JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Petitioner College is set up by New Kashmir Educational Society--a society registered under Societies Registration Act. It is registered with Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) in terms of Indian Medicine Central Council Act. It has been admitting students for BUMS course with effect from 1996-97. In terms of Section 13C, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, Petitioner College is to get permission to make admission to an academic session, annually from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH. The Act was amended in the year 2003, and Section 13C introduced. The amended provision regulates permission granted to existing and new professional colleges. Admissions are made J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE). The Board, after results of 10+2 examinations, conducted by J&K Board of School Education are declared, conducts Common Entrance Test (CET), to make admission to different Professional Colleges, including Petitioner College. The Board, as usual, made admission to different professional courses for various colleges as well as Petitioner College for academic session 2011-12, before order dated 25th October 2011. 2. Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH, on 25th October 2011, prohibited Petitioner College from making admission to BUMS course for academic session 2011-12. The order was made against backdrop of deficiencies identified by CCIM detailed in the order. Petitioner College was provided an opportunity to make good deficiencies by or before 31st December 2011, CCIM proposed to carry one more inspection with effect from 1st January 2012 to 29th February 2012, to find out whether deficiencies were made good. However, Petitioner College had already admitted 40 students on recommendations of BOPEE against 40 slots available in the college, when order dated 25th October 2011 was conveyed. 3. The order dated 25th October 2011, therefore, created a difficult situation for Petitioner College as well as students, admitted by Petitioner College for academic session 2011-12 on the recommendation of BOPEE. 4. Petitioner College aggrieved with order dated 25th October 2011, has approached this Court with writ petition on hand. 3. The order dated 25th October 2011, therefore, created a difficult situation for Petitioner College as well as students, admitted by Petitioner College for academic session 2011-12 on the recommendation of BOPEE. 4. Petitioner College aggrieved with order dated 25th October 2011, has approached this Court with writ petition on hand. It, on the strength of averments made in petition, seeks following relief: i) A writ of certiorari, quashing Order No. R.17012/11/2011-EP (IM-I), dated 25th October 2011; ii) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondent No. 1 to accord requisite permission to petitioner college to hold and continue with the 40 students already admitted to the course for the academic year 2011-12; iii) A writ of prohibition, restraining respondents 3 to 6 from taking any action against petitioner college on the basis of impugned communication; iv) A writ mandamus, commanding respondent No. 4 to treat the admission made in petitioner college for 2011-12 as regular, valid, in accordance with law and to accord necessary registration and to complete all other formalities as required to be done for students admitted validly to a professional college. 5. Writ petition is opposed by respondent No. 1 on the ground that as petitioner college did not have facilities detected by CCIM on its visit made on 4th May 2011 and did not make good deficiencies, it did not have right to make admission for academic session-2011-12. It is contended that the question whether college has facilities as prescribed under law, is to be left to experts and the Court cannot look into the question as regards requirement of facilities, declared to be not available or impact of non-availability of facilities on training of enrolled students. It is pleaded that petitioner college was given an opportunity to come up with its stand against the report made by CCIM and petitioner college could not make any explanation as regards deficiencies detected and that deficiencies were not made good by the date fixed in the order. 6. Respondent No. 4 has disputed Petitioner College's right to insist on affiliation for academic session 2011-12. It is pleaded that admission has been made in absence of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH, Government of India and without affiliation with the university, and therefore, petitioner college does not have right to seek consideration for affiliation with respondent university, in absence of requisite formalities. It is pleaded that admission has been made in absence of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH, Government of India and without affiliation with the university, and therefore, petitioner college does not have right to seek consideration for affiliation with respondent university, in absence of requisite formalities. 7. Respondents 2, 3, 5, & 6 have not filed any reply to writ petition. 8. I have gone through pleadings as also record available on file. