Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:-- 1. Following reliefs are claimed in the instant petition:- "(i) By issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari the decision taken by the Board of Inspection on 30.05.2014 to the extent it declines the allotment of 153 seats for the year 2014-15 be quashed. (ii) By issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus the respondents be commanded to allot 251 number of seats for imparting B.Ed Degree for the year 2014-15 in accordance with the decision taken in 6th Meeting of the College Development Council, University of Jammu held on 3rd July, 2014. (iii) By issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari the decision taken by the respondents to the extent it declines to determine and allot 251 seats for the Session 2014-15 to the petitioner College as reflected in the list of Colleges Participating in Centralized B.Ed Counseling 2014-15 be quashed. (iv) By issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus the respondents be commanded to adhere to the request of the students who have opted for the petitioner College for admission to the B.Ed course for the Session 2014-15 in the 3rd round of centralized admission process." 2. Facts enumerated in the petition may briefly be noticed. Petitioner College of Education has been set up by a Trust named as Cosmic Educational Trust. One Bhawani Dev Singh Jamwal-a permanent resident of the State is the Chairman of the Trust as also the College. The College is said to be recognized by the State Government and stands affiliated to University of Jammu. The Petitioner College is claimed to have been set up in the year 2004 after obtaining NOC from the State Government. Thereafter, it got temporarily affiliated to University of Jammu for a period of one year. The College was allocated 94 seats. The College was subjected to annual inspection based on Self Appraisal Report (SAR) devised by the University of Jammu. Based thereon, the University would recommend renewal of affiliation of the College. Capacity of the petitioner College was enhanced from year to year and it grew to a figure of 334 seats in 2012-2013. It is claimed that the University ranked the petitioner College as the best in the State. Based thereon, the University would recommend renewal of affiliation of the College. Capacity of the petitioner College was enhanced from year to year and it grew to a figure of 334 seats in 2012-2013. It is claimed that the University ranked the petitioner College as the best in the State. This state of affairs continued upto 2013-2014. However, thereafter the University took cognizance of some complaints that the Education Colleges in the State were not actually imparting education to the students as most of the students remained absent from colleges but were marked present. The College Development Council convened a meeting on 3rd July, 2014 and, besides other items of the agenda, considered the reports of surprise inspection conducted by the team as per the University Council resolution No. 3262 for determining the intake capacity of non-government Colleges of Education affiliated with the University on the basis of rational mechanism devised and approved by the University Council in its 75th meeting held on 11.10.2013. After detailed deliberations, it was resolved; (i) Seats allotment formula based on the NAAC accreditation and affiliation status, be not applied for the academic session 2014-15. All the Non-Government Colleges of Education be given time upto 30th April, 2015, to get NAAC accreditation, as requested by FORCE, as one time exception. Maximum seat allotment for the academic year 2015-16 be strictly based on the approved table. However, the decision of the CDC be reported to appropriate bodies for confirmation. (ii) As one time exception, average attendance of students found present during two inspections (i.e. Inspections during which higher number of students were found present) vis-a-vis the number of students admitted be reckoned and thereafter intake seats of Colleges for Session 2014-15 be fixed in accordance with the formula delineated in the following table: 1.Where average attendance of two inspections is 50% and above of the admitted candidates, sanctioned intake seats of such college will remain intact. 2.Where average attendance of two inspections is above 45% but below 60% of the admitted candidates, sanctioned intake seats of such Colleges be reduced by 25% 3.Where average attendance of two inspections is above 30% but below 45% of the admitted candidates, sanctioned intake seats of such colleges be reduced by 50% 4.Where average attendance of two inspections is above 15% but below 30% of the admitted candidates, intake seats of such colleges be reduced by 75% 5.Where average attendance of two inspections is above 5% but below 15% of the admitted candidates, such colleges be allotted 60 seats. 6.Where average attendance of two inspections is below 5% of the admitted candidates, such Colleges be allotted 60 seats and show cause notice for disaffiliation as per statutes be issued. Further resolved that the above dispensation for the academic session 2014-15 be reported to the appropriate bodies for confirmation." 3. As per item 3(II), it was resolved as under; "(i) As one time exception, average attendance of students found present during two inspections vis-a-vis the number of students admitted be reckoned, (ii) Two inspections during which the higher number of students found present were to be considered. (iii) Thereafter intake seats of the college for the Session 2014-15 were to be fixed in accordance with the formulate delineated in the table indicated in the column aforestated." 4. According to petitioner, the average attendance of students during two inspections referred to hereinabove comes out to be 45% but below 60% of the admitted candidates. Therefore, 25% of the intake capacity was required to have been reduced. The team is said to have conducted surprise inspections on 3 dates with the number of students found in the college as per following table:- 07.12.2013-39 students found present in the College. Team was informed that 25 students with two faculty members were with Chairman at Kathua to organize Martyrs Day. 16.01.2014-82 students were found present in the College. 