ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent University in MSU/R/CD/C.T.A./HCHSC/B.Sc FDAM/2015 dated 29.04.2015 and the consequential proceedings in MSU/R/CD/C.T.A./HCHSC/B.Sc FDAM/2015 dated 25.05.2015, in and by which, the petitioner College was directed not to admit candidates in the course B.Sc. Fashion Design and Apparel Making for the academic year 2015-2016. 2. The case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition is as follows: i) The petitioner’s College namely, the Holy Cross Home Science College, Tuticorin (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’) is one among the several Recognised Educational Institutions owned and administered by the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Sisters of the Cross of Chavanod, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 bearing Registration No. 32 of 1964. This Court has also declared the Society as a Minority in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution vide Judgment dated 24.09.1976 in W.P. No. 627Of 1975. The college was established in the year 1975 and it offers the best general and secular education in Graduate and Post-Graduate levels. It was initially affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University and after the establishment of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in the year 1990, the college became affiliated to this University. The College is fully self – financed and although it is a Christian Religious Minority institution, admission is not denied to anyone on the basis of religion, caste or creed. ii) It is submitted that the college is running courses under Self financed scheme and that there are 516 students are now studying in the college. The college offers 6 Under Graduate Courses and 2 Post Graduate Courses with 27 teaching staff and 10 Non-Teaching staff. Apart from this, the college is also offering Certificate Courses such as Post Graduate Diploma in Human Nutrition and Dietetics. While so, considering the high demand for admission and to cater to the enormous demand by women for a course in Fashion Technology, in the year 2005, the college decided to start a Graduate Course namely, B.Sc. Degree in Fashion Designing and Apparel Making and put up necessary infrastructural facilities. While so, considering the high demand for admission and to cater to the enormous demand by women for a course in Fashion Technology, in the year 2005, the college decided to start a Graduate Course namely, B.Sc. Degree in Fashion Designing and Apparel Making and put up necessary infrastructural facilities. The respondent, after due verification and after conducting a detailed inspection by its Inspection Committee, gave affiliation for the course vide proceedings No. MSU /CD /FA /2006 dated 07.06.2006 for the academic year 2006 – 2007 with an annual intake of 32 students on due receipt of the prescribed fee and the Fixed Deposit Receipts of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. iii) It is further submitted that the respondent University, vide proceedings CD/Fur.Affi/2007 - 08 dated 03.05.2007, informed the college that a four member Inspection Commission would visit the College on 22.05.2007 at 11.00 a.m. to verify the infrastructural facilities for the existing course of B.Sc (Fashion Designing and Apparel Making), which was granted during the academic year 2006-2007. Accordingly, the Committee inspected the college on 22.05.2007 and satisfied with the facilities in the college for the said course, pursuant to which, the college also started admitting students in the said course from the academic year 2006 – 2007 and conducting the course all these years. iv) It is also submitted that during the academic years 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, no students opted for the said course and there was nil admission. However, the course was continued and classes conducted for the existing 2nd & 3rd year students. The details of students admitted to the course during the various years are as under: Sl.No. Academic year University Sanctioned Strength Admitted Student Strength 1 2006 – 07 32 11 2 2007 – 08 32 15 3 2008 - 09 32 15 4 2009 - 10 32 09 5 2010 – 11 32 0 6 2011 - 12 32 0 7 2012 - 13 32 0 8 2013 – 14 32 0 9 2014 – 15 32 13 In the academic year 2014–2015, there were 13 students, who took admission to the said course and the college also admitted all those 13 students within the time prescribed by the University i.e., on or before 31.08.2014. On 25.09.2014, the Principal (in-charge) of the college went to the University in person to submit the Nominal Roll of students and to collect the Subject Code for the said course for the purpose of submitting the filled-in examination forms. At that time, the University officials orally instructed the Principal (in-charge) to submit the admission details of the last three years. The principal submitted a written representation dated 25.09.2014 to the University intimating that the college did not admit new students from June 2012 upto April 2014, which was inadvertently mentioned as June 2011, as there were no takers during the said period. v) It is the submission of the petitioner's College the University announced that the examination-schedule for the academic year would commence on the 5th of November 2014 and had instructed the colleges to submit applications for the examination with the prescribed fee in November 2014. The college submitted the Nominal Roll and applications for the said 13 students admitted in the said course - B.Sc (Fashion Designing and Apparel Making) with the examination fee vide Letter dated 01.10.2014 for the 1st Semester Examinations. While so, the University, all of a sudden issued proceedings in MSU/ R/ CD/ HCHSC/ Cont. Aff./FDAM/ 2014 