15th Sept. every year 5 Classification of admitted / eligible candidates & commencement of academic session. By 20th Sept. every year 6 Examination, 1st year including teaching practice. By 20th Sept. every year 7 Examination 2nd year including teaching practice. By 3rd week of Sept. every year 8. Pursuant to the above Calendar prescribed by the Government in the Education Department, the BOSE issued notification dated 24.05.2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates. The application forms were required to be filled in terms of the Information Brochure pertaining to Session 2011-13 thus issued by the BOSE. 9. The case put forth by the petitioners in the lead case is that the admissions of students in various ETT Institutes in the State are conducted by the BOSE. For the session 2011-13 number of students were selected through centralized admission process and admitted to the ETT Institutes, but number of these students was considerably less than the intake capacity of these ETT Institutes. The BOSE advised the various ETT Institutes to admit students for undergoing ETT Course on their own and assured the ETT Institutes that admission of such students will be subsequently regularized by the BOSE in due course of time. It is stated that it was in this process that number of students, including the members of the petitioner Association, were given admission to various ETT Institutes in Jammu. It is averred that after the admissions were given by the ETT Institutes, the BOSE issued notification dated 30.11.2012 with regard to regularization of the candidature of the members of the petitioner Association. A photocopy of this notification has been placed on record of the petition as annexure `B'. It is further stated that, additionally, there was a process of negotiation between the ETT Institutes and the BOSE in which it was accepted by the BOSE to regularize the admission of students in various ETT Institutes who had been granted admission by such Institutes of their own. It is further stated that, additionally, there was a process of negotiation between the ETT Institutes and the BOSE in which it was accepted by the BOSE to regularize the admission of students in various ETT Institutes who had been granted admission by such Institutes of their own. Petitioners in this behalf have placed a memorandum dated 29.11.2012 on record of the petition as annexure `C'. Reliance is also placed by the petitioners on the interim directions passed in various writ petitions filed by such Institutes whereby the BOSE was directed to accept the application forms of the students and permit them to appear in the examinations on their own risk and responsibility. The grievance of the petitioners is that while the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Court were in currency and were required to be implemented, the Government in the Education Department on the basis of observations of the General Administration Department, in utter contempt of the orders, issued the impugned communication no.Edu/ETT/35/09 dated 21.05.2013 whereby directions have been given to the BOSE not to entertain the application forms of the members of the petitioner Association and not to regularize their admissions. It is pleaded that the General Administration Department has no role to play in the matter of regularization of admissions of the students of ETT Institute nor is the said Department concerned with the issues relatable thereto. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid communication dated 21.05.2013 and sought mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize their admissions and to allow them to appear in the ensuing examinations being conducted by the BOSE and to declare their results. 10. The averments made in seven of the writ petitions filed by various ETT Institutes, as already mentioned, are more or less identical. Their case is that in the session 2011-13, 22,000 candidates applied against the available 70,000 seats in Jammu and out of these 22,000 candidates only 9811 candidates appeared in the counseling and were allotted to 257 Institutes. It is their case that 244 Institutes were not allotted any student. The Association of ETT Colleges, on account of the poor response of the candidates, met the BOSE authorities between the counseling schedule and even thereafter with request for reopening of admission of ETT course. It is their case that 244 Institutes were not allotted any student. The Association of ETT Colleges, on account of the poor response of the candidates, met the BOSE authorities between the counseling schedule and even thereafter with request for reopening of admission of ETT course. It is averted that the BOSE authorities assured that reopening of admission notification will be issued very soon to enhance the admission of the students. Reference and reliance in this connection is made and placed on letter dated 27.03.2012 addressed by respondent no.4, Secretary of the BOSE, to respondent no.2, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Education Department, Srinagar, intimating to him about receipt of applications from the promoters of Jammu Division for reopening of admission process for ETTC 2011-13 or on spot counseling. It is stated that vide the aforesaid communication, respondent no.4 had made a request to respondent no.2 to consider the issue on merits and issue appropriate direction in that regard. It is also averred that the BOSE assured the petitioners that their grievance will be sorted out and new notification with respect to the admission will be issued. It is further averred that the petitioner-Institutes admitted the students on the assurance given by the respondents and these students are taking classes since their joining in the Institutes. The syllabus of the students is almost complete and they are ready to take the examinations. The grievance of the petitioners is that since they admitted the students on the assurance of the respondents, the respondents are bound to regularize the admission of these students and to allow them to sit in the examinations. These petitioners have prayed for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the admissions of all the students admitted by the petitioner Institutes for ETT Course for session 2011-13; to accept their forms and to allow them to sit in the examinations. 