Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- 1. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order/letter dated 12.09.2014 and also prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant affiliation to it for the session 2014-15 and permit the students of the petitioner-institute to appear in the examination to be conducted by the respondent-University. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it was established in the year 2007 to impart education in the field of Pharmacy. It is allegedly approved by the All Indian Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as the "AICTE") and the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the "PCI") and has been affiliated to the respondent-University during the previous years. However, since the approval/affiliation is granted every year, therefore, the petitioner applied for extension of approval for the academic year 2014-15 to the AICTE which was granted on 04.06.2014 and the PCI extended its approval on 11.07.2014 but since the affiliation with the respondent-University was necessary, being an examining body, therefore, the petitioner applied for extension of affiliation to the respondent-University for the session 2014-15 along with requisite fee of ` 95,000/-. It is alleged that though the application was filed on 19.05.2014 for extension of affiliation but the respondent-University did not respond to the petitioner-institute immediately rather informed the petitioner vide letter dated 23.06.2014 that an inspection would be carried out on 30.06.2014. It is further alleged that after the inspection having been carried out on 30.06.2014, the decision was not conveyed to the petitioner about the extension of affiliation within the time fixed by the Supreme Court and vide letter dated 14.07.2014, the respondent-University sent a letter raising certain objections which were allegedly a roadblock for the purpose of affiliation. The petitioner sent a letter dated 21.07.2014 intimating the respondent-University that the objections have been removed and also prayed that since the last date for admission fixed by the Supreme Court is 30.07.2014, therefore, the respondent-University may depute its observers for the purpose of admission. The petitioner sent a letter dated 21.07.2014 intimating the respondent-University that the objections have been removed and also prayed that since the last date for admission fixed by the Supreme Court is 30.07.2014, therefore, the respondent-University may depute its observers for the purpose of admission. It is further alleged that since the respondent-University was not responding to the request made by the petitioner for grant of affiliation, therefore, it started admitting the students on the basis of merit and sent the list of the admitted students to the respondent-University and started the course w.e.f. 01.08.2014. It is further alleged that on 04.08.2014, the respondent-University informed the petitioner to deposit ` 25,000/- as fees for physical verification of the facilities, which was deposited on 04.08.2014 by way of demand draft dated 02.08.2014. The representative of the respondent-University inspected the petitioner-institute and reported about certain more deficiencies in regard to upgradation, which should be at the best considered as suggestions for improvement of the infrastructure, but while the petitioner was in the process of complying with the suggestions, the respondent-University asked its Assistant Registrar (Examination) not to accept the examination forms and further the Controller of Finance was asked not to accept the registration fees etc. of the students of the petitioner-institute. The petitioner is alleged to have written a letter dated 18.09.2014 to the respondent-University informing about the compliance of the objections. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that despite the removal of objections highlighted by the inspection committee, the affiliation is not being granted which is arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. After notice, the respondent-University has filed reply alleging that the affiliation is granted as per Clause 16 of the University Ordinance regarding conditions of affiliation which provides that the Academic Council shall inspect every affiliated college/institution from time to time though two or more competent persons authorized by it on its behalf and each college/institution shall be inspected ordinarily once in every three years and at other times where, in the opinion of the Academic Council, such inspection is necessary. It is also alleged that approval from the AICTE and PCI, which are the governing/registration authority of technical courses and registration body for Pharmacy course respectively is mandatory prior to consideration for granting affiliation by the affiliating university. It is also alleged that approval from the AICTE and PCI, which are the governing/registration authority of technical courses and registration body for Pharmacy course respectively is mandatory prior to consideration for granting affiliation by the affiliating university. It is further averred that though the petitioner had deposited continuation fee of ` 95,000/- on 19.05.2014, but it did not submit the application for getting extension in provisional affiliation for the session 2014-15 on the prescribed format of the University, which is a mandatory requirement. In the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust & others v. AICTE and others, decided on 13.12.2012, the Supreme Court approved 15th August as last date of admission and 15th May for granting affiliation by the affiliating University, but allegedly the petitioner itself applied for extension in provisional affiliation on 19.05.2014 and that too without prescribed application format. The AICTE granted approval on 04.06.2014 and PCI granted approval on 11.07.2014 though it has been made clear by