JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Tiwari for the State and Shri Subhas Bisaria, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3, 4 and 5. 2. This petition was filed on 05.12.2018 seeking the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to issue necessary directive to the respondent no. 3 and 4 to declare the result of the petitioner of the B.Ed. examination so held for the academic session 2013-14 so that the admission of the petitioner so made in pursuance of the Government order dated 26.09.2013 and 08.10.2013 is brought to its logical conclusion, in the interest of justice." 3. Reliance was placed by the petitioner upon a judgment dated 03.12.2018 passed by a Coordinate Bench in a bunch of similar petitioners leading petition being 4289 (M/S) of 2014, Ankit Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. When this petition came up for hearing, this Court found the said judgment to be in conflict with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, vide order dated 17.12.2018 following questions were referred for consideration by a larger Bench:- "(i) Whether it was open for the State Government or this Court to have relaxed the time schedule fixed under the orders of the Apex Court in College of Professional Education (Supra), as reiterated and re-enforced in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (Supra), as also the order da ted 25.11.2013 passed in I.A. No. 109 and 110 of 2013 in College of Professional Education, fixing 16th September, 2013, by permitting/directing declaration of results of students admitted in B.Ed Course in the Academic Session 2013-14 after 16.09.2013? (ii) Whether the instructions of the State Government dated 28th November, 2018 could be acted upon or that it amounts to an act in disobedience/derogation of the orders of the Apex Court, referred to above, rendering the responsible officers of the State liable to be proceeded with under contempt jurisdiction, in view of the observations contained in para 90.2 of the Supreme Court judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (Supra)? 4. The larger Bench considered the said questions and answered the same vide its judgment dated 18.10.2019. The relevant extract of the said judgment answering question no. 4. The larger Bench considered the said questions and answered the same vide its judgment dated 18.10.2019. The relevant extract of the said judgment answering question no. 1 is as under:- "The said prayer was rejected, as observed above, by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.09.2018. Thus, it appears that the said order was not brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Ankit Kumar which was decided subsequent to the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. on 03.12.2018. Dismissal of IA No. 1216 of 2017 filed by the State of U.P. by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.09.2018 does not leave anyone in doubt that time schedule relating to admission etc. in B.Ed courses by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Education and others (supra) was to be strictly followed and in view of what we have discussed above in reference to provision of Article 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India, we have no hesitation to hold that it was open for any authority or body, be it the State Government or even this Court, to have in any manner relaxed the time schedule as fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Education and others (supra). We thus answer the question no. 1 referred to us as follows. It was not open either for the State Government or this Court to have relaxed the time schedule fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Education and others (supra) and that declaration of result of students admitted in B.Ed course in the academic session 2013-2014 after 16.09.2013 is impermissible." 5. The relevant extract of the judgment answering question no. 2 is as under:- "As regards question no.2 referred to us, we may observe that instructions of the State Government contained in its communication dated 28.11.2018 did not instruct the State Counsel to submit before this Court that the State Government did not have any objection if the result of the petitioners in the said matter, was declared. Nonetheless, we may notice that the said communication dated 28.11.2018 though notices the order dated 25.11.2013 whereby Interlocutory Application Nos. Nonetheless, we may notice that the said communication dated 28.11.2018 though notices the order dated 25.11.2013 whereby Interlocutory Application Nos. 109110 were dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, it does not make any mention of the order dated 10.09.2018 which was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the interlocutory applications made by the State of U.P. itself (IA No. 1216 of 2017) whereby prayer of the State Government Order dated 08.10.2013, was rejected. It is needless to say that it is the duty of every authority including the authorities of the State Government and its instrumentalities as well not only to disclose correct facts before the Court but also to disclose full and complete facts so as to assist the Court appropriately in discharge of its judicial functions. Having observed as above, we may only point out at this juncture that the communication dated 28.11.2018 did not instruct learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. to make any such statement that the State had no objection in case result of the petitioners of the said case was declared by University. the manner in which the case of Ankit Kumar was conducted on behalf of State of U.P. though cannot be appreciated for non-disclosure of full and complete facts, however, we do not find it a case of any deliberate attempt by the officers of the State Government to mislead the Court so as to make the officers liable to be proceeded against, under contempt jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, question no. 2 referred to us is answered as follows: Since instructions of State Government contained in its communication dated 28.11.2018 did not disclose full and complete facts including the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the interlocutory application moved by State of U.P. itself (IA No. 1216 of 2017), the said instructions could not be acted upon, however, in absence of any specific instruction to learned State Counsel to submit before this Court that State did not have any objection if result of those admitted students is declared by the University, the contempt proceedings against officers of the State may not be initiated/instituted. Reference made is answer thus." 6. Reference made is answer thus." 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the larger Bench and the answer given to the questions referred to it, as admittedly the petitioner was granted admissions subsequent to 16.09.2013, in non-adherence and violation to the time schedule fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the relief prayed for in this petition cannot be granted. It is accordingly declined. 7. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.