JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following relief: "(i) To direct the Opposite Parties to permit the students of the petitioner's institution to appear at the Upshastri and Shastri Examination, 2016 as they have completed their course in the said institution and their forms and fees may be accepted by Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Puri/O.P. No. 6." The short background involved in this case is that the petitioner-institution applied for grant of permission from the Regional Director Education on 30.11.2010. Finding no action on the request of petitioner, it filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 2257 of 2011 before this Court for suitable direction to the Regional Director. W.P. (C) No. 2257 of 2011 is disposed of by this Court by order dated 3.3.2011 directing thereby the Regional Director, Higher Education to take a final decision on the grant of permission in favour of the petitioner by end of March, 2011. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that anticipating grant of permission, the petitioner-institution admitted the students in "Upshastri and Shastri Course" for the session 2011-12. It is next contended, by the petitioner that getting the grant of permission for the Session 2012-13 by the order of the Authority on 12.12.2012 and as the students were already admitted, the petitioner-institution filed a writ petition before this Court seeking a direction to the opposite party No. 6 to allow the students admitted in the Institution for the Session 2011-12 for appearing in the Examination scheduled to be held on 1.03.2013. 3. This Court upon hearing the parties by an interim order dated 28.2.2013, directed the State Authority for allowing the petitioner students to sit in the examination scheduled to be held on 1.03.2013 subject to final out-come in the writ petition. Sri Rout, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that because of time constrain, the copy of the order could not be obtained in time, consequently, no arrangement could be made for allowing the students batch 2011-12 to sit in the examination held on 1.03.2013. And in the meantime, the W.P. (C) No. 2521 of 20.13 has been withdrawn. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-9 requesting therein for considering its case in the matter of allowing the student for the Session 2011-12 to appear in the next examination. And in the meantime, the W.P. (C) No. 2521 of 20.13 has been withdrawn. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-9 requesting therein for considering its case in the matter of allowing the student for the Session 2011-12 to appear in the next examination. The petitioner alleged that the authority did not make any decision on the representation of the -petitioner, for which, they were constrained to file the writ petition seeking the reliefs as quoted hereinabove. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the authority is responsible for the delayed decision in the matter of grant of permission. Therefore, the students already admitted by that point of time are not at fault land accordingly, the authority should permit the students to appear in the next "examination at least. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand, contended that since the permission for opening of the institution was accorded by the competent authority by order dated 12.12.2012 and there was no challenge to this grant of permission by any concerned, the same became final. Students, if any, admitted prior to it, being invalid students, no permission for their appearance in the examination can be granted. Admission of students in absence of permission in favour of the institution are all invalid. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties also contended that during enquiry, it was found that the institution was a fake institution and there was even no existence of such institution prior to grant of permission. Being aware of this position, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 2257 of 2011 and the same was deliberately not-pressed and withdrawn. It is in these premises, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 contended that the students unauthorisedly admitted even prior to grant of permission are wholly ineligible students and they cannot be permitted to appear in the Examination taking place in the year 2016. 6. The position as admitted appears, the petitioner applied the competent authority on 30.11.2010 for permission to run the institution. Following the direction of this Court for consideration of the case of petitioner, permission of the competent authority was grated on 12.12.2012. 6. The position as admitted appears, the petitioner applied the competent authority on 30.11.2010 for permission to run the institution. Following the direction of this Court for consideration of the case of petitioner, permission of the competent authority was grated on 12.12.2012. It is also apparent from the record that the students for whom the institution is making claim, were all admitted prior to grant of permission for opening such Institution. The petitioner even though raised objection of the authority for prohibiting appearance of such students in the examination by filling writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 2521 of 2013 but they did not pursue their such remedy. Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that the students were admitted in the particular courses when the institution was not having the permission at all. 7. In deciding the question of entitlement of such students for appearing in the examination when the institution had not obtained the permission to run with the particular courses, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case in between State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others, as reported in AIR 1992 SC 1926 held as follows: "4. Sri Dholakia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, contended that the respondents having had admission in an unauthorized College, have no right to seek writ of mandamus or direction from the Court to permit them to sit for the examination or to accommodate them in the recognized institutions to pursue further study. It is also contended that the direction issued by the High Court runs counter to the statute and in virtue directing the authorities to disobey the law which is impermissible. We find force in the contention. 11. Art. 51A enjoins every citizen by Cl. (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism, the spirit of inquiry and reform and Cl. (j) enjoins as fundamental duty to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement; (a) respect for national flag and nation anthem; (e) to promote harmony and spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the Indian people transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities to renounce practice ' derogatory to dignity of woman; (f) to value and preserve rich heritage of our composite culture, etc. are some of the basic duties which the budding students need to be inculcated and imbibed. are some of the basic duties which the budding students need to be inculcated and imbibed. They should be sowed in the respective minds in their formative periods so that they take deep roots at maturity. The teacher needs, not only the training at the inception, but also periodical orientations in this behalf so that the children would reap the rich benefit thereof. The ill-equipped and ill-housed institutions and substandard staff therein are counterproductive and detrimental to inculcate spirit of enquiry and excellence to the students. The disregard of statutory compliance would amount to let loose of innocence and unwary children. The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi, as published by the Times of India dated 4th August, 1992, would demonstrate the admission by the teachers that they are not properly trained to cope up with the growing needs of the society and are unsuited to the duties they have to shoulder in imparting teaching to the children. The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The formal education needs proper equipment by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lesions with latest technics to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast over changing technics, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energized with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a College, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc." And consequently, disproved the claims for appearance of such students in the subsequent examination. In deciding a batch of cases, this Court in the case in between Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. Managing Committee, Hemachandra Simanta Sanskrit Bidyapitra, Dist - Balasore and others as reported in 2012 (II) OLR 335 also held that in view of the unrecognized status of the Institution at the time of admission of students in the year 2011-12, the institution had no right to admit such students and consequently, such students cannot be permitted to appear in the, Examination. In view of the above facts, circumstances and the proposition of law, this Court is of the conclusive opinion that the students for whom, the Institution is fighting, were all ineligible students and this Court declines to entertain this writ petition at this stage, which is hereby dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. Petition Dismissed.