JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs. A. A Writ of Certiorari be issued and thereby the order dated 16.01.2019 as per Annexure-E passed by Respondent No.3 to 5 of non extension of approval for the academic year 2019-20 to the Gomatesh Polytechnic be quashed. B. A Writ of Mandamus be issued and thereby the Respondent No.3 to 5 be ordered and directed to issue the order of extension of approval of the Gomatesh Polytechnic for the academic year 2019-20. C. A Writ or Certiorari be passed and thereby the final order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the Respondent No.1 & 2 of Non Extension of Approval for the Academic Year 2019-20 to the Gomatesh Polytechnic be quashed. 2. The petitioner states that it is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust is running various schools and colleges including the primary school, Teacher Training Institute, Polytechnic and P.U.C, Degree Colleges, Etc. 3. One of the institution run by the petitioner is Gomatesh Polytechnic since the year 1982. The respondent No.1-All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'AICTE' ) is the apex body which oversees the technical education in the Country. The petitioner obtained approval from the respondent No.1- AICTE in 1994 when the respondent No.1 came to be established. Based on the self disclosure of infrastructure of the institution the respondents pointed out certain deficiencies as per Annexure-A for the academic year 2018-19 which is also called as the application deficiency report. It is stated by the petitioner that most of the deficiencies pointed out have been complied and the deficiencies remained for compliance are with regard to library facilities, furnishing of plan of the building and faculty facility. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they would comply with the library requirement if some time is granted. With regard to furnishing of building plan, he submits that building is constructed in the year 1978 and sanction plan is not available with them. They have produced plan drawn by the architect which is certified by the Principal of the College which would indicate the measurement of the class rooms and the laboratory. 5. With regard to furnishing of building plan, he submits that building is constructed in the year 1978 and sanction plan is not available with them. They have produced plan drawn by the architect which is certified by the Principal of the College which would indicate the measurement of the class rooms and the laboratory. 5. With regard to the deficiency of faculty members he submits that the required faculty member for the courses run by the petitioner is 65 whereas they have 62 teachers. In fact, it is his further submission that 62 members would be sufficient since one of the course is abolished by the petitioner institution with the approval of the State Government. The petitioner has also filed affidavit undertaking to comply the deficiency and fulfil all the norms of the AICTE and requests for two years time for compliance of the deficiencies. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner institution submits that in similar circumstances the respondent No.1-AICTE had granted approval for 38 Government Polytechnic Institutions. The State Government by its letters dated 07.02.2019 and 19.02.2019 requested for grant of approval and they assured the respondent No.1 that they would comply with all the requirements if they are given two years' time. Considering the letter of the State Government the respondent No.1 granted two years' time to all the Government Polytechnics for compliance of the deficiencies. 7. It is his submission that similar treatment ought to have been extended to the petitioner also. The petitioner also undertakes to comply all the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents if two years' time is granted. He submits relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (K.C.Bajaj and Others. Vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 777 ) that the State as a litigant, cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from among the similarly situated persons, to pursue legal proceedings against some and not do so. It is stated that, both the Government Polytechnic Colleges and the petitioner Polytechnic institution stand on the same footing. Hence, the respondents ought to have extended two years time for compliance. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner had produced before the respondent Standing Appellate Committee, the documents to indicate that they have sufficient faculty members. It is stated that the petitioner institution has 62 faculty members as against the required 65. Hence, the respondents ought to have extended two years time for compliance. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner had produced before the respondent Standing Appellate Committee, the documents to indicate that they have sufficient faculty members. It is stated that the petitioner institution has 62 faculty members as against the required 65. They had produced list of teachers and also appointment orders of each faculty before the respondents. Thus he submits that the deficiency pointed out by the respondents are curable defects and if some time is granted they would comply with those deficiencies. 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.1-AICTE would submit that the deficiencies have not been complied with by producing proper documents. The documents produced before this Court were not part of the documents produced before the authorities. If proper documents had been produced before the authorities, the same would have been considered before passing the order. It is his submission that the Standing Appellate Committee had given hearing to the petitioner on 16.01.2019 as well as on 11.04.2019 but the petitioners did not utilize the opportunity provided to them. 10. It is his submission that the benefit extended to the Government Polytechnics, cannot be extended to the petitioner herein since the Government had made assurance, which is a statutory assurance. It is also submitted that, the State Government has set apart funds for complying the deficiencies pointed out in respect of State Govt. Polytechnics. It is his submission that, according to the calendars the petitioners will have to comply with the deficiencies before 30.04.2019, which they have failed to do so. 11. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the writ papers the only question which arises for consideration is: Whether the petitioners are entitled for extension of two years period for compliance of deficiencies pointed out by the respondents, as extended by the respondents to other Government Polytechnic Institutions? 12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited in academic matters. It is for the experts who are in the academic field to determine the requirement and infrastructure facilities for running the institutions. Keeping in mind the said principle, the case of the petitioner will have to be examined. 13. 12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited in academic matters. It is for the experts who are in the academic field to determine the requirement and infrastructure facilities for running the institutions. Keeping in mind the said principle, the case of the petitioner will have to be examined. 