11. Respondents 3 and 4, i.e., the BOSE, in response to the lead case in their reply have stated that the students of the so called association did not apply to the answering respondents for admission to ETT two year Course, nor is the BOSE obliged to legalize the illegal admissions made by the ETT Institutes. It is averred that the admissions made by the Institutes themselves after the conduct of the counseling process, are illegal, Therefore, no mandamus can bed issued against the answering respondents. It is averred that the admissions made by the Institutes themselves after the conduct of the counseling process, are illegal, Therefore, no mandamus can bed issued against the answering respondents. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Ragabgdake, (2012) 2 SCC 425 , it is stated that illegal admissions of students dehors the prescribed procedure is impermissible. It is also pleaded that the petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as no document authorizing the so called President of the association has been placed on record. It is averred that the petitioner Association having admitted that they were given admission by the Institutes on their own, these admissions are illegal and unauthorized. The petitioners are responsible for not being vigilant in seeking admissions, inasmuch as the Information Brochure contained a clear warning to the candidates against cheating by unscrupulous agencies. It is also stated that there is a process of making admissions, involving different stages which have to be completed within a particular time frame beyond which no admissions are permissible. The respondents have vehemently denied the averments with regard to advice and assurances attributed to the answering respondents. With regard to issuance of notification dated 30.11.2012, it is stated that the said notification did not make a mention of regularization of the admissions of the petitioners. The respondents have denied that the notification was issued with a view to regularize the admissions of the petitioners as absolutely false, baseless and misconceived. It is also denied that the respondents accepted the negotiations for regularizing the admission of the petitioners. The respondents have further stated that since the promoters and the management of the Institutes had created law and order problems and were creating hurdles in conducting timely examinations, the matter was referred to the Government by the Board of Directors under Section 32 of the State Board of School Education Act for appropriate decision / direction and it was in that context that communication dated 21.05.2013 came to be issued by respondents 1 and 2, and that the order contained in the communication is absolutely legal, inasmuch as no illegal admissions could be permitted to be regularized. 12. 12. In response to the other writ petitions, the respondents have broadly contested the same stating that in all 23,645 candidates applied for admission to the ETT course for the session 2011-13; that only 9811 candidates appeared for counseling; that as against 437 ETT Colleges, the candidates chose only 257 Institutes for admission. It is admitted that the ETT Colleges made a representation to the Secretary, BOSE, to reopen the admission process and restart the counseling. The said representation was forwarded to the Secretary to Government, School Education Department vide communication dated 27.03.2012. However, the Government instead of acceding to the request made by the promoters of the ETT Colleges, vide Under Secretary to Government's letter dated 10.05.2012, required the Secretary, BOSE, to issue notification for admission for the session 2012-14. The BOSE issued notification dated 12.05.2012 inviting applications from desiring candidates for the session 2012-14. It is stated that all the petitioner-Institutes, in gross violation of the Government order and notifications issued by the Board, illegally appear to have induced certain students with unauthorized admissions in their colleges. It is pleaded that the petitioners cannot be given premium for their illegal and unauthorized action in granting admissions to the students of their own. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 14. There is no dispute about the fact that admission to the course in question is governed by the calendar fixed and prescribed by the Government and that such admissions are made through Centralized Admission Process conducted by the BOSE on the basis of merit and choice of the Institutes made by the candidates desiring to seek such admissions. It is also not in dispute that notification was duly issued by the BOSE on inviting applications for admission to the said course for the session 2011-13 and that 23,645 candidates applied for admission to the ETT course for the session 2011-13 out of whom only 9811 candidates appeared for counseling. It is also not refuted that vital and relevant information and instructions were publicized in the Information Brochure issued by the BOSE. Given the controversy sought to be raised in these petitions, it would be appropriate to quote hereunder some of the pieces of vital information publicized in the aforesaid Information Brochure. It is also not refuted that vital and relevant information and instructions were publicized in the Information Brochure issued by the BOSE. Given the controversy sought to be raised in these petitions, it would be appropriate to quote hereunder some of the pieces of vital information publicized in the aforesaid Information Brochure. At the very outset, the Brochure contains the following framed and highlighted note for information of the students: "Applicants are warned against cheating by unscrupulous agencies, who may put out misleading advertisements in Newspapers or approach by other means assuring seats for Two Year Elementary Teacher Training (ETT) Course, for monetary consideration. The J&K BOSE authoritatively refuses all such misleading and false claims and advertisements. The seat for ETT Course can be secured only by merit applying directly to the Board of School Education on the prescribed format during the advertisement period as given ahead." At page 9 of the Brochure, under the caption `Procedure and Mode of Selection', inter alia, the following information is publicized: "Admission of all eligible candidates to the Diploma in Elementary Teacher Training Course shall be made out of the merit list prepared by the Board by a Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Board. The Selection list of each institution shall be put up before the Chairman through the Secretary for approval. Merit list of eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of merit, i.e., percentage of marks obtained in the qualifying examination. Admission of candidates belonging to different categories shall be made on the basis of comparative merit in the recitative lists. Likewise, admission of candidates under reserved categories shall be made on the basis of comparative merit in the respective e reserved category. At page 12 of the Brochure under the caption `Selection of the Institution', it is provided as under: "Candidates are free to select an Institution of his/her choice if the seats are available in that Institute. The admission will be strictly on the basis of merit list prepared by the J&K State BOSE. The Institution shall however be allotted to the candidate by the Board at the time of counseling." At page 12, the Brochure contains a provision for appeals. The admission will be strictly on the basis of merit list prepared by the J&K State BOSE. The Institution shall however be allotted to the candidate by the Board at the time of counseling." At page 12, the Brochure contains a provision for appeals. It provides as under: "Any genuinely aggrieved candidate, shall be within his/her legitimate rights to make an appeal to the Appellate Committee of the Board comprising of the following on the prescribed form on payment of Rs. 120/- in the form of a Demand Draft in favour of Chairman, J&K State Board of School Education: 1. Chairman; 2. Secretary; 3. Director (Academics); 4. Joint Secretary, General, K.D/J.D; Majority of members shall form the quorum" Page 15 of the Information Brochure also contains the following important information for candidates: 1. The admission list shall be prepared by the Central Admission Committee only; 2. No institution or agency has been authorized to deal with the candidates for admission in Elementary Teacher Training Course (ETT) under any circumstances; 3. The selection Merit list framed under norms shall be displayed on the website of the J&K Stare Board of School Education, www.jkbose.co.in.; 4. If any document is detected to be fake at any stage the admission of such candidates shall be cancelled and shall be liable for criminal proceedings; 5. The selection list shall be provisional; 6. The candidates admitted in any institution shall have to attend the 180 days classes in each subject regularly and to earn eligibility to appear in the Board examination he / she should have at least 75% of the attendance. In light of the above factual position, the petitioners in the lead case having taken admissions in different ETT Institutes at their own risk and cost, without approaching the BOSE in the manner prescribed therefor, a heavy burden is cast on them to establish that any right had accrued to them to seek regularization of their admissions, or that any of their rights had been violated or that any legal duty was cast on the respondents to regularize their such admissions. Identically, a burden is cast on the petitioner-Institutes to establish their right of seeking the mandamus as prayed for by them. 15. Identically, a burden is cast on the petitioner-Institutes to establish their right of seeking the mandamus as prayed for by them. 15. As noted above, the petitioners in the lead case have challenged communication dated 21.05.2013 addressed by Deputy Secretary to Government, School Education Department, to the Chairman, BOSE, communicating to the latter the observations of the General Administration Department, whereby it had expressed its opinion that Section 32 of the BOSE Act cannot be interpreted to regularize an illegal act of admission of students done with the sole commercial purpose. It was contended by Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners that the General Administration is not the authority to take any decision in the BOSE matters. Therefore, the said communication is illegal. It may be observed here that in terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act, 2002, the power to make rules lies with the Government. It would be appropriate to refer