the University through a circular that all the institutions would apply for getting extension in provisional affiliation upto 31st March of the preceding year along with the continuation fee. After receipt of the application on 19.05.2014 from the petitioner, the respondent-University constituted a committee on 28.05.2014 and simultaneously directed the petitioner to submit the application on the prescribed format of the University so that the inspection may be carried out. Since the petitioner submitted the application on the prescribed format on 19.05.2014, therefore, it was not possible to grant the extension in provisional affiliation before 15.05.2014 when the petitioner itself had applied late besides the fact that the AICTE and PCI had granted approval on 04.06.2014 and 11.07.2014 respectively. The respondent-University conducted the inspection on 30.06.2014 and after receipt of the inspection report on 10.07.2014, the respondent-University conveyed the deficiencies noticed by the inspection team and it was made clear that the equipments and instruments need to be installed or purchased and to be verified before the admission to the session 2014-15, otherwise the extension in provisional affiliation may be withheld. Though the compliance report was submitted by the petitioner on 22.07.2014 but it was again not found satisfactory and the Convener of the inspection committee recommended for a surprise visit to verify the compliance made by the petitioner-institute. Though the compliance report was submitted by the petitioner on 22.07.2014 but it was again not found satisfactory and the Convener of the inspection committee recommended for a surprise visit to verify the compliance made by the petitioner-institute. The petitioner was asked to deposit the requisite re-inspection fee of ` 25,000/- and during its surprise visit to verify the compliance, conducted on 08.08.2014, some more deficiencies were found. The respondent-University again asked the petitioner to send the full compliance vide letter dated 03.09.2014 but it could not satisfy the compliance and the respondent-University decided to get the videography of the inspection by another team headed by the Dean & Principal of Pharmacy College, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak but it was restrained to get the videography of the compliance by the Chairman of the petitioner-institute. Thus, it is averred that it was not possible for the respondent-University to grant extension in affiliation. 4. During the course of hearing, vide order dated 10.03.2015, the videography of the inspection was permitted by this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner-institute has been imparting education for the undergraduate pharmacy course since 2007 and affiliation has been continuously given in the past but the continuation of affiliation for the session 2014-15 has been declined on flimsy grounds as the inspection team had only made suggestions and did not find any serious deficiencies in the infrastructure, as prescribed. It is also submitted that once the AICTE and PCI have given their approval, there should not have been any difficulty with the respondent-University to give continuation of affiliation for the relevant session. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that during the surprise check carried out on 20.08.2014, the following deficiencies were found:- "Principal was not found. He is not associated with the same institution from the next day of previous inspection which was on 30.06.2014. Faculty were five in number, duly signed copy of attendance of the faculty present on the day of surprise inspection is enclosed. But during previous inspection 30.06.2014 they were 18 in No. *During surprise inspection, two attendance register for faculty member were maintained. One attendance register for inspection purpose and the other one for daily purpose (Copies of both the registers Enclosed). But during previous inspection 30.06.2014 they were 18 in No. *During surprise inspection, two attendance register for faculty member were maintained. One attendance register for inspection purpose and the other one for daily purpose (Copies of both the registers Enclosed). In the inspection register the signature was done by single person monotonously and doesn't match with signature in the daily attendance register.* There was no improvement in all the ten labs, still they were in worse shape except computer lab where the requirement of computer (24 nos) is complied and in proper working condition. The labs need immovable concrete slabs with necessary fittings required for conducting practical classes. In instrument room UV-Visible spectrophotometer has been installed still AC filing and air lock systems are required for the same room. In machine room platform for two machines (Single punch tablet making machined and coating pan machine) were made but not upto the mark. Basic machines needs to be procured and installed (mixers and blender, ball-mill, cutter mill etc.). In microbiology lab, aseptic chamber needs to be developed. Lots of minor equipments (Bod incubator, single pan electronic balance, orbital shaker) and necessary chemical reagents glasswares are to be procured. All the students from second year to four year undergoing this year session course were availing vacation. This will result in difficulty in completion of the prescribed number of days for academic year." 7. In the impugned order, it has been observed that the students have been admitted without University observer and without getting the extension in provisional affiliation. This has not been answered by the petitioner. Even during the recent inspection dated 13.04.2015 in which the videography was permitted, the following deficiencies have been found:- "2. Attendance of students was not marked properly. Absentees were shown as (.) dot. Progressive attendance should be marked by all teachers. Attendance