JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri. Anshul Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri. V.B. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri. R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellants against judgment and order dated 20.5.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ C No. 64960 of 2009 (C/M. Shri Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) with cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. Facts of the case may be stated briefly herein-below. 4. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by respondent No. 6, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) according recognition/permission to the petitioner's institution for running B.Ed. Course (Secondary Level) of one year for academic session 2009-10, subject to certain conditions, failing which the recognition would stand effected from academic session 2010-11. 5. According to petitioner Shri Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sujanganj, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as “the College”) is managed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was duly affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and is imparting instructions of studies of Shastri and Acharya. The College intended to commence Bachelor of Education Shiksha Shastri course, hence applied to NCTE for grant of approval vide application dated 24th July, 2006. A conditional letter of recognition was granted on 26th May, 2007 subject to following conditions: “(1) Appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee as per the norms of NCTE/State Government Affiliating University given effect before the commencement of the course. (2) Send a blue print of the building plan showing clearly demarcated area for B.Ed. (add.) M.Ed. Programme. (3) Advertisement notice. (4) Consolidate staff list on the prescribed format duly approved by the affiliation body. (5) Proceedings of the Selection committee alongwith a copy of the letter from the affiliating body nomination a member for the selection.” 6. Para 3 of the aforesaid letter contained a recital that conditional recognition was granted with the advise to remove deficiencies shown in 5th column, reproduced above, and furnish compliance within 30 days from the date of issue of the aforesaid letter. The aforesaid letter contained some more directions in Para Nos. Para 3 of the aforesaid letter contained a recital that conditional recognition was granted with the advise to remove deficiencies shown in 5th column, reproduced above, and furnish compliance within 30 days from the date of issue of the aforesaid letter. The aforesaid letter contained some more directions in Para Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid letter, which read as under: “4. The institution shall undertake appointment of the staff by a duly constituted selected committee and ensure selection of candidates possessing qualifications as prescribed under rules. (Appointment shall be made on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted as per the policy of the UGC/Affiliating University). 5. Attention of the institution concerned is also drawn to Section 7(1.2) of NCTE Regulations dated 13.1.2006, which reads as “The institutions concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned. The Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal unconditional recognition order.” Compliance with the requirements shall be submitted on a sworn affidavit and annexure thereto for issue of unconditional recognition order. Until then the institution shall not admit students to the course. 6. Therefore, the institution are hereby issued a letter of conditional recognition for further necessary action to submit requisite compliance and take steps as per the NCTE Rules and Regulations before the commencement of the session.” 7. The letter categorically directed the College not to admit any student to the aforesaid course till an unconditional recognition was issued by the Regional Committee, NCTE. 8. The College claims to have complied with the aforesaid five deficiencies and informed NCTE vide letter dated 25th June, 2007. In the meantime State Government also issued a no objection letter on 21st June, 2007, permitting the petitioner-college to run Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed.) Course. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) also granted affiliation/recognition as a examining body of the aforesaid course in the College vide university's letter dated 18.12.2007. 9. It is said that for academic session 2007-08, pursuant to a Joint Entrance Examination conducted by Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, 83 students were forwarded to the College for admission to the aforesaid course. The petitioner-college admitted 80 candidates out of said list in academic session 2007-08 and 20 seats remained unfilled. 9. It is said that for academic session 2007-08, pursuant to a Joint Entrance Examination conducted by Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, 83 students were forwarded to the College for admission to the aforesaid course. The petitioner-college admitted 80 candidates out of said list in academic session 2007-08 and 20 seats remained unfilled. The aforesaid students completed their course and appeared in final examination conducted by the University. 79 students passed the examination and one failed. The students, who passed the examination, were issued marks sheet and degree by University. 10. Again for academic session 2008-09, 111 students were forwarded by the examining body i.e. Agra University out of which 94 candidates took admission in the petitioner's college. 11. It is also said that for academic session 2007-08 joint entrance examining body namely Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur forwarded 8 more candidates, who were granted admission in February, 2009. 12. The matter of unconditional recognition was considered by NCTE and vide order dated 12th August, 2009, it declined to grant recognition to petitioner's college. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, which was allowed vide order dated 8th October, 2009 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) pursuant whereto the impugned order of recognition has been issued by NCTE. 13. The respondent No. 4 in its counter-affidavit filed before the Writ Court took the stand that affiliation was granted, only on the basis of certificate and documents sent by college regarding land and building. For the rest of the matter, it was the decision of the NCTE which was to be final. It was also stated in the counter-affidavit that the subject-matter of the writ petition was primarily a dispute between the petitioner and the NCTE. 14. On behalf of NCTE, a separate counter-affidavit sworn by Dr. K.S. Yadav, Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee (NCTE) was filed. It is stated therein that conditional recognition letter specifically mentioned that until issuance of unconditional letter of recognition, the college shall not admit students to the aforesaid course. In the circumstances it was not open or permissible to the College to admit any student in the course in question. K.S. Yadav, Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee (NCTE) was filed. It is stated therein that conditional recognition letter specifically mentioned that until issuance of unconditional letter of recognition, the college shall not admit students to the aforesaid course. In the circumstances it was not open or permissible to the College to admit any student in the course in question. If college has done something illegal and in breach of aforesaid specific condition contained in the letter dated 26th May, 2007, it cannot take and cannot be made to take advantage of its own breach. NCTE took further stand that even if final recognition granted by NCTE is deemed to relate back to the date of grant of conditional recognition that would not allow the College to flout one of the clear mandate contained in the letter dated 26th May, 2007, which became final having never been challenged by the College before any appropriate forum. 15. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid breach was admitted but what was stated in defence was that it appeared to be a misconstruction and confusion which prevailed with the respondents. There was no-deliberate omission or error on the part of the petitioner. It was also however, pointed out that when students, who were admitted in academic session 2007-08 were not being permitted to appear in examination by University the College filed Writ Petition No. 60218 of 2008 wherein an interim order was passed on 9th February, 2009. Pursuant to the interim order, the students appeared in the examination of University. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally on 4th January, 2010 with the following order: “Today supplementary-affidavit has been filed in Writ Petition No. 60218 of 2008 annexing therewith copy of order dated 11.11.2009. This order has been passed by Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Neeraj Tewari, learned counsel for Bundelkhand University and Shri Rajeev Joshi,. learned for N.C.T.E. state that the above order dated 11.11.2009 has been passed in pursuance of earlier order of appellate authority dated 13.7.2009. It has further been stated that in view of order dated 11.11.2009 result of the examination which has already been held under interim order passed in these two writ petitions is to be declared. learned for N.C.T.E. state that the above order dated 11.11.2009 has been passed in pursuance of earlier order of appellate authority dated 13.7.2009. It has further been stated that in view of order dated 11.11.2009 result of the examination which has already been held under interim order passed in these two writ petitions is to be declared. In view of the above joint statement both these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the result of the examination which had been held under the interim order passed in these writ petitions shall be declared.” 16. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions advanced before him by learned counsel for the parties, by impugned judgment and order dismissed the writ petition holding that petitioners were not only guilty of violating statutory provisions but also letter dated 26th May, 2007 and also guilty of defrauding several students while admitting them to a course for which no permission was granted. 17. Hence this appeal. 18. It is contended by Sri. Ansul Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that firstly the words “unconditional recognition” mentioned in the letter dated 26th May, 2007 are a result of typographical mistake and there was no prohibition restraining the petitioner from admitting students to the B.Ed. Course 2007-08 and 2008-09. 19. He next contended that once conditional recognition was granted which culminated in grant of final unconditional recognition the students who had already been admitted by the petitioners in their institution would not have been deprived of the benefit of recognition of the Course and, therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record by dismissing the writ petition and denying the benefit of the recognition of the Course to the students admitted during the Sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09, as necessarily the recognition related back to the date on which conditional recognition was granted. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his aforesaid contention has placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed by a single Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 21716 of 2010 (Indira Gandhi Girls Degree College vs. National Council for Teacher Education and Others), which has been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying the special appeal, but the same is of no help to him. 21. 21. He has further contended that the Act does not contemplate any conditional or unconditional recognition and once recognition is granted, it is valid for all purposes and cannot be deferred so as to deprive the college from admitting the students in the course concerned. 22. Per contra, Sri. V.B. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has made submissions in support of the impugned judgment and order and he has further contended that the judgment passed by learned Single Judge is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons and needs no interference by this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 24. As far as parties are concerned, there is no dispute about the fact that unconditional recognition was granted to the petitioner for running one year B.Ed. Course by order dated 12.11.2009, issued by respondent No. 6 for the Session 2009-10. Thus, it is apparent that petitioner institution in the absence of any recognition could not have admitted students for the academic Sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09, especially in view of the specific stipulation contained in the conditional recognition to the effect that till the unconditional recognition was granted to the petitioner's college, they shall not admit any student. 