23.03.2014-63 students were found present in the College. 4. Petitioner does not dispute the findings of Inspection team in so far as the two inspections dated 07.12.2013 and 16.01.2014 are concerned. However, in respect of 3rd Inspection dated 23.04.2014 (23.03.2014 as per Inspection Team), it is claimed that out of 334 students, 229 students were attending 9 different schools to practice teaching skills. The schedule of teaching practice had already been intimated to the University on 09.04.2014. However, in respect of 3rd Inspection dated 23.04.2014 (23.03.2014 as per Inspection Team), it is claimed that out of 334 students, 229 students were attending 9 different schools to practice teaching skills. The schedule of teaching practice had already been intimated to the University on 09.04.2014. It is further averred in the petition that on 23.04.2014, the Inspection Team landed in the college premises of petitioner approximately at 1.30 PM which was the normal closing time in summer. The Inspection Team is said to have been apprised of deputation of nine groups of students for teaching practice in nine different schools along with two Supervisors and the Principal and Chairman for cross checking of the conduct of teaching practice. However, the Inspection Team only talked to Lecturer Chandardeep Sharma on telephone who informed them about the school where he had taken the group of students. The Inspection Team is also said to have talked to lecturers Narayan Dass and Mohan Lal but did not contact other six schools to which students had been deputed for teaching practice. The Inspection Team left the college complex noting the attendance of 63 students of three different schools against actual 229 students present on that day at 9 different schools. It is claimed that the attendance of nine schools authenticated by the Principals clearly demonstrates that 334 students of the petitioner College had gone to nine different schools indicated in the information provided to University on 09.04.2013. The consequence of the Inspection Team not visiting all the nine schools where 229 students on that date were being imparted the macro-teaching practice resulted in reduction of number of students which were to be allocated to the petitioner College in the year 2014-15. The petitioner learnt that only 98 seats have been allocated to petitioner College for the Session 2014-15 when Board of Inspection renewed the affiliation of the petitioner College on 30.05.2014. Petitioner claims to have made a representation to Director College Development Council for correction of the error made by the University. However, same did not evoke any response. Meanwhile, central admission process was scheduled in which petitioner College was allocated only 116 seats out of which 98 seats were in accordance with the formula adopted by the University and 10 of social infrastructure quota in addition to 8 of Management quota. Petitioner is aggrieved of this decision. However, same did not evoke any response. Meanwhile, central admission process was scheduled in which petitioner College was allocated only 116 seats out of which 98 seats were in accordance with the formula adopted by the University and 10 of social infrastructure quota in addition to 8 of Management quota. Petitioner is aggrieved of this decision. It is contended that according to formula carved out in the decision taken in the 6th meeting of College Development Council, attendance of two best inspections was to be considered. According to petitioner best of the two inspections dated 16.01.2014 and 23.04.2014 with 82 seats and 63 seats respectively would work out a figure of 145 seats, average whereof would be 72.5 and not 22% as determined by the University. Petitioner is, thus, aggrieved of the approach of University in allocating 98 seats instead of 251 seats it was entitled to. Petitioner claims to have made representations in this regard but the same were not considered. 5. Respondents, in their objections, raised preliminary objections to the maintainahility of the writ petition on the ground that since a detailed consideration order rejecting the claim of petitioner has been passed on 07.11.2014 pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 28.10.2014 passed in CMA No. 2135/2014, the instant writ petition had been rendered in fructuous as the petitioner has not assailed the consideration order. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact with regard to attendance of students on 23.04.2014 which cannot be adjudicated upon in this writ petition. It is further pleaded that the process of admission to B.Ed, course for Session 2014-15 had since culminated and the class work has started, therefore, no relief can be granted in the instant petition at this stage. It is further pleaded that the policy decision of the University Council with respect to fixation of intake of college for the Session 2014-15 based upon the attendance of students has been uniformly applied to all Education Colleges. Thus the petitioner, not being aggrieved of such policy decision, cannot maintain the present writ petition, in pursuance whereof the mechanism of surprise inspections and allotment of seats based on such inspections was formulated by the College Development Council for allotment of seats to the non-government Colleges of Education. Thus the petitioner, not being aggrieved of such policy decision, cannot maintain the present writ petition, in pursuance whereof the mechanism of surprise inspections and allotment of seats based on such inspections was formulated by the College Development Council for allotment of seats to the non-government Colleges of Education. It is pleaded that the enhancement in intake capacity of colleges is considered keeping in view the number of admission seekers and the availability of infrastructure in the colleges. The University Council in its 75th Meeting held on 11.10.2013 in the backdrop of complaints about serious deficiencies in the functioning of privately run institutions resolved to take strict action against non-government B.Ed. Colleges affiliated to University of Jammu having presence of less than 75% students and confirmed the action taken by College Development Council regarding surprise checking of attendance. It is further pleaded that inspection teams were deputed by the University for surprise inspection of the College. Allotment of seats devised by the College Development Council pursuant to the University Council's decision dated 11.10.2013 was applied in respect of petitioner College upon report of the attendance monitoring Committee which carried out surprise inspection of the petitioner College on 07.12.2013, 16.01.2014, 23.