dated 10.10.2014 stating that the request for permission to continue the B.Sc (Fashion Designing and Apparel Making) Degree Course had not been complied with as the last date for admission to all the PG / UG Courses was over on 31.08.2014 itself, in pursuance of which the Controller of Examination returned the Application forms and the Nominal Roll along with Chellan copies vide proceedings in Ref: MSU/COE/ B.Sc/423/Nov.2014 dated 14.10.2014 stating that the college had not obtained permission for the same. Therefore, the college challenged both the proceedings of the University dated 10.10.2014 and 14.10.2014 before this Court in W.P (MD).No.17450 of 2014, wherein this Court was pleased to grant an Interim Order in M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014 dated 29.10.2014 directing the respondents therein to permit the said 13 students of the academic year 2014-2015 to participate in the periodical examinations including the one slated to commence on 05.11.2014 and to publish the results thereof. Accordingly, pending the writ petition, the said 13 students were permitted to take the examinations and the results were also published on 06.02.2015. vi) It is the further submission that in the meanwhile, the University issued another proceeding in MSU/R/CD/HCHSC/B.Sc. Accordingly, pending the writ petition, the said 13 students were permitted to take the examinations and the results were also published on 06.02.2015. vi) It is the further submission that in the meanwhile, the University issued another proceeding in MSU/R/CD/HCHSC/B.Sc. FDAM/2014 dated 07.01.2015, directing the college to send the filled-in forms and to remit at once a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- and a review commission fee of Rs.10,000/- into its General Fund Account No. 32723606944 by way of a challan under the scheme of POWER JYOTHI in the State Bank of India. The University also returned the Bank Demand Draft sent by the petitioner for Rs.10,000/- stating that further action could be taken only on receipt of the above-said sums. The college submitted a detailed reply to the University on 20.01.2015 stating that subject matter in relation to the above proceeding was pending before this Court under W.P (MD) No.17450 of 2014 and enclosed the Challan for Rs.10,000/- remitted in the General Fund Account No. 32723606944 under the scheme of Power Jyothi in the State Bank of India towards the Review Commission Fee. Despite the same, the University has not taken taking any further action in that regard. While so, the University issued the impugned proceeding in MSU/R/CD/C.T.A./HCHSC/B.Sc.FDAM/2015 dated 29.04.2015 citing a Resolution of the University Syndicate dated 24.03.2015, instructing not to admit candidates for the course in the academic year 2015-2016. The University also issued consequential proceeding in MSU/R/CD/C.T.A./HCHSC/B.Sc.FDAM/2015 dated 25.05.2015 reiterating the same with further intimation that the college would be solely responsible for any admission of students. vii) The petitioner college assailed the impugned proceedings stating that the impugned orders not to admit students are wholly arbitrary, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside. According to the petitioner college, the affiliation has been given for the course as early as on 07.06.2006 and it still remains in vogue and it has neither been cancelled nor revoked till date and that the college also possesses all necessary infrastructure and instructional facilities for the B.Sc. Degree in Fashion Designing and Apparel Making. According to the petitioner college, the affiliation has been given for the course as early as on 07.06.2006 and it still remains in vogue and it has neither been cancelled nor revoked till date and that the college also possesses all necessary infrastructure and instructional facilities for the B.Sc. Degree in Fashion Designing and Apparel Making. There also exists no rule seeking for annual permission for admitting students when the course is affiliated to the University and that there is a large-scale demand for this course as the women of this area, who are socially and educationally backward, are largely benefited by such training in Fashion Technology and the impugned orders are infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed to the Minority Educational Institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the college that neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the college before issuance of the impugned proceedings. viii) The petitioner's college has also filed an additional affidavit stating that the college has been running the course on Fashion Designing and Apparel Making ever since the academic year 2005-06 with due affiliation from the University. Although the order of affiliation mentioned only for the particular academic year 2005-06, the course is being continued till date with admission of students all these years and the students have been taking the University Examinations and receiving University Degrees. This is the same with respect to other courses in the college, which is evident from the following Table: Sl.No. COURSE AFFILIATION ORDER DATE YEAR MENTIONED 1 M.Sc(Institutional Food Service Management) 19.05.2003 2003-2004 2 B.Sc.Comp.Science 31.07.2007 2007-2008 3 B.Com with CA 07.06.2006 2006-2007 4 B.Sc Fashion Design and Apparel Making 07.06.2006 2006-2007 5 B.A English 17.07.2013 2013-2014 6 B.Com 03.07.2014 2014-2015 7 M.Com 03.07.2014 2014-2015 The students are being admitted to the above courses all these years and they have been taking the periodic examinations conducted by the University and taking the University Degrees. The same is the case in all other colleges under the University as well. For instance, the