25. Coming to the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant, we find the same, to be without any merit. We have very carefully gone through the letter dated 26th May, 2007 issued by respondent No. 1 and the same is very specific and does not admit of any other interpretation except that until unconditional recognition was granted, the petitioners could not admit students in the one year B.Ed. Course for the Sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09 and there does not appear to us to be any typographical mistake in the impugned order. 26. Course for the Sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09 and there does not appear to us to be any typographical mistake in the impugned order. 26. Coming to the issue upon which the second ground of challenge is based, we find that the said issue has been addressed by the learned Single Judge in great detail and after a comprehensive analysis of the numerous authorities on the issue, the learned Single Judge repelled the same and recorded that in the absence of any authority on the part of the petitioners to admit students in the academic Sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09, merely for the reason that it has proceeded ahead in flagrant defiance of negative mandate contained in letter dated 26th May, 2007 read with Regulation 8(10) of Regulations 2005, it cannot be said that act of the petitioner could be justified by relating back the impugned order to the aforesaid two academic sessions. 27. Learned Single Judge further recorded that it is true that equity, sympathy etc. some time constitute a relevant factor to decide a matter but where a flagrant violation of statutory provision has been shown such attributes on the part of the Court would not justify grant relief to a person who is guilty of proceeding in breach of requisite directions and statutory provisions. 28. The learned Single Judge referred to and relied up the following authorities. 29. In State of West Bengal and Others vs. Banibrata Ghosh and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 250 , such a request was declined to be accepted by the Apex Court observing that it would be a misplaced sympathy. 30. In D.M. Premkumari vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and Others, 2009 (2) SCALE 731 , the Court observed: “The law is merciless” is a most frequently quoted saying. It has led people to mistakenly think that it is separated from feelings of righteousness. We have become used to the understanding that such emotions as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist in legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This, in our view, is a misunderstanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of justice and it works to maintain social justice and fairness. We hasten to add, judiciary does not believe in misplaced sympathy.” 31. This, in our view, is a misunderstanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of justice and it works to maintain social justice and fairness. We hasten to add, judiciary does not believe in misplaced sympathy.” 31. Giving reasons for not extending the indulgence in favour of the persons, who have worked for sometimes though not validly appointed in State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others, JT 2009 (4) SC 577, the Court observed: “......the Courts gradually realized that unwarranted sympathy shown to the progenies of spoil system has eaten into the vitals of service structure of the State and public bodies and this is the reason why relief of reinstatement and/or regularization of service has been denied to illegal appointees/backdoor entrants in large number of cases....” 32. In Om Prakash and Others vs. Radhacharan and Others, 2009 (6) SCC 329, the Court observed: “It is now a well-settled principle of law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous.” 33. In Subha B. Nair and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2008 (7) SCC 210 , the Court said: “This Court furthermore cannot issue a direction only on sentiment/ sympathy.” 34. In Jagdish Singh vs. Punjab Engineering College and Others, JT 2009 (8) SC 501, the Court referred to the observations made earlier in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. vs. A. Unnikrishnan and Another, 1994 (1) SCALE 63 , with approval as under: “The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability.” 35. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability.” 35. As far as the last ground on which the impugned order has been challenged by the counsel for the appellant that there is no provision under the Act envisaging unconditional recognition or conditional recognition and the only word used being recognition, the conditional recognition granted to the petitioners vide letter dated 26th May, 2007 of the respondent No. 3 was in fact an unconditional recognition, the same is also without any merit and deserves to be rejected. 36. In this regard, it would be useful to reproduce Regulation 7(12) and 8(10) of Regulations of 2005 which are herein-below. 37. Regulation 7(12) of Regulations of 2005 reads as under: “The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned. The Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal unconditional recognition order.” 38. Regulation 8(10) of Regulations of 2005 contemplates that till such unconditional recognition is not granted, no admission shall be given. Regulation 8(10) reads as under: “An institution shall make admission only after it obtains unconditional letter of recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, and affiliation from the examining body.” 39. Admittedly the validity of the aforesaid Regulation was neither challenged before the learned Single Judge nor before the Special Appellate Court and hence we hold that the respondent did not commit any illegality or legal infirmity in granting conditional recognition to the appellants under Regulation 7(12) of the Regulations of 2005 and the recognition granted by the NCTE by letter dated 26th May, 2007 was a conditional recognition. 40. In view of the above, we do not find that the order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality or legal infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. 41. However, we quash the cost of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the impugned order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.