JUDGMENT 1. Though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A., it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties in this case. 2. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider and grant the affiliation to the petitioner's B.Ed. College for the academic year 2012-13 and consequently permit the students as per the list at Annexure-N to complete the said course. 3. Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay, the learned counsel for the Bangalore University raised the threshold objection over the non-joinder of the necessary parties; the students in question are made neither the co-petitioners nor the respondents. Sri D.Pavanesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to arraign the students (as per the list at Annexure-N) as co-petitioners to these petitions. He undertakes to file the vakalath for them in three days' time. Sri Pavanesh further submits that the additional 100 sets of court fees are already paid on the memorandum of the writ petition. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner College started the B.Ed. Course in 2005-06 by obtaining the permission from the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE' for short) and the affiliation from the Bangalore University. In 2010-11, there were no students admitted to the petitioner's College. In the next academic year (201112), the petitioner sought to re-start the B.Ed. Course. It therefore sought the renewal of affiliation. Complaining of the inaction in the matter, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.14961-994/2012 seeking a direction to the University to consider the petitioner's request for the grant of affiliation. The said petitions came to be disposed of by this Court, by its order, dated 18.12.2012 with a direction to the Bangalore University to renew the affiliation for the academic year 2011-12 without any further delay. The respondents have not taken any decision in the matter of the renewal of affiliation for the year 2011-12. For the succeeding academic year also (2012-13), the petitioner made the application for grant of affiliation on 30.03.2012. The Bangalore University's local enquiry committee, on inspection, has found the petitioner's infrastructure to be deficient and has therefore not recommended the affiliation for the academic year 2012-13. 5. Sri Pavanesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NCTE has given the recognition for the B.Ed. Course at the petitioner's institution. The Bangalore University's local enquiry committee, on inspection, has found the petitioner's infrastructure to be deficient and has therefore not recommended the affiliation for the academic year 2012-13. 5. Sri Pavanesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NCTE has given the recognition for the B.Ed. Course at the petitioner's institution. He further submits that the same is not withdrawn. He has produced the list of the institutions which are recognized. The list is downloaded from the http://www.srcncte.in/granted.htm. The same is filed along with a memo. 6. He brings to my notice, the directions issued by the Government vide its letter, dated 13.3.2013 (Annexure-M). The said letter is issued keeping in mind the interests of the students. He submits that the recommendations of the Government are binding on the Bangalore University as per Section 59(12) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short). The provisions contained therein read as follows: "59. Affiliation of Colleges. - (12) The University shall on receipt of the directions of the State Government, issue formal orders accordingly" 7. He asserts that the recognition granted by the NCTE is not withdrawn; it is continued. Pending consideration of the petitioner's request for the grant of affiliation, as directed by the Government vide its letter, dated 13.3.2013, he prays for a direction to the respondent University to permit the students, admitted by the petitioner for the academic year 2012-13, to appear for the forthcoming first semester examination scheduled to commence on 10th instant. He submits that this Court, by an interim order, dated 16.5.2013 has already permitted the students to appear for the said examination, which was to commence on 23.5.2013. Because of the postponement of the examination from 23.5.2013 to 10.6.2013, the I.A. for vacating the interim order is filed. It can not be entertained. 8. Sri T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the management of the petitioner College has taken the law in its own hands. Without there being any affiliation for the academic year 2012-13, the students are admitted. It can not be entertained. 8. Sri T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the management of the petitioner College has taken the law in its own hands. Without there being any affiliation for the academic year 2012-13, the students are admitted. He brings to my notice, the Apex Court's judgment in the case of NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANOTHER v. VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5887, wherein it is held that an institution cannot make admission without obtaining the affiliation from the examining body and recognition from the regulatory body. 9. The learned counsel submits that the recommendations of the Government for the grant of affiliation are not binding upon the University. He submits that the letter, dated 13.3.2013 (Annexure-M) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner in any way, as it is not preceded by the requirements contained in Section 59(10) and 59(11) of the said Act. The said provisions are extracted herein below: "59. Affiliation of Colleges. - (10) The Registrar shall submit the application and its enclosures, Annexures, the report of the Local Inquiry Committee, and the Proceedings of the Academic Council and Syndicate to the State Government for taking a decision thereof before 31st March of ensuing year. (11) The State Government shall consider such applications in the light of the recommendations of the Local Inquiry Committee, the Academic Council and Syndicate and after such enquiry as may appear to it to be necessary make the recommendation to the University to affiliate or reject affiliation as the case may be, or any part thereof, including the variation in the intake. 10. He submits that the University has already submitted the application, the report of the Local Inspection Committee and the proceedings of the Academic Council and the Syndicate to the Government for its decision as per Section 59(10) and (11) of the said Act. 11. Sri R.Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the said letter, dated 13.3.2013 (Annexure-M) cannot be construed as a direction in terms of Section 59(11) of the said Act. The concerned Government Officer has only called upon the University to act in accordance with the rules. 