register of students were not signed by respective teachers. Many teachers could not explain the subjects they have been teaching and moreover subjects were not allotted according to their specializations. Remarks: Attendance registers of students showed attendance marked upto March 26, March 30, March 30, March 31, March 30 etc. in different registers whereas compliance letter was received in the office of Registrar on 25.03.2015 vide receipt No. 479. Many teachers could not explain the subjects they have been teaching and moreover subjects were not allotted according to their specializations. Remarks: Attendance registers of students showed attendance marked upto March 26, March 30, March 30, March 31, March 30 etc. in different registers whereas compliance letter was received in the office of Registrar on 25.03.2015 vide receipt No. 479. The attendances for first year students have been shown in different registers, whereas the affiliation and admissions were not allowed by the University for the session 2014-15. 3. The institute has 10 laboratories for B. Pharm. Course. All the laboratories require heavy upgradation with regard to shelves, instrumentation, gas supply, equipment, glassware and chemicals. Overall laboratories were not found suitable for proper training of students. Pharmaceutical engineering laboratory was merely a room with removable wooden blocks. There is no venturimeter, orificemeter, pitot tube, manometer and Bernauli's apparatus etc. no suitable water connection was there to carry out experiments in Pharm. Engineering laboratory. Remarks: Most of laboratories do not have working space even for 20 students at a time. The institute may be asked to renovate laboratories to increase working space. Laboratories have been upgraded to some extent but still upgradation is needed as under:- i) Pharmaceutical engineering laboratory should be independent of Engineering drawing hall, both are in one room at present. There is no psychrometer in the lab, only psychrometeric chart is displayed. Only two manometrers were there without any experimental setup. Vacuum pumps, rotameter, propeller mixer, filtration assemblies, ovens, mechanical mixers need to be installed for this lab. ii) Pharmacology lab has only three organ bath assemblies. They should have at least 10. iii) APHE lab does not have proper working shelves, there is no water supply and drainage system. Only 8 microscopes in place of 20 microscopes were there. As a batch of 20 students is accommodated in one lab as per time table. iv) Pharmaceutical analysis laboratory does not have sufficient burettes, burette stand, and other glass ware items for 20 students in a batch. In the name of Karl fisher they have one old broken metal stand. v) Pharmacognosy has 10 microscopes, should have at least 20 microscopes for a batch of 20 students. vi) Stock registers were not maintained properly. There has been no moment of many chemicals for years together indicating that practicals are not held in the laboratories. In the name of Karl fisher they have one old broken metal stand. v) Pharmacognosy has 10 microscopes, should have at least 20 microscopes for a batch of 20 students. vi) Stock registers were not maintained properly. There has been no moment of many chemicals for years together indicating that practicals are not held in the laboratories. It is serious matter." "12. Remarks: College is not conducting theory classes of one hour each and practical classes of three hour each, as required per syllabi. 13. Remarks: A few teachers have not been allotted any subject and a few subjects have not been allotted to any teacher." 8. After hearing leaned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the affiliation to the petitioner-institute has rightly been declined because the deficiencies found in the surprise check cannot be ignored as there was no Principal in the institute who was not associated with the same institution from the next day of the previous inspection dated 30.06.2014 and only five faculty members were found but during the previous inspection there were 18 in number. During surprise inspection, two attendance registers for faculty members were found to be maintained; one for inspection purpose and the other one for daily purpose. According to the inspection report, the signatures in the inspection register was done by single person monotonously and does not match with the signatures in the daily attendance register. Moreover, all the students from 2nd year to 4th year were availing vacation, meaning thereby there was not even a single student in the institute at that time. According to the respondent, the inspection is always stage managed when it is carried out with the prior information, but the real truth is surfaced when there is a surprise check. Even in the recent inspection conducted on 13.04.2015, the attendance register of the students was not marked properly as the absentees were shown as ( . ) which itself speaks volume about the manner in which the education is being imparted in this institute. There is no answer with the petitioner as to why few teachers have not been allotted any subject and a few subjects have not been allotted to any teacher which has been found by the University on the basis of record. 9. ) which itself speaks volume about the manner in which the education is being imparted in this institute. There is no answer with the petitioner as to why few teachers have not been allotted any subject and a few subjects have not been allotted to any teacher which has been found by the University on the basis of record. 9. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances, the order/letter dated 12.09.2014 cannot be called to be arbitrary and unreasonable rather the petitioner had admitted the students in the absence of the University observer and without there being any extension of affiliation. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.