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 and upon the basis of the attendance of the students reported by the aforementioned Committee, the average attendance of the students came out to be 21.71% and not 45% as claimed by the petitioner. Respondents have specifically denied the factum of average attendance of students found in petitioner College during two inspections coming out to be 45%. Denying that 39 students were present in the petitioner College on 07.12.2013, respondents pleaded that only 31 students were present on that date. It is also denied that on 23.04.2014, 229 students were present. It is pleaded that the figures shown in the list of students annexed with the petition were fabricated and the inspection report dated 16.01.2014 clearly mentioned that the attendance was manipulated and fabricated. According to respondents, the following number of students were found present in the petitioner College at the time of inspection: 07.12.2013-31 16.01.2014-82 23.04.2014-63 21.05.2014-39 The higher number of students found present on two dates of inspection were:- 16.01.2014-82 23.04.2014-63 The average of students found present during two inspections with higher attendance comes out to be 21.71%. According to respondents, the following number of students were found present in the petitioner College at the time of inspection: 07.12.2013-31 16.01.2014-82 23.04.2014-63 21.05.2014-39 The higher number of students found present on two dates of inspection were:- 16.01.2014-82 23.04.2014-63 The average of students found present during two inspections with higher attendance comes out to be 21.71%. On the basis of formula devised by the University, the petitioner College was found entitled to 75 seats for Session 2014-15. Same were enhanced by 30% as per decision of admission Committee. Thus, the petitioner College was sanctioned 98 seats besides allocation of 8 management seats and 10 social infrastructure seats raising the total number to 116. It is further pleaded that as per inspection report dated 23.04.2014, no student was present in the College at the time of inspection. The Committee was informed that 8 out of 9 TPs were held at Pathankot. The Committee randomly inquired about the status of TPs held at School No. 1, 2 and 4 and it was found that only 50% of the students allotted to these schools were attending the TP. Subsequently on 21.05.2014, it was learnt from Principal of the College that 3 TPs were conducted in and around Kathua whereas others were conducted outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 23.04.2014, the petitioner College kept the attendance monitoring Committee in dark by informing that all the TPs were being conducted outside the jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir. The Committee was mislead by the College Authorities. Representations made by colleges including the petitioner College were referred to the Committee which decided to keep the representations on hold in view of pendency of OWP No. 1275/2014. However, representation of petitioner College was considered in view of order dated 28.10.2014 and the Committee did not find any merit in the representation of petitioner College. Consideration order rejecting petitioner's representation has been passed on 07.11.2014. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is comfortable with the decision of the University that in case the attendance of students is found short, the admission of students in the forthcoming year will be reduced. Best two out of three inspections were to be taken as proof of attendance. The two abrupt inspections are said to have been conducted on 16.01.2014 and 23.03.2014 (should be 23.04.2014). Best two out of three inspections were to be taken as proof of attendance. The two abrupt inspections are said to have been conducted on 16.01.2014 and 23.03.2014 (should be 23.04.2014). It is submitted that during abrupt inspection of the petitioner college conducted on the aforesaid dates, only 82 students are said to have been found attending the College at the time of first visit while 63 students are said to have been found attending the College at the time of second visit. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the dispute relates to actual attendance of students on 23.04.2013. It is contended that in fact 229 students were present on that date who were deputed to schools for macro teaching practice and the University had been informed well in advance about deputing of students for teaching practice. It is contended that the University has taken into reckoning attendance of students figuring only at Serial No. 2, 3 and 4 while others have been left out. It is further submitted that the factum of attendance of 229 students deputed to schools for imparting teaching practice has been certified by principals of the respective schools and in view of the same, only 25% reduction could have been effected. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of respondents that the consideration order passed by respondents has not been assailed by the petitioner and in absence of the consideration order being assailed, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is further argued that since disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is pointed out that the attendance found by the Inspection Committee while conducting surprise checks has been duly certified by the Principals of College. It is further argued that the last counseling is over and the class work has started on 27.09.2014. Thus, the petition has turned in fructuous. It is further contended that the power of University to reduce seats has been upheld and the same has not been disputed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks to repel these arguments by submitting that the consideration order has been passed in pursuance of interim direction passed by this Court and since the basis of the order impugned has been called in question, consideration order being only corollary to impugned order need not be assailed. 7. Heard and considered. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks to repel these arguments by submitting that the consideration order has been passed in pursuance of interim direction passed by this Court and since the basis of the order impugned has been called in question, consideration order being only corollary to impugned order need not be assailed. 7. Heard and considered. 8. It appears that the University of Jammu, constituted as an Autonomous Body under the Kashmir and Jammu University Act, 1969 took a policy decision dispensing with the seat allotment formula based on the NAAC Accreditation and Affiliation Status and adopted the mechanism of surprise inspections and allotment of seats based on these inspections for allotment of seats to non-government colleges of education. This decision appears to have been taken in the University Council's 75th Meeting held on 11.10.2013 in the backdrop of complaints about deficiencies in the functioning of privately run institutions. It further appears that the mechanism of allotment of seats devised by the College Development Council pursuant to the University Council's decision dated 11th October, 2013 was applied in respect of petitioner-College. According to respondents, the attendance monitoring Committee carried out surprise inspection of the petitioner-College on 07.12.2013, 16.01.2014, 23.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 and on the basis of attendance of students reported by the said Committee, the average attendance of students was found to be 21.71%. This is disputed by the petitioner who claims such average attendance of students at 45% during the best two out of these inspections taken as proof of attendance. Respondents have specifically denied the allegation that in the inspection conducted on 23.04.2014, 229 students were present in the petitioner-College. It is pleaded that the list of students annexed with the petition appears to be fabricated as the inspection report dated 16.01.2014 clearly mentions that attendance was manipulated and fabricated. According to respondents, the higher number of students found present on the two selected dates of inspection were 82 students on 16.01.2014 and 63 students on 23.04.2014. The average of students during these two inspections conducted in Session 2013-14 is barely 21.71% and on the basis of formula devised by the College Development Council, petitioner-College has been found entitled to 75 seats for the Session 2014-15 which has been enhanced by 30% on the recommendation of Admission Committee thereby raising the number to 98 seats. The average of students during these two inspections conducted in Session 2013-14 is barely 21.71% and on the basis of formula devised by the College Development Council, petitioner-College has been found entitled to 75 seats for the Session 2014-15 which has been enhanced by 30% on the recommendation of Admission Committee thereby raising the number to 98 seats. Petitioner-College has accordingly been sanctioned 98 seats in addition to 8 management seats and 10 social infrastructure seats, the total intake capacity working up to 116 seats. The surprise inspection report dated 23.04.2014 of the Attendance Monitoring Committee reveals that no student was found present in the petitioner-College at the time of Inspection. The enquiry revealed that the students had been deputed for teaching practice Course (TP). Out of 9 TPs, 8 were held at Pathankot in Punjab State. The Committee randomly enquired about the status of TPs held at School No. 1, 2 and 4 and found that only 50% of the students allotted to these schools were attending the TP. The Committee appears to have been informed at the time of subsequent inspection on 21.05.2014 that three TPs were conducted in and around Kathua whereas others were conducted outside Jammu and Kashmir. The Attendance Monitoring Committee, thus, concluded that it was kept in dark in order to mislead. Viewed thus, the contention raised by petitioner in regard to attendance of students on 23.04.2014 constitutes a question of fact which cannot be decided while exercising writ jurisdiction. Petitioner has not raised any issue in regard to the University decision which adopted the mechanism of surprise inspections and allotment of seats based on these inspections. The dispute raised by petitioner is with regard to enforcement of University decision raising disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction. It further appears that the representation of petitioner-College which had been kept on hold in view of pendency of OWP No. 1275/2014 has been considered by respondents in compliance to the direction passed by this Court on 28.10.2014 and the same has been rejected. The consideration order dated 7th November, 2014 has not been assailed by the petitioner. In absence thereof, the instant petition would not be maintainable. The consideration order dated 7th November, 2014 has not been assailed by the petitioner. In absence thereof, the instant petition would not be maintainable. It also transpires that the seats of petitioner-College determined by respondents on the basis of formula devised by College Development Council have been intimated to petitioner through Communication dated 28.07.2014 and the process of admission to B.Ed. Course for the Session 2014-15 has since culminated. The instant petition has, thus, been rendered in fructuous. 9. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant petition does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.