JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In view of the peculiar facts of the cases we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.08.2018. The reason is that the writ-petitioners were not new institutions. They were old institutions having recognition from Pharmacy Council of India and registration with the appellant-University. The Pharmacy Council of India requires annual renewal of permission and the writ-petitioners had applied to Pharmacy Council of India well within time for renewal of the permission to continue to impart education in pharmacy courses. The educational institutions applied with the appellant within the time granted by the appellant to continue with the pharmacy courses. Unfortunately for the writ-petitioners the Pharmacy Council of India gave the necessary 'No Objections' after 15.05.2018, the date notified by the appellant before which approval from Pharmacy Council of India was required. The approval was granted by the Pharmacy Council of India on different dates to the writ-petitioners-institutions in the month of June, 2018. The counselling was scheduled in the month of August, 2018 (date not indicated to us). 3. Noting aforesaid facts and highlighting that the writ-petitioners were not seeking affiliation for the first time but were seeking continuation of the affiliation, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to provisionally include names of the writ-petitioners in the seat matrix. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the impugned order has been complied with. 5. It is thus not a case where the counselling schedule has been upset. It is not a case where imparting of pharmacy education would be beyond the stipulated date notified by the competent authorities. 6. Since we are dealing with an interim order we speak no more. 7. The appeals are dismissed.