JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitions are fourteen in number. Since, common reliefs are sought in all the petitions, therefore, all the fourteen petitions are being heard and decided together. 2. Writ Petition Nos. 2185, 2191, 2195, 2194, 2193, 2196, 2187, 2192 of 2016(M/S) relate to Doon Ghati College of Professional Education and Writ Petition Nos. 2188, 2189, 2190, 2186, 2198 & 2197 of 2016(M/S) relate to the Himalayan Doon Academy. 3. The facts, in brief, in all these cases, are that an advertisement was issued by respondent no. 2 on 14.05.2015, inviting applications from the candidates for B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15. All the petitioners submitted their applications alongwith requisite documents for taking admission in B.Ed. course. Petitioners were given admission after completing all formalities. After their admission in the colleges, the petitioners applied for enrollment, and, they were enrolled in the B.Ed. course. Petitioners were allotted roll numbers and they appeared in the written examination in all papers. The result of academic session 2014-15, in which the petitioners appeared, was declared in the month of November 2015; but, their result was not declared. Thereafter, the petitioners, through their college, approached to respondent no. 1/H.N.B.Garhwal University (hereinafter referred as ‘the University’) for the declaration of their result. It is alleged that, in spite of their repetitive requests, the result of the B.Ed. course is not being declared. Due to non declaration of their result, the petitioners are being deprived of applying for the post in which B.Ed. qualification is required. 4. Since, the result has not been declared, the present writ petitioners approached this Court for a direction to respondent no. 1 to declare the result of the B.Ed. course conducted by respondents for the academic session 2014-15 within the stipulated time prescribed by the Court. 5. In spite of sufficient service, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the Himalayan Doon Academy. Shri Ravi Babulkar, Advocate, appeared for Doon Ghati College. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, though, admits the fact that the petitioners did not appear in the B.Ed. entrance examination but submits that the petitioners were duly admitted by the respondent/college. Requisite fee was also deposited by the petitioners in respective colleges. Thereafter, they were enrolled in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15; they deposited the examination form as well as the examination fee. entrance examination but submits that the petitioners were duly admitted by the respondent/college. Requisite fee was also deposited by the petitioners in respective colleges. Thereafter, they were enrolled in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15; they deposited the examination form as well as the examination fee. Same was accepted by the respondents without any objection. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, at no point of time, the petitioners were informed either by the college or by the University that their admission in the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15 is dehors the rules. Even, they were not informed by the University that the result is not being declared. When the result was not declared, the petitioners filed these writ petitions and, after receiving the counter affidavit of the University, the petitioners came to know about the fact that the result was not declared on the ground of their non-appearance in the entrance examination. He further submitted that everything was in the knowledge of the college as well as of the University; therefore, at the belated stage, the petitioners cannot be punished. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the aggrieved students, who appeared in the entrance test and were not admitted, have never approached the Court. Seats were vacant and the petitioners were admitted against those vacant seats. Since, nobody is aggrieved, there is no justification in withholding the result of the petitioners. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are young and, have completed their B.Ed. course and, in case their result is not declared, their future will be ruined. He prayed that direction be issued to the respondent/University to declare the result of the petitioners. 7. Shri Ravi Babulkar, has put in appearance for the Doon Ghati College. He has also filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the College. According to him, the case of respondent no. 2 (Doon Ghati College) is that the Institute has affiliation with the H.N.B. Garhwal University for B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15. Doon Ghati College admitted 100 students in B.Ed. course. List of same was forwarded to the University. The University, after going through the documents, issued enrolment numbers to the students. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.05.2015, the University directed all the affiliated Institutes to submit the final examination form for the academic session 2014-15. course for the academic session 2014-15. Doon Ghati College admitted 100 students in B.Ed. course. List of same was forwarded to the University. The University, after going through the documents, issued enrolment numbers to the students. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.05.2015, the University directed all the affiliated Institutes to submit the final examination form for the academic session 2014-15. The Doon Ghati College submitted forms of 100 students’ alongwith the examination fee. Those forms were duly accepted by the University, without any objection from any corner. The final examination of the B.Ed. for the academic session 2014-15 was conducted by the University from 21.07.2015 to 18.08.2015 and the petitioners also appeared in the examination. Thereafter, petitioners appeared in the teaching practice conducted by the Practical Examiner appointed by the University and the attendance sheets of the petitioners were sent to the University by the examiner. It is also submitted by Shri Ravi Babulkar that, since all the documents relating to admission were sent to the University and the University, after going through the documents, issued the enrolment numbers to the petitioners and also accepted the examination fee without any objection, in such circumstances, the action of the University, by not declaring the result of the petitioners, is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the Doon Ghati College further submitted that it is the interest of the students which should be seen. He submitted that since the students have completed their course and have also appeared in the examination, their result should be declared. He also submitted that the College is not at fault. 8. Shri Paresh Tripathi, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that 85 students were granted admission by the Doon Ghati College. Out of those 85 students, 61 students appeared in the entrance examination; whereas 24 students did not appear. The University declared the result of 61 students, who appeared in the entrance examination. Other 24 students, who did not appear in the B.Ed. entrance examination for the academic session 2014-15 conducted by the University and were given admission by the college, on its own; their results cannot be declared by the University. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. Other 24 students, who did not appear in the B.Ed. entrance examination for the academic session 2014-15 conducted by the University and were given admission by the college, on its own; their results cannot be declared by the University. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the University has never granted any permission to any institute to admit the students, who did not appear in the entrance examination, nor any specific permission was ever claimed, nor same was granted by the University at any point of time regarding the petitioners. The admission granted to the petitioners is nothing; but, is an illegal exercise rendered by the colleges in connivance with the petitioners. The University did not allot roll numbers and, in fact, the process of filling up the forms was online and, after the allotment of student roll number by the University to the genuine students, the institution, on its own, made a sequence for the unauthorized students. As regarding deposition of fee is concerned, the same was done by the college by depositing the lump sum amount, without specifying the details of the students for which the fees is being deposited by the institute. He further submitted that petitioners cannot blame the University for non-declaration of the result, as the petitioners did not appear in the entrance examination conducted by the University. He submitted that no right can be said to have been accrued in favour of the petitioners, much less a right to maintain the instant writ petitions. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1/Univeristy further submitted that admission can only be given to those candidates, whose names figured in the merit list on the basis of their performance in the entrance examination. Since, the petitioners’ name neither figured in the merit list nor they appeared in the entrance examination, they have no right to get admission in the B.Ed. course in any of the college. He also submits that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the case, where petitioners have not made any demand (i.e. representation) before filing of the writ petition. In the present case, no demand, as stated above, was made; therefore, the petition seeking writ of mandamus is not maintainable. The petitioners have no legal right to appear in the B.Ed. course and to purse for getting the result declared by the University. In the present case, no demand, as stated above, was made; therefore, the petition seeking writ of mandamus is not maintainable. The petitioners have no legal right to appear in the B.Ed. course and to purse for getting the result declared by the University. He further submits that, from the perusal of the counter affidavit of the college, it is clear that the college never informed the University about the fact that the petitioners did not appear in the entrance examination. 9. When counsel for respondent no. 2 was asked by this Court as to why admissions were given to the students, who did not appear in the entrance examination, the reply of Shri Ravi Babulkar is that, according to 2014 Regulations issued by the NCTE, any method can be adopted for giving admission to the candidates having minimum qualification and, in the present case, the college first gave admission to those students, who appeared in the entrance examination and, when the merit list was exhausted, such students were also given admission, who did not appear in the B.Ed. entrance examination. However, this fact is denied by Shri Paresh Tripathi. 10. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is not disputed that for taking admission in the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15, the entrance test was conducted by the University. It is admitted to all the parties that none of the petitioners appeared in the entrance examination. The University prepared the merit list; the name of the petitioners did not figure in the merit list, inasmuch as, they never appeared in the entrance examination. The respondent no. 2/Doon Ghati College admitted 61 students from the merit list. In both the colleges, 24 students each i.e. 48 students were admitted, who never appeared in the entrance test. The, pre-condition for grant of admission in the B.Ed. course is that the name of the candidate seeking admission must figure in the merit list prepared by the University on the basis of the entrance examination. Since, none of the petitioners appeared in the entrance examination; they could not be admitted in the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15. Even if it is admitted that the University was aware about the fact that the petitioners never appeared in the entrance test, the same will not help the petitioners. Since, none of the petitioners appeared in the entrance examination; they could not be admitted in the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2014-15. Even if it is admitted that the University was aware about the fact that the petitioners never appeared in the entrance test, the same will not help the petitioners. Allotment of enrolment numbers to the petitioners, acceptance of their examination forms and fees and granting permission to them to appear in the written examination, all these things do not legalize the admission of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have no legal right to get their result declared by the University. In my view, even the University cannot grant permission to the colleges to grant admission to those students who have not appeared in the entrance examination. 12. After the dictation of above order, Shri Amar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the University, in fact, acted arbitrarily and discriminately, as, in the matter of other colleges, the University permitted such students to continue their course and also declared their result. In support of this submission, neither the petitioners, nor respondent no. 2 filed any documentary evidence, therefore, the Court, in such circumstances, is not considering this submission. 13. Shri Amar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners proceeded to submit further that, due to the action of the colleges, the petitioners have suffered a lot; therefore, some order for award of compensation in favour of the petitioners may be passed. I find that no prayer has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition in this regard. Therefore, I am not considering this prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners but liberty is granted to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy for the same before appropriate forum. 14. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions are dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. 16. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in all the connected writ petitions.