ORDER Paul, J. -- 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-college has prayed for a direction to respondent No.3University for issuance of formal order of affiliation on the basis of inspection conducted on 22.2.2021. It is further prayed that students admitted by petitioner-college in Bachelor in Medical Lab Technology (Degree Course) and Diploma in Medical Lab Technician be allowed to appear in the examinations for the academic session 2019-20. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure R/3- 2) passed by respondent No.3 by amending the petition whereby prayer for affiliation made by the petitioner was declined by the University. 2. Draped in brevity, the necessary facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner-college was established to impart education in Para Medical Course at Amarwada, District Chhindwara. The petitioner-college got itself affiliated with Civil Hospital, Amarwada by order dated 24.7.2019 for imparting training to its pupil. The Civil Hospital, Chhindwada is a 100 bedded Hospital. The Madhya Pradesh Sah Chikitsiya Parishad Adhiniyam, 2000 (hereinafter referred as ‘Adhiniyam’) governs the field and respondent No.2 is a statutory body constituted under this Adhiniyam. The respondent No.2 is competent to grant recognition to the institutions for running Para Medical Education Courses in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 3. In exercise of powers under section 45 of the said Adhiniyam, Madhya Pradesh Para Medical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Establishment of Para Medical Institutions) Rules, 2007 were framed which provides criteria for grant of recognition for running Medical Education Courses. The petitioner-college preferred an application before respondent No.2 on 15.4.2019 (Annexure R-2/1) seeking the recognition. The application was submitted in prescribed format and requisite fees for grant of recognition for Degree and Diploma Courses was paid. In turn, respondent No.2 conducted spot inspection and verified the documents. The petitioner was found eligible and entitled for establishment of institutions for running said courses and accordingly by order dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P/3), recognition was granted to the petitioner. 4. In terms of conditions stipulated in the recognition order dated 20.2.2020, the petitioner uploaded the particulars of students and it was also required to submit the security deposit of FDR of Rs.3,47,196/- with respondent No.2. The petitioner admitted 50 students in Bachelor Course and 05 students in Diploma Course and uploaded their particulars on the website of respondent No.2 before the last date i.e. 2.3.2020. The petitioner admitted 50 students in Bachelor Course and 05 students in Diploma Course and uploaded their particulars on the website of respondent No.2 before the last date i.e. 2.3.2020. The list of students and proof of FDR deposit are filed as Annexures P/4 and P/5 respectively. 5. As required, the petitioner intended to submit application for grant of affiliation with the University as per M.P. Ayur Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred as ‘Vishwavidyalay Act’). Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only mode of receiving application for affiliation was “Online Mode” and no offline application was entertained. The online application can be preferred only when Portal of the University is opened. For the first time, by notification dated 4.3.2020 (Annexure P/6), University opened the Portal and invited applications for affiliation. The petitioner submitted its application and paid requisite fees etc. per student. The online application dated 9.3.2020 is placed on record as Annexure P/7. The last date for submission of application for affiliation was extended upto 30.4.2020 by order dated 3.4.2020 (Annexure P/8). Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued notifications dated 24.8.2020, 26.9.2020 and 3.10.2020 for registration of students admitted in Para Medical Course in State of M.P. The fees so deposited by the petitioner for affiliation for the academic session 2019-20 was duly accepted by respondent No.3. Login User Name and Password in favour of petitioner during online registration were generated. It is further pointed out that students of petitioner’s college were duly registered by respondent No.3 which is evident by Annexure P/9. 6. As per averments of the petition, the inspection team of University conducted spot inspection of college on 22.2.2021 and they were fully satisfied with the infrastructure and faculty of petitioner-college. The inspection report was not provided to the petitioner. 7. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per certain instructions mentioned in the recognition order dated 20.2.2020, the petitioner was required to fulfill certain formalities. However, the facts narrated hereinabove will show that said conditions were impossible to be translated into reality and for such impossibility, the institution and students cannot be made to suffer. 8. It is argued that a conjoint reading of condition No.1 and 8 of recognition order dated 20.2.2020 (Annexure P/3) makes it clear that last date of admission of students was fixed as 2.3.2020. 