Women’s Christian College at Nagercoil is offering a course in Costume Design and Fashion, which is affiliated to the respondent University. Though the order of affiliation mentions only the year 2006-2007, the college has been admitting students all these years and the students are also taking University examinations and Degrees. For instance, the Women’s Christian College at Nagercoil is offering a course in Costume Design and Fashion, which is affiliated to the respondent University. Though the order of affiliation mentions only the year 2006-2007, the college has been admitting students all these years and the students are also taking University examinations and Degrees. In the current academic year (2015-2016) also, around 23 students have been reportedly admitted by the said college and thus, by referring to various colleges, the petitioner's college prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings. 3. The sole respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as follows: i) It is stated that the respondent University is the State run university, established under the Manonmanium Sundaranar University Act, 1990 (in short “the Act, 1990”), which is functioning strictly in accordance with the Act of 1990 and the Statues made thereunder. Section 5 of the Act of the 1990 mandates that all colleges, which come within the ambit of the University, situated in various districts like Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and Kanyakumari in the State of Tamil Nadu are to be affiliated to the University. As per section 24 (31), the syndicate of the University is empowered to affiliate the colleges within the university area to the University and also to recognize and approve colleges. It is true that the petitioner's college was granted temporary provisional affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007 in respect of B.Sc Fashion Designing and Apparel making with a maximmum sanctioned strength of 32 seats by the proceedings of the respondent dated 07.06.2006. However, the averment made by the petitioner, that the affiliation so granted on 07.06.2006 is in force till today is denied as false and in fact it is relevant to note that the proceedings dated 07.06.2006 itself very clearly stipulate that the said affiliation is purely provisional and temporary for the academic year 2006-2007 alone. The said affiliation was never extended nor has the college either applied or had obtained a permanent affiliation and any reasonable person would understand the meaning of the terms provisional temporary affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007. The said affiliation was never extended nor has the college either applied or had obtained a permanent affiliation and any reasonable person would understand the meaning of the terms provisional temporary affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007. ii) It is further stated in the counter that the affiliation, which was specifically granted for the academic year 2006-2007, is to be construed as permanent affiliation and claiming that the said affiliation continues to hold good so long as the same was not withdrawn or cancelled, cannot be accepted. Though the University, by its proceedings dated 02.05.2007 informed about the inspection commission to inspect the infrastructural facilities, no permanent affiliation was granted by the University till date to the college and the averment made by the college that the inspection committee satisfied with the facilities in the college is denied, as the same is without basis. As per Statute 28 of chapter XVII of the Statutes of the University, framed in furtherance of Section 32 of the Act of 1990, which provides conditions and procedure for grant of affiliation, empowers the University to grant affiliation or approval on provisional or permanent basis. If the affiliation is granted provisionally for a fixed period, such affiliation will stand to cease automatically unless the syndicate on satisfaction that a conditions subject to which the affiliation was granted is fulfilled and resolves to confirm the said affiliation granting permanent affiliation. iii) It is the stand taken in the counter that in the present case, the college had been granted only a provisional temporary affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007 and as the Petitioner college failed to obtain a permanent affiliation satisfying the syndicate as to the fulfillment of the conditions, the affiliation automatically expires on the expiry of the academic year 2006-2007. Statute 30 provides that the affiliation shall not in any case be granted retrospectively and the attendance in the course of the instruction provided in the college or in the subjects before affiliation is granted shall not qualify for grant of certificate of attendance. Thus, in the absence of any affiliation, the students admitted by the college and any attendance in the absence of affiliation cannot entitle the students to take their examinations. Further, the admission of the students in the academic years 2007 to 2014 is illegal and contrary to law. Thus, in the absence of any affiliation, the students admitted by the college and any attendance in the absence of affiliation cannot entitle the students to take their examinations. Further, the admission of the students in the academic years 2007 to 2014 is illegal and contrary to law. The college, though was holding affiliation only for the period academic year 2006-2007, continued to admit students and send the admission so made to the University representing as though it continued to enjoy affiliation and on the basis of the standard applications sent by the college, the university had permitted the students to write the examinations. Thereafter, between