to various provisions of the Act. 16. At the outset, Section 2(n) of the Act defines the word "School" which is extracted below: "`School' means an educational institution primarily meant for imparting education upto, and including, the higher secondary level and includes -- (i) such institutions as are meant for providing instructions and training for teachers; (ii) ...................." Section 3 states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to all schools in the State. Sections 5 provides for establishment of schools. It prescribes that "the Government may, for the purpose of providing adequate facilities for school education: (a) establish and maintain schools; and (b) permit any educational agency to establish and maintain private schools. Educational agency, as defined under Section 2(f) means any individual, Society, Trust or body of persons registered with the Government and permitted to establish, run or maintain any private school, under the Act. Section 11(1) of the Act mandates that no private school shall be established, run or maintained without permission, in writing, of the Government or the Competent Authority and Section 11(2) provides that the Government shall prescribe the procedure to be followed for the grant of permission to establish, run or maintain private schools. Again, `private school' in terms of Section 2(l) is defined to mean a school established, run or maintained by any educational agency and recognized by the Government. Again, `private school' in terms of Section 2(l) is defined to mean a school established, run or maintained by any educational agency and recognized by the Government. Section 12(2) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education Act, 1975, the Government shall, by notification, in the Government Gazette, appoint the `competent authorities' for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Section 12(4) provides that the Government shall prescribe norms and conditions for the functioning of recognized schools. Section 29 of the Act deals with the Rule making power of the Government and in its first Sub-Section provides that the Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters delineated thereunder, which includes the procedure for admission of students in schools and any other matter, which is or may be required to be prescribed under the Act. 17. It is thus clear that the Government has the power to provide for the procedure for admission of students in the ETTs. That apart, in the instant case, the General Administration Department did not of its own take the cognizance of the matter. The matter was referred to it by the Administrative Department of the Department of Education and BOSE for consideration and orders. In any case, the original records called for by this Court for perusal, reveal that Under Secretary to Government, School Education Department vide his communication No. EDU/ETT/35/2009 dated 09.01.2013 had advised the Chairman of the Board to convene a full meeting of the Board and take a decision "at your own level" in the matter. It is the specific case of the respondents that the matter was referred by the Board of Directors of the BOSE to the Government under section 32 of the BOSE Act only because the promoters of the Institutes were creating law and order problems, and hurdles in the timely conduct of the examinations. It may be relevant to mention here that Section 32 of the BOSE Act deals with the powers of the Government for removal of difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. For facility of reference, it is quoted hereunder: "32. It may be relevant to mention here that Section 32 of the BOSE Act deals with the powers of the Government for removal of difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. For facility of reference, it is quoted hereunder: "32. Powers of the Government for removal of difficulty: If any difficulty arises as to the first constitution of the Board and of any of its committees after the commencement of this Act, or otherwise in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government, as occasion may require, may by order do anything which appears to them necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty." In light of the above, no exception can be taken to the reference of the matter by the Administrative Department to the General Administration Department and the opinion tendered by the General Administration Department. In any case, even if the communication in question were not there, the admissions of students made by the ETT Institutes would continue to be illegal and without any sanction of law and rules. In a recent decision in NCTE v. Venus Public Education Society, (2013) 1 SCC 223 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "Without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the University/Examining Body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquiry whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. The institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialize education and earn money forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been `transparency'. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been `transparency'. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent on the grounds of sympathy is not acceptable and, accordingly, the same is repelled. It may be stated that NCTE should have acted with promptitude, for a statutory authority which is conferred with the power, is required to act within the parameters of law and the directions given by the court and further not to create a feeling among the educational institutions that they are harassed. It is expected that NCTE shall function with propriety, regard being had to the statutory responsibility bestowed on it by Parliament. Its actions should neither show arbitrariness nor should it reflect any indulgence. Objectivity, reliability and trust are to be the motto of NCTE and the committees working under it." Applying the above judgment to the facts of the present case, the students having of their own choice, despite the warnings and cautions publicized by the BOSE in its Brochure taken the admissions, cannot even for a moment be heard raising any grievance against the BOSE. Both the students and the Institutes in question having acted in flagrant violation of the regulations / calendar issued by the BOSE cannot attribute the same to the BOSE. This Court would not compel the BOSE to act in flagrant violation of law, rules and the regulations. 18. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Ragabgdake, (2012) 2 SCC 425 , the Supreme Court has held that the students admitted by the recognized institutions otherwise than through the entrance / eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorized agency. 19. An issue was sought to be raised about the scope of the Regulations. However, in none of these petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of the Regulations / Calendar in question. 20. Mr. Leher, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in some of the petitions, sought to press for the reliefs on the basis of equity. 19. An issue was sought to be raised about the scope of the Regulations. However, in none of these petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of the Regulations / Calendar in question. 20. Mr. Leher, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in some of the petitions, sought to press for the reliefs on the basis of equity. It would be suffice to say that it is the duty of this Court to decide the matter in accordance with law. Considerations of equity do not permit this Court to pass an order which is contrary to law. Granting reliefs, as prayed for in these petitions, in the facts of circumstances of the matter, would tantamount to fructifying illegality and impermissibility. 21. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the BOSE through its Secretary had entered into an agreement with the Promoters that the admission of students made by the Institutes of their own would be regularized and in that connection, vide notification dated 30.11.2012, the Promoters of the Institutes were asked to deposit the original certificates of these students, which they had duly done. According to the petitioners, in that view of the matter, the BOSE was bound to regularize the admission of these students and allow them to sit in the examinations. The relevant portion of the document, which is said to be the agreement is extracted below: "It was agreed unanimously in principle that eligibility notification for such of the eligible candidates whose list stands already submitted to the Board of School Education by the promoters of Non-governmental ETTC Institutions for the session 2011-2013 subject to the condition that there shall be no compromise whatsoever for the entertainment / acceptance of any supplementary list of ETTC candidates, if at all any of the promoter may attempt to do so. It was further accepted and accomplished by both the parties that there shall be no replacement of candidate or candidates of the list which is already with the Board whatever the circumstances. The signatures of the officers of the Board falling in the Committee are as under." A perusal of the above quoted passage of the document, relied upon by the learned counsels, does not in any manner make out that there was any agreement or assurance extended by the BOSE that the admissions of such students would be regularized. The signatures of the officers of the Board falling in the Committee are as under." A perusal of the above quoted passage of the document, relied upon by the learned counsels, does not in any manner make out that there was any agreement or assurance extended by the BOSE that the admissions of such students would be regularized. It could at best be said, though not expressly contained in the aforesaid passage of the document, that it was in principal agreed that the BOSE would examine the eligibility of such students. Even if it be taken as an agreement, it does not mean that such eligibility would be determined in abstract; naturally, such examination could not be dehors the regulations / calendar of the BOSE. If on consideration of the matter, the BOSE has come to the conclusion that such admissions cannot be regularized or that these students cannot be allowed to sit in the examinations, legally no fault can be attributed to such decision of the BOSE. 22. Cumulatively, it is held that the petitioners, both in the lead case as well as the other petitions, have failed to establish any rights and/or violation thereof which would entitle them to maintain these petitions or warrant issuance of the directions prayed for in these petitions. Obviously, the petitioners are seeking to derive premium on their illegalities and flagrant violation of the rules and procedure, which cannot be allowed by this Court. 23. In light of the above, there is no ground made out to admit these petitions to hearing. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Interim directions, if any, passed and subsisting in these petitions, shall stand vacated. 24. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, the Contempt (OWP) no.14/2013 is held to be unnecessary and is, therefore, dismissed. Record returned to learned counsel for respondents. Copy of the judgment be placed on each file.