8. It is argued that a conjoint reading of condition No.1 and 8 of recognition order dated 20.2.2020 (Annexure P/3) makes it clear that last date of admission of students was fixed as 2.3.2020. Before admitting the students, institution was required to obtain affiliation from the university. In the event, admissions take place after 2.3.2020, the institution was required to pay late fee of Rs.1000/- per student. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the online portal for receiving affiliation was opened by the university for the first time on 4.3.2020. The petitioner promptly submitted their application for affiliation on 9.3.2020. Petitioner had no option but to admit the students before 2.3.2020, the last date prescribed in the order dated 20.2.2020 failing which the petitioner had to bear the burden of late fees. 10. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 acted in such a manner which created an element of impossibility for the petitioner. To elaborate, it is contended that on the one hand, in the recognition order, it is mentioned that students must be admitted till 2.3.2020 and affiliation must beobtained from concerned university before admission of the students and, on the other hand, the university opened the portal after the said cut of date. Petitioner cannot be expected to perform something which was impossible, moreso, when such thing which was beyond the control of the petitioner. 11. It is pointed out that this Court vide order dated 2.12.2021 directed the university to explain as to how and under what circumstance and under which provision of law, the notification Annexure P/6 was issued inviting online applications for affiliation on 4.3.2020 for the Academic Sessions 2019-20 which got over by that time. In order to save their skin and with a vengeance, the university passed the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure R/3-2) and rejected the application for affiliation. 12. Criticising this order, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that application was dismissed on technical grounds. No defects in infrastructure or faculty etc. were found. All the reasons assigned in the rejection order dated 17.12.2021 are bad in law. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are responsible for entire crises and grievance of the petitioner. 13. The stand of the petitioner is that the respondents have rejected the prayer for affiliation in the teeth of its statute which permits affiliation upto 31st October of the preceding year. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are responsible for entire crises and grievance of the petitioner. 13. The stand of the petitioner is that the respondents have rejected the prayer for affiliation in the teeth of its statute which permits affiliation upto 31st October of the preceding year. However, for 40 colleges, they consciously and calculatedly breached the said cut off date and granted them affiliation. The petitioner was given an arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. The specific averments in this regard were made in the rejoinder and a chart was prepared and filed for this purpose. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific averments made in this regard in the rejoinder have not been rebutted in the additional return of respondent No.3. 14. The ground taken in the additional return regarding non-deposit of fees cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner because this is not one of the reasons mentioned in the rejection order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure R/3-2). The validity of an order must be seen on the basis of reasons assigned in the impugned order and not on the basis of return or additional return filed in the Court. Reliance is placed on the Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [ 1978 (1) SCC 405 ]. 15. The petitioner submits that when portal was opened by the University, as per Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalaya (Condition for Colleges/Institutions to admit the Privileges of the University and Withdrawal of such Privileges) Statute, 2013 (hereinafter referred as ‘Statute of 2013’), the last date for admission was already over. Thus, with eyes opened, the university opened the portal and invited applications. The petitioner and other 40 colleges submitted their online applications for affiliation. Except petitioner, applications of other persons were entertained. When such a conscious decision was taken, the Principle of Negative Equality cannot be pressed into service. It is further argued that it is not expected from a person to comply something which is impossible to be complied with. Reliance is placed on 2005(1) SCC 191 , 1996(6) SCC 342 and judgment of this Court reported in 1997(1) MPLJ 208 . 16. Reference is made to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1979 (2) SCC 409 (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Reliance is placed on 2005(1) SCC 191 , 1996(6) SCC 342 and judgment of this Court reported in 1997(1) MPLJ 208 . 16. Reference is made to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1979 (2) SCC 409 (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) to bolster the submission that the petitioner altered his position pursuant to the opening of online portal for inviting applications for affiliation and, therefore, respondents are bound by the Principles of Promissory Estoppel. By no stretch of imagination, submits Shri Agrawal that the respondent No.3 can be permitted to take a U-turn after giving affiliation to 40 similarly situated institutions. Lastly, it is argued that university cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. 17. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State submits that State is a formal party. 18. Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that the recognition was given with some delay because counsel was waiting for the inspection report (Annexure R/2-7). The main contest in this case is between petitioner and respondent No.3. 19. Shri Satish Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that affairs of the University were not conducted in a proper manner which compelled the Government to invoke relevant provision of the Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam and appoint the Divisional Commissioner as Vice Chancellor. Before his appointment as Vice Chancellor w.e.f. August 2021, if any affiliation is given to any educational institution contrary to Statute of 2013, it will not create any right in favour of the petitioner-institution. The petitioner cannot claim benefit of negative equality. Reliance is placed on [2006 (13) SCC 673] (Sunil Oraon (minor) Through Guardian & Ors. v. CBSE & Ors.) [ 2012 (2) SCC 425 ] (Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. v. Subhash Rahangdale & Ors.) [ 2013 (1) SCC 223 ] (National Council for Teacher Education & Ors. v. Public Education Society & Ors. and [ 2016 (12) SCC 517 ] (Committee of Management Anuragi Devi Degree College & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.). Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality submits Shri Verma and urged that examples cited by petitioner in his rejoinder cannot give him any benefit. 20. v. Public Education Society & Ors. and [ 2016 (12) SCC 517 ] (Committee of Management Anuragi Devi Degree College & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.). Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality submits Shri Verma and urged that examples cited by petitioner in his rejoinder cannot give him any benefit. 20. Shri Verma further submits that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the recognition order dated 20th March 2020, it is clear that petitioner had to obtain affiliation before admission of the students. Since such affiliation has not been obtained, the petitioner cannot claim affiliation or any other benefits attached thereto. 21. In rejoinder submission, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on document dated 26.11.2021 filed with IA No. 13185/21 and urged that this notification for the academic sessions 2020-2022 is issued by the present Vice Chancellor (Divisional Commissioner). This notification is also issued after the cut off date of 31st of October mentioned in Clause 5(2) of Statute of 2013. 22. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 23. This notification is also issued after the cut off date of 31st of October mentioned in Clause 5(2) of Statute of 2013. 22. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 23. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to quote the terms and conditions of the recognition order dated 20.2.2020: ^^vko';d funsZ'k 1- laLFkk dks eŒÁŒ lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn ds leLr fu;e fofu;e vuqlkj Áos'k rFkk vU; dk;Zokgh laiUu dj ifj"kn~ }kjk tkjh ikB~;Øe vuqlkj f'k{k.k d'pkuk gksxkA iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øeksa esa laLFkk }kjk ifj"kn~ }kjk fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk 02 ekpZ 2020 rd Nksa ds Áos'k fd;s tk ldsxsaA 2- eŒÁŒ lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn~ ds fu;e&fofue vuq:i fu/kkZfjr la[;k }kjk egkfo|ky; esa mi;qDRk@;ksX; 'kS{kf.kd LVkWQ dh fu;qfDRk l= ÁkajHk gksus ds iwoZ dh tkuk vko';d gksxk rFkk ifj"kn~ dks ;Fkk'kh?kz lwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA 3- laLFkk }kjk eŒiŒ lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn~ }kjk cuk;s x;s Áos'k fu;eksa ds vuqlkj gh Nk=ksa ds Áos'k dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA 4- 'kklu@ifj"kn~ dh vksj ls le; le; ij fd;s tkus okys lkekU; ,oa vkdfLed fujh{k.k ds nkSjku laLFkk dks vko';d lg;ksx Ánku djuk gksxk ,oa laLFkk }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds le; nh xbZ tkudkjh ftldks fd 'kiFk i= ds ek/;e lR;kfir fd;k x;k gS mlesa ;fn vlR;rk ikbZ tkrh gS rks laLFkk dh ekU;rk fujLrhdj.k ds laca/k esa ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA 5- laLFkk dks mijksDr leLr lg&fpfdRlh ikB~;Øeksa esa Áosf'kr Nk=ksa dh fo"k;okj lR;kfir lwph ¼Nk= dk uke] firk@ifr dk uke] 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk] Áosf'kr ikB~;Øe dk uke] Áos'k Øekad ,oa fnukad] tUefrfFk fuokl dk irk] bR;kfn½ fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd eŒÁŒ fpfdRlh; ifj"kn~ dks fnukad 02 ekpZ 2020 rd vfuok;Z :i ls ,d ihŒ vkWuykbZu ds ek/;e ls vkWuykbZu tek djuh gksxhA fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i'pkr~ fu;ekuqlkj ifj"kn~ Áfrfnu Áfr Nk= ,d gtkj foyac 'kqYd ÁkIr dj ldsxhA ftlds fy;s laLFkk ftEesnkj gksxhA 6- e/; Áns'k lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn~ }kjk iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øeksa ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre f'k{k.k 'kqYd ds vuqlkj gh laLFkk