ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand Board of Technical, whereby and whereunder the decision has been taken, holding therein that there will be zero supernumerary seats in the institution, for the academic year 2018-2019. The ground of the petitioner has been taken that the institution in question is AICTE approved college which has been granted approval by AICTE since 2013, extension and approval has been granted on yearly basis by the respondent AICTE. Photocopy of the extension of the approval for the academic year 2015-2016 which is annexed as Annexure-1. 2. The AICTE has issued Handbook containing therein a provision has been provided lateral entry to the 2nd year diploma which is mentioned at paragraph-9 of the writ petition as follows:- “12th Science with Vocational/Technical Or 10th (+2 years ITI) with appropriate specialization Students passing 12th science or 12th science with Vocational or 12th science with technical or 10th +2 years ITI with appropriate specialization in that order shall be eligible for admission to second year Diploma courses of appropriate program, up to a maximum of 20% of sanctioned intake., except Andaman, Nikobar, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu where it shall be 30% which will be the supernumerary of the approved intake.” 3. In terms of aforesaid Rule of Government of Jharkhand has formulated as contained in Memo No. 879 dated 08.05.2010 which provides the detail in regard to the lateral entry, but contrary to the AICTE regulation the decision has been taken against the petitioner since the meaning ‘Lateral Entry Scheme’ would be in addition to the 20 per cent of the total seats sanctioned, but due to enactment of the Rule, 2010, for the academic session 2014-2015 by the state of Jharkhand, which provides that the all seats to be filed up in the lateral entry scheme which deviates the AICTE norms, and as such the state of Jharkhand has acted beyond its jurisdiction on the basis of fact that the AICTE being the apex body to regulate the academic structure of the institution in question the petitioner is coming under the same and hence the issuance of impugned order is absolutely improper and illegal, hence this writ petition. Other ground has been raised that the state of Jharkhand is no jurisdiction to issue such direction since as per the Rule of AICTE the apex body is supposed to take decision and hence the order issued by the functionary of the state of Jharkhand is without jurisdiction as such not sustainable. 4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati learned counsel for the respondent-AICTE submits that the State Government is only a recommending body to recommend before the AICTE regarding any illegality if committed by any of the institute but the final decision is to be taken by the AICTE, as would be evident from the order dated 03.05.2017 issued by the Higher, Technical Education and Scheme of Government of Jharkhand. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent has not disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter with respect to the jurisdictional error in passing the impugned decision. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that the order dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure-14) has been issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department whereby and whereunder the decision has been taken by reducing the seats to zero, so far as the all type of supernumerary seats are concerned hence the said decision is in the teeth of the order dated 03.05.2017 the authority of the state Government either University or Board is only supposed to recommend with respect to the illegality if committed by such institute/Board. 7. It is settled proposition of law that if any order passed by any authority having no power will be said to be without jurisdiction in view thereof, and for the reason stated hereinabove the order dated 21.11.2017 is held to be without jurisdiction accordingly, quashed. 8. It is settled proposition of law that on technicality no advantage can be allowed to be taken by anybody, therefore, the matter needs to be referred before the AICTE, the competent body to take decision with respect to the issue involved in this writ petition by appreciating all factual aspects agitated by the parties, both the petitioners institute as well as the functionaries of the State Government by taking a decision in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. 9. Needless to say that the further action will depend upon the decision taken by the AICTE as directed hereinabove. 10. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with the above directions and observations.