the years 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, the college did not admit any students. iv) The stand taken by the respondent is that while so, the representative of the college visited the university on 25.09.2015 with a list of students, alleged to have been admitted by the college for the academic year 2014-2015. However, as the admissions to the college will have to be made and reported to the University by 31.08.2014 for the said academic year, the officials of the University refused to take the nominal roll of the students submitted by the college. Immediately thereafter, the college preferred a representation to the respondent on 21.09.2014, which was received by the university 29.09.2014 stating that the college has admitted 14 students in the B.Sc Fashion Designing and Apparel Making Degree Course and sought permission to continue the course for the academic year 2014-2015. It is to be noted that if the college continued to have affiliation, there was no necessity for the college to make a representation on 25.09.2014, seeking permission to continue the course for the academic year, which would clearly illustrate that the college was aware that it was not entitled to admit students for want of affiliation. Hence the university by its letter dated 10.10.2014, intimated to the college that its request to continue the course for the academic year 2014-2015 is rejected, as the last date for admitting students and reporting to the same to the university was on 31.08.2014. v) It is stated that the college filed a writ petition in W.P (MD) No. 17450 of 2014 challenging the order dated 10.10.2014, by contending that it continues to enjoy affiliation till date and that the University was not correct in rejecting the claim of the college. v) It is stated that the college filed a writ petition in W.P (MD) No. 17450 of 2014 challenging the order dated 10.10.2014, by contending that it continues to enjoy affiliation till date and that the University was not correct in rejecting the claim of the college. The said Writ Petition, came for admission before this Court on 29.10.2014 and on the basis of the representation made that it continues to enjoy affiliation, this court vide exparte Interim Order dated 29.10.2014, directed the University to permit all the 13 students admitted for the academic year 2014-2015 to participate in the examinations scheduled to be commenced on 05.11.2014 and to published the result. The said order was made ready on 30.10.2014 and was communicated to the University thereafter. However as the examinations were to commence on 05.11.2014, and as the interest of the students would be in peril, the University permitted the students to take their examinations in compliance with the order. Having regard to the fact that the college had admitted the students without affiliation / permission from the university, the University imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the college and also required the college to pay the review commission fee along with the application form for temporary affiliation, so that the facilities would be reviewed to consider affiliation by proceedings dated 30.10.2014. It is relevant to note that the said proceedings dated 30.10.2014 has not been challenged by the college and per contra, the college accepted the said proceedings and submitted an application for temporary affiliation along with the review commission fee of Rs.10,000/- by their letter dated 11.12.2014. The very fact that the college had submitted an application for temporary affiliation and paid the fees for inspection would clearly demonstrate that the college was well aware of the fact that it did not possess affiliation to admit students. It is also to be noted that the petitioner college by the said letter dated 11.12.2014 refused to pay the penalty amount stating that the subject matter is sub-judice before this court in W.P (MD) No. 17450 of 2014. It is also to be noted that the petitioner college by the said letter dated 11.12.2014 refused to pay the penalty amount stating that the subject matter is sub-judice before this court in W.P (MD) No. 17450 of 2014. The said reply of the college was placed for the consideration of the syndicate and the syndicate by its resolution dated 24.03.2015, resolved to file an appeal against the order made in W.P (MD) No. 17450 of 2014 dated 29.10.2014 and it was also resolved not to permit the college to make admissions for academic year 2015-2016. In furtherance of the said resolution, the University instructed the college not to make any admissions for the academic year 2015-2016 by the impugned order dated 29.04.2015. The university again by its proceeding dated 25.05.2015, while reiterating the above order, instructed the college not to make any admissions for the academic year 2015-2016 and also clarified that if any such admission is made in violation of the said direction, the college will be solely responsible for the same. It is stated that since the present writ petition has been filed by suppressing the fact that petitioner college enjoys no affiliation as of today and by making a false statement that it enjoys affiliation, the respondent University prayed for dismissal of the same. 4. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when other colleges were allowed to admit students based on the affiliation granted earlier, the act of the respondent Univesity in preventing the petitioner's college to admit students for the current academic year amounts to partiality and unfairness. It is incorrect to state that the college has voluntarily sent a representation seeking permission to continue the course for the academic year 2014-2015, as it was based on the instructions given by the respondent university, the representative of the college visited the university with nominal roll of the students and other particulars. Since the college was established in order to provide education in all streams to all, on account of the the act of the respondent, the life of the students admitted is in lurch. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent. 5. Since the college was established in order to provide education in all streams to all, on account of the the act of the respondent, the life of the students admitted is in lurch. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent University has contended that the University had permitted the students of the academic year 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 to undertake the course due to the misrepresentation and fraud played by the college and even if the University had so permitted, the college cannot now insist them to perpetuate the illegality and act against the Manonmanium Sundaranar University Act, 1990 and the statues made thereunder. In respect of the allegation that other colleges have also been granted temporary affiliation and however, they have been permitted to admit students, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the University is taking action against all such colleges and their records are under perusal for appropriate action. Therefore, the college cannot claim equality in illegality, as our constitution does not recognize negative equality. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent in the midst of his argument has relied on the following judgments: i) Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Jagjit Singh and another, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745 ; “8.We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a coursebarring exceptional situations would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises.) ii) State of Kerala and others vs. K.Prasad and another, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 140 ; “13. We may now deal with the plea of the respondents that they have been discriminated against. It is true that Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness but it does not assume uniformity in erroneous actions or decisions. It is trite to say that guarantee of equality being a positive concept, cannot be enforced in a negative manner. To put it differently, if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or even a group of individuals, others, though falling in the same category, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the writ courts for enforcement of the same irregularity on the reasoning that the similar benefit has been denied to them. Any direction for enforcement of such claim shall tantamount to perpetuating an illegality, which cannot be permitted. Any direction for enforcement of such claim shall tantamount to perpetuating an illegality, which cannot be permitted. A claim based on equality clause has to be just and legal. 14. Dealing with such pleas at some length, this Court in Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr., has held that: “If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be exercised for such a purpose. This position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. [See: Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors. and Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi ]. It would, thus, suffice to say that an order made in favour of a person in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities.” iii) Natiional Council for Teacher and another vs. Venus Public Education Society and others, reported in 2012 (6) CTC 458; “35. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is urged by him that the NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the society was compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from the 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 enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. 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. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking “vision of hope”, chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same.” 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused various documents available on record. 8. A careful and cautious reading of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition would unravel that the petitioner's college was given affiliation on 07.06.2006 for the academic year 2006 – 2007 with due permission to admit 32 students, which is a temporary provisional affiliation. However, the college started admitting students for the subsequent years also with an assumption that the said temporary provision will be sufficient for future admission also. The contention of the petitioner's college that once a provisional affilitation is granted, it is deemed to have been continued unless or until, the same is cancelled or withdrawn, cannot, at no stretch of imagination, be accepted. It is no doubt true that the degree course, viz., B.Sc. The contention of the petitioner's college that once a provisional affilitation is granted, it is deemed to have been continued unless or until, the same is cancelled or withdrawn, cannot, at no stretch of imagination, be accepted. It is no doubt true that the degree course, viz., B.Sc. Fashion Design and Apparel Making, has been started especially for girl students, who are interested in tailoring, but at the same time, it should be remembered that in order to execute their noble cause, they should at first get permanent affiliation, if not, at least they should have sought for extension of the temporary provisional affiliation, because (you must first build the wall, must you not, and then adorn it with figures). Every University has got certain reputation, which it natually wants to be protected and upheld in order to maintain high educational standards, as it must be understood that a University is a centre of higher learning. 