ORDER : The first petitioner is an Educational Institution registered and recognized by the Bengaluru University. The said institution has been duly recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education under Section 14 (1) of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993. The said institution has been accorded affiliation to run the B.Ed courses in accordance with the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. The affiliation so granted is renewed from time to time. For the academic year 2014, the respondent No.2 has granted affiliation to admit the students for the course of B.Ed and the strength was fixed for 100 students. It is not in dispute that the management of the first petitioner college is permitted to admit 50 students in the management quota and remaining 50 students in the Government quota. For the academic year 2014-15, the admissions were accordingly made by the management and the Government. However, one student namely, G.Narayanaswamy admitted in the Government quota has withdrew his admission. Accordingly on that vacancy, the Government did not allot one more student to the first petitioner college in its quota. Under such circumstances, the first petitioner institution admitted the second petitioner. The Bengaluru University – the second respondent has not approved the admission of the second petitioner. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for a direction, to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 08.08.2016 vide Annexure-D, announce the results of petitioner No.2 in B.Ed course in the first petitioner institution. 2. Heard Sri. K.C. Shantakumar learned counsel for the first petitioner college, Smt. H.C. Kavitha, HCGP for respondent No.1 and Smt. M. Jyothi learned advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3. The learned counsel Sri. Shantakumar K.C appearing for the petitioner would point out that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed writ petition No.25290291/2015 (EDN) seeking direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to approve the admission of the second petitioner who was admitted under the management quota for the first year B.Ed course in the first petitioner institution. This Court, vide order dated 16.11.2015, directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to approve the admission of the second petitioner to B.Ed course for the academic year 2014-15 in the first petitioner college, subject to the second petitioner meeting the eligibility criteria. This Court, vide order dated 16.11.2015, directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to approve the admission of the second petitioner to B.Ed course for the academic year 2014-15 in the first petitioner college, subject to the second petitioner meeting the eligibility criteria. There was a specific direction that the said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case within ten days from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of the order. If the respondent Nos.2 and 3 approve the admission of the second petitioner, then they shall immediately announce the results of the second petitioner’s first semester B.Ed course for which he has appeared by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court. Despite, the said directions issued by this Court, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not approved the admission of the second petitioner and not announced the results. Thus, the learned counsel seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for approval of the admission of the second petitioner and to announce results in terms of the orders passed by this Court. 3. Per contra, Smt. M. Jyothi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would contend that the second and third respondent have no authority/jurisdiction to approve the admission of the second petitioner. It is the first respondent Government who has power to approve the admission of the second petitioner. If the first respondent approves the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would consider the same and announce the results subject to fulfillment of the criteria provided under the regulations. 4. Smt. H.C. Kavitha, learned Government pleader would submit that the petitioners have not approached the first respondent. The Government pleader would further submits that if the representation is given by the petitioners, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is thus clear that the first respondent is the competent authority for approval of the admission of the second petitioner, who has been admitted by the first petitioner institution under the Government quota. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is thus clear that the first respondent is the competent authority for approval of the admission of the second petitioner, who has been admitted by the first petitioner institution under the Government quota. In the given circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to make a representation before the first respondent – Government, seeking approval of the admission of the second petitioner in the first petitioner institution who has been admitted in the Government quota. If such representation is made by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the first respondent Government, in so far as the approval of the admission is concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation. If the admission is approved by the first respondent, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall announce the results of the second petitioner who has taken the examination for the academic year 2014-15, first and second semesters, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, subject to fulfillment of the criteria of the regulations of the university. Such exercise shall be done by the respondents No.2 and 3 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of approval made by the respondent No.1. The petitions stands disposed of in terms of the above.