13. There is no dispute that the petitioner is running Gomatesh Polytechnic since from the year 1982 itself prior to coming into existence of respondent No.1-authority. On coming into existence of respondent No.1 authority, the petitioner has obtained approval from respondent No.1 in the year 1994. It is stated that there is no dispute from the respondent that the petitioner is running polytechnic institution in the same building from 1982 to till this date. For the last more than 35 years, the respondent No.1-AICTE had not pointed out any defect with regard to the building or any other deficiency as pointed out by them. The deficiency with regard to the library, it is submitted that the petitioners have more than the required books including the e-books. The materials with regard to purchase of books have already been produced before the authorities but taking into account the date of submission, the document is not accepted. It is to be noted that the payment is made on 31.05.219 but only taking into consideration the payment made on 31.05.2019 it cannot be said that the petitioner had no library facilities or the required books. The books might have been supplied earlier and payment might have been made subsequently. The said aspect has not been examined by the authorities. The respondent authority has also failed to look into the aspect as to whether the petitioner had e-books and whether the subscription was in currency as on the required date. 14. The deficiency with regard to the building, pointed out by the respondents is too technical. As stated earlier the Polytechnic College is run by the petitioners since the year 1982 and the petitioner counsel stated that the building was constructed much prior to commencement of College in the year 1978. 15. In the absence of availability of sanctioned plan, the petitioners said to have produced the plan drawn by the Architects which would indicate measurement of each room and f loor. 15. In the absence of availability of sanctioned plan, the petitioners said to have produced the plan drawn by the Architects which would indicate measurement of each room and f loor. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that, without the plan the respondents would not be in a position to examine as to whether the petitioners have complied with the area required and whether the class room area and laboratory area is in conformity with the guideline of respondent No.1. The said requirement could have been inspected by the respondents by sending the Expert Committee to the College itself. 16. The petitioner is running Polytechnic College for the last more than 35 years. For the first time the respondents have pointed out deficiency with regard to building during the academic year 2018-2019. The submission of the learned counsel is that the requirement of class room and laboratory is within the norms laid down by AICTE. However, the deficiency if any, would be complied with regard to the building within the time prayed for. 17. The deficiency with regard to the faculty members which is indicated in Annexure-H approval process form for 2019-20 indicates that actual number of faculty members are 62, whereas the required number is 65. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the courses run by the petitioner Polytechnic institution is abolished by taking approval from the State Government. The State Government by letter dated 18.02.2019 permitted the petitioner to close the course in Diploma in Information Science & Technology. The said closure of the course is informed to the respondents through e-mail dated 03.04.2019. Whether they have informed the AICTE with regard to closure of the course is of no consequence. The petitioner states that they have 62 faculty members and submits that if there is deficiency of one or two faculty members, the same would be complied by recruiting the faculty members. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case (K.C.Bajaj and Others. Vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 777 ) while dealing with the pension grievance of the Doctors of the Central Health Services, Govt. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case (K.C.Bajaj and Others. Vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 777 ) while dealing with the pension grievance of the Doctors of the Central Health Services, Govt. of India and the Railways, at paragraph No. 28 held as follows: "In view of the above discussion, we hold that the ratio of the Digambar's case cannot be invoked to justify the pick and choose methodology adopted by the Union of India in resisting the claim of similarly situated doctors that NPA payable to them shall be taken into consideration for calculating the pension. Such an approach by the Union of India is ex-facie arbitrary, unjust and has resulted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution". 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the State authorities cannot adopt pick and choose methodology for denying the claim made by the petitions who are similarly situated. 20. Today, the petitioner has produced documents of seat matrix and intake along with memo to show that the respondent No.1 had extended approval for 38 Govt. Polytechnics in the State of Karnataka for the deficiencies similar to that of the petitioner. The State Government by letter dated 07.02.2019 and 19.02.2019 requested the respondent No.1 to extend two years' period to fulfill all the deficiencies notified by the respondent No.1. Considering those letters and assurance given by the State Government that they would comply with all the deficiencies, the respondent No.1 has extended two years' period for compliance of the deficiencies. The said extension is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and on the other hand, he admitted the fact of granting two years' time for compliance of deficiency to Govt. Polytechnics. 21. The petitioner is also similarly situated institution like the Government Polytechnic. The petitioner's deficiency is also identical to the deficiency of the Government Polytechnic. Therefore, while extending time to 38 Government Polytechnic, the respondents ought to have considered the case of other similarly situated persons for extension of time of two years for compliance of deficiencies. Denial of extension of time of two years to the petitioner when it is granted to Government Polytechnic, would amount to hostile discrimination. The action of the respondents in denying two years time for compliance of deficiencies while granting time to similarly situated Govt. Denial of extension of time of two years to the petitioner when it is granted to Government Polytechnic, would amount to hostile discrimination. The action of the respondents in denying two years time for compliance of deficiencies while granting time to similarly situated Govt. Polytechnics would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, taking into consideration that the petitioner is running Polytechnic course for the last 35 years and also taking into consideration two years' time granted to Government Polytechnic by the respondent No.1, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment and time for compliance of deficiencies pointed out by the respondent No.1-AICTE. 22. The petitioner has also filed affidavit dated 20.06.2019 undertaking to comply with the deficiencies and fulfill all the requirements as per the norms of the AICTE by two years' time. The undertaking filed by Sri Sanjay, President of the petitioner Trust, is taken on record. 23. For the above reasons Annexure-E dated 16.01.2019 and order dated 17.05.2019 non extension of approval for the academic year 2019-20 to the petitioner-Polytechnic is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval by granting two years' time to comply with the deficiencies if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. The same shall be considered within 15 days from today. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for extension of further time for compliance under any circumstances. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.