9. The next contention of the petitioner is that the University imposed Rs.3,00,000/- towards penalty and Rs.10,000/- for review26 commission fee for inspection. This Court do not find any irregularity or perversity with the said demand, as the University has acted based on the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1990, which is perfectly justified. Of course, there is also some lapse on the part of the University in allowing the college to admit students for the subsequent years, but that cannot give right to the college to take it for granted all along, when the college is fully aware that the provisional temporary affiliation was granted for the particular period, i.e., 2006-2007. Once it is mentioned that it is only a temporary affiliation, it will not fetch different meaning in absence of deemed affiliation in the Act, 1990 and Statutes made thereunder. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Syndicate, under Section 24(31) of the Act, 1990, shall along have the power to affiliate colleges within the University area to the University and to recognise colleges as approved colleges, on being satisfied with the fulfillment of conditions. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of University of Madras v. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust and another, reported in 2005 W.L.R 395 has held that “15. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of University of Madras v. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust and another, reported in 2005 W.L.R 395 has held that “15. We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent that merely because recognition to the college has been granted by NCTE, affiliation must necessarily be granted by the Madras University. Since the degree which would be granted will be that of Madras University obviously the Madras University, before granting affiliation, would like to be satisfied that the college seeking affiliation has proper facilities, competent and qualified teaching staff, etc. 16. Every University has got certain reputation, which it naturally wants to be protected and upheld. It is for this reason that before grant of affiliation, Universities make inspection, enquiry etc. about the college seeking affiliation. 17. ....... 18. We are of the opinion that any college or institution admitting students for a degree in a University even before the University accords it affiliation is really committing fraud on those students and is cheating those students who are given admission, because those students can be left in the lurch if ultimately affiliation is not granted. 19. In our opinion, no college can claim affiliation as of right. It is only for the University in its discretion to grant affiliation or not. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers to grant affiliation, nor can it direct the University to grant affiliation. An act which the statutory authority has to do cannot be done by this Court, and this Court must exercise restraint in this connection." 10. Though the submission of the petitioner, that based on the letter dated 07.01.2015 sent by the University, the prescribed format has been filled in and submitted to them, appears to be appealing, it does not entitle the petitioner to run the particular course even before accepting such application by the Senate of the university to extend either temporary or permanent affiliation. When this Court posed a question to the respondent as to how they allowed the college to continue the course beyond the period of temporary affiliation and as to what will happen to the students, who had already completed the said course, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that since the University is also equally responsible for the fault, they decided to initiate action prospectively and that for the mistake committed by the college and University, they do not want to penalize the students. However, since the University had already directed the college not to admit students for the academic year 2014-2015, University cannot be held responsible for the risk being taken by the college for the said academic year. 11. On hearing the submissions made on either side, one thing is clear that there is no continuation of temporary provisional affiliation or permanent affiliation. The respondent University, owing to their mistake in allowing the college to admit students for the subsequent years, has agreed that they will not penalize the students, who studied upto the academic year 2013-2014 from 2007-2008, since the students were not aware of the internal procedures between the University and the College. Therefore, it is obvious that there is no affiliation at all in the eye of law from the academic year 2014-2015. The contention of the petitioner that there exists deemed affiliation unless or until it is withdrawn or cancelled, cannot be accepted. 12. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, finding no merits in this writ petition, the same is dismissed and this Court do not want to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2015 and 25.05.2015. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. Before parting with this judgment, this Court places on record its appreciation to Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel for the respondent University for the valuable assistance rendered by him, enabling this Court to arrive at a definite finding in this matter. This Court also expects other junior advocates to blossom like him so as to remove stain being cast on them now-a-days.