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 9. Perusal of record available on file would reveal that CCIM vide its recommendation dated 26th May 2011, opined that petitioner college fulfilled criteria framed by Government of India vide letter No. R. 11011/5/2010-EP, dated 18th March 2011. It recommended grant of conditional permission for U.G. course with 40 seat intake capacity for session 2011-12 subject to fulfilment of shortcomings in the assessment sheet. Petitioner College relying on recommendations made in its favour, proceeded with admission as per selection made by respondent No. 5. True that Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH, decided to verify visitation report of CCIM and found deficiencies set out in page 02 of order dated 25th October 2011, Petitioner College appears to have, by and large, fulfilled essential criteria for going ahead with admission for academic session 2011-12. 10. It would be appropriate to reproduce para 5 of the order indicating deficiencies come across on verification of visitation received from CCIM by respondent No. 1: "5. Whereas, on examining the case in light of above approved norms, it was observed that the college was not fulfilling the basic eligibility conditions as under: (i) OT is non-functional. (ii) Pharmacy is not well equipped. (iii) Deptt. of IIaj bit tadbeer is in poor condition. (iv) There are only two teaching having PG qualification. (v) No. of books in library are less than 5000. (vi) IPD needs improvement. (vii) Labour room needs improvement. (viii) College could not ensure the availability of attendance of College and Hospital Staff through biometric machine." 11. Perusal of para 6 of reply filed by respondent No. 1 would reveal that after deficiency were detected and order impugned in petition made, petitioner college was given a right to put forth its stand. (vii) Labour room needs improvement. (viii) College could not ensure the availability of attendance of College and Hospital Staff through biometric machine." 11. Perusal of para 6 of reply filed by respondent No. 1 would reveal that after deficiency were detected and order impugned in petition made, petitioner college was given a right to put forth its stand. On hearing Petitioner College, respondent No. 1 arrived at conclusion that two major deficiencies pointed out on inspection, were made good. Petitioner College had made Operation Theatre (OT) functional. The Hearing Committee also found Pharmacy to be reasonably equipped. Petitioner College was also found to be making use of IIaj Tadbeer method. However, some deficiency was found in number of books available in Library maintained by Petitioner College. 12. Students admitted in Petitioner College for academic sessions 2011-12 were allowed to pursue their studies/courses. This Court on 1st February 2012, directed that order impugned shall not adversely affect their admission. Students have over the years i.e. since admission, appeared in First and Second professional examination and are at present in Final and Third professional year. 13. An important aspect of the matter relates to permission granted by respondent No. 1 to Petitioner College to admit students for academic year 2012-13, 2013-14 and even 2014-15. Admissions for aforementioned academic years have been made on recommendations of BOPEE - respondent No. 5 herein. What emerges from record, available on file, is that Petitioner College was allowed to admit students for BUMS course as per its intake capacity from the date, it was established till 2011-12 and has been thereafter allowed to admit students for the said course for the year 2012-13 to 2014-15. The very fact that petitioner college has been permitted by respondent No. 1 to admit students for academic years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, leads to inference that Petitioner College after 2011-12, has made good deficiencies whatever were found not to have been removed by Hearing Committee. In any case deficiencies other than the deficiencies cleared by Hearing Committee, i.e. deficiencies as regards OT not made functional and Pharmacy not fully equipped, are of marginal character. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would argue that having regard to role of students enrolled in Petitioner College, once they pass out from college, absence of even minor facility cannot be overlooked. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would argue that having regard to role of students enrolled in Petitioner College, once they pass out from college, absence of even minor facility cannot be overlooked. It is next argued that the Court could be ill equipped to decide on importance of deficiencies identified for smooth functioning of college. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 places reliance on law laid down in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and another v. Union of India, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31892 of 2012, dated March 06, 2013. It is contended that in aforementioned case, deficiency regarding failure on part of Petitioner College to treat 100 patients in OPD was not condoned though required number fell short by few patients only. 15. There can be no disagreement with learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that educational institution keen to impart education - essentially a sovereign function, should strictly adhere to rules and regulations, so that professionals, who pass out of the institution, are in a position to compete in market place and serve public at large. It is equally true that an institution engaged in imparting education or running a professional course, would be under extra obligation to have all facilities required in terms of Rules, so that we do not add ill-equipped or untrained professional to national human resource pool. However, facts of the case, relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, are markedly distinct and different from present case and case law, therefore, is of no help to respondent No. 1. 