11. Sri R.Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the said letter, dated 13.3.2013 (Annexure-M) cannot be construed as a direction in terms of Section 59(11) of the said Act. The concerned Government Officer has only called upon the University to act in accordance with the rules. He also submits that the Government Order, dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure-A) issuing the no objection certificate for starting the petitioner College is subject to several conditions. One such condition, inter alia, is that the institution shall abide by the orders/rules of the State Government and the statutes and regulations of the affiliating University issued from time to time. 12. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. 13. The first question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of affiliation for the academic year 2012-13 based on the Government's letter, dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure-M). The said letter reads as follows: “KANNADAM” 14. The perusal of this letter shows that the author of the letter has proceeded on the footing that the petitioner Institution has been given the affiliation for the academic year 2011-12. But the fact of the matter is that there is no affiliation for the said year also. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the said letter is issued either in ignorance of the facts or without application of mind. 15. Be it as it may, the recommendations made in the said letter are not binding upon the University in any way. The scheme of the affiliation as found in Chapter 10 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 is such that the application for the affiliation shall first be placed before the Syndicate for its consideration. The Syndicate, on consideration of the application directs the local inquiry by the Local Inquiry Committee (LIC). The LIC shall submit its inspection report to the Academic Council. The Academic Council would record its opinion on the findings of the LIC. Thereafter, the matter will go before the Syndicate which would consider the report of the LIC and resolution of the Academic Council and record its opinion on whether the affiliation is to be granted in whole or in part or rejected after making such inquiry as it deems necessary. Thereafter, the matter will go before the Syndicate which would consider the report of the LIC and resolution of the Academic Council and record its opinion on whether the affiliation is to be granted in whole or in part or rejected after making such inquiry as it deems necessary. Thereafter, the Registrar shall submit the application for affiliation, report of the Inquiry Committee, proceedings of the Academic Council and of the Syndicate to the State Government for taking a decision thereon before 31st March of ensuing year. The State Government, on consideration of all the materials placed on its record, shall issue the direction to the University for granting or not granting the affiliation. On the receipt of such directions of the State Government, the University is required to issue the formal order in accordance therewith. 16. As the Government's letter, dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure-M) is not issued in compliance with the scheme of the Act, I am afraid it cannot be acted upon. 17. As far as the petitioner's main prayer is concerned, the ends of justice would be met by my directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for the grant of affiliation for 2012-13 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within three weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. 18. But the case cannot be closed by merely issuing the aforesaid directions. The transitional arrangement is required to be made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The application for the grant of affiliation for 2012-13 submitted by the petitioner on 30.03.3012 (Annexure-J) has remained unconsidered. It is not known why the respondents have not passed the final order of either granting or rejecting the affiliation, though it is filed about one year two months ago. 19. Even for the previous academic year also i.e., for 2011-12, the respondents have not taken a decision in the matter despite a clear direction issued by this Court by its order, dated 18.10.2012 (Annexure-H) passed in W.P.Nos.14961-14994/2012. 20. I would have considered dismissing these petitions as the petitioners have admitted the students without obtaining the affiliation order, if the recognition of NCTE were withdrawn. The recognition granted by NCTE is not withdrawn invoking Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 20. I would have considered dismissing these petitions as the petitioners have admitted the students without obtaining the affiliation order, if the recognition of NCTE were withdrawn. The recognition granted by NCTE is not withdrawn invoking Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The resultant position is that the petitioner College enjoys the status of recognized College and its application for the affiliation is pending consideration. Considering these aspects of the matter and to balance the interests of all the parties concerned, I deem it just to pass the following order: (i) The respondents are directed to permit the petitioning students to appear for the examination of the B.Ed. first semester at any affiliated college centre. I issue this direction as the examination cannot be conducted at a college, which has not yet obtained the affiliation. (ii) The Government shall take a decision in the matter of the grant of affiliation for the petitioner College in accordance with law and within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. (iii) If the Government chooses to grant the affiliation to the petitioner Institution for 2012-13, the petitioning students shall appear for the second semester of B.Ed. examination at the petitioner College only. (iv) If the Government decides not to grant the affiliation, the petitioning students shall be transferred from the petitioner College to any other recognized, affiliated college. (v) The University shall also announce the results of the forthcoming examinations commencing on 10.06.2013, for which the petitioners are hereby permitted to appear. (vi) The interim order granted on 16.05.2013 is retained but subject to the modification as per the direction No.(i) supra. (vii) Needless to observe that the permission given to the petitioning students to appear for the examination is subject to their meeting the eligibility criteria in all other respects. 21. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.