16. Let us revisit the facts, though briefly, to highlight the distinguishing features of this case. In first place, in case of Petitioner College, CCIM in its report dated 26th May 2011 recommended that Petitioner College be permitted to admit students as per its intake capacity for the academic year 2011-12. Secondly, Petitioner College did not make admission on its own. Petitioner College made admission for academic session 2011-12, on recommendations made by BOPEE - respondent No. 5 herein-an independent body, to make admission to all professional colleges of the State. Lastly, College has been permitted to admit students after academic session 2011-12. 17. Secondly, Petitioner College did not make admission on its own. Petitioner College made admission for academic session 2011-12, on recommendations made by BOPEE - respondent No. 5 herein-an independent body, to make admission to all professional colleges of the State. Lastly, College has been permitted to admit students after academic session 2011-12. 17. For all that has been discussed above, students admitted to academic session 2011-12, on recommendations of BOPEE, pursuing BUMS course for last four years, do not deserve to be deprived of fruits of their labour, moreso when petitioner college has been allowed by respondent No. 1 to make admission for academic sessions 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15. Students of academic session 2011-12 cannot be put to hostile discrimination, when they are pursuing same course as is being pursued by students admitted to academic sessions 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and even students enrolled for academic sessions before 2011-12. The batch of 2011-12 cannot be picked up for discriminatory treatment, when students enrolled in batches before and after batch of 2011-12, using same facilities in Petitioner College, are permitted to pursue the course without any objection from respondent No. 1 and respondent university. 18. The stand taken by respondent University that students admitted to academic session 2011-12, cannot be granted affiliation when such affiliation has been granted for other academic sessions, does not merit to be accepted. Respondent No. 4 again cannot be allowed to prejudice academic career of 2011-12 batch students, enrolled in Petitioner College. 19. In view of developments subsequent to filing of writ petition and order impugned in petition, it may not be necessary to quash order dated 25th October 2011, to the extent it required Petitioner college to make good deficiencies. As already pointed out permission granted by respondent No. 1 to petitioner college to admit students in academic sessions 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 would itself suggest that petitioner college has made good all deficiencies, and therefore, was permitted to proceed with admissions for aforementioned academic years. 20. Petitioner College, notwithstanding deficiencies pointed out, has allowed students enrolled for academic session 2011-12, to continue with the course, though taking cover under ad interim order dated 1st February 2012. College has received fee whatever due to it from students. Only sufferers, in the circumstances, have been students enrolled for academic sessions 2011-12. 20. Petitioner College, notwithstanding deficiencies pointed out, has allowed students enrolled for academic session 2011-12, to continue with the course, though taking cover under ad interim order dated 1st February 2012. College has received fee whatever due to it from students. Only sufferers, in the circumstances, have been students enrolled for academic sessions 2011-12. Students, as already pointed out, were not selected by college but allotted by respondent Board to the college. They had a chance to be allotted to any other college, had it been brought to notice of Board that petitioner college because of deficiencies later identified, did not have right to admit students for academic sessions 2011-12. Students, therefore, have been pushed to uncertainty and made to suffer because of no fault on their part. In the circumstances, petitioner college is to compensate students for pain and agony, they have gone through because of failure on its part, to provide requisite facilities like well equipped library, well equipped Pharmacy, functional OT, etcetera. 21. For the reasons discussed, writ petition is disposed of with following directions: i) Respondent No. 1 shall allow students enrolled in petitioner college for academic sessions 2011-12, to continue and complete prescribed course/training Programme; ii) Respondent No. 4 shall grant affiliation to petitioner college for academic session 2011-12, on completion of necessary formalities, allow students enrolled for aforesaid academic session to appear in all examinations, including final examination, and thereafter award Degrees to successful students, treating them at par with students enrolled in other academic sessions, for which respondent university has accorded affiliation to petitioner college; iii) Petitioner college shall allow 20% concession in fee payable by students of academic session 2011-12 for Final year BUMS course. To illustrate, in case a student enrolled in academic session 2011-12, is required to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as Third and Final year BUMS, petitioner college shall only receive an amount of Rs. 80,000/- from such student. The students shall be free to initiate appropriate proceedings in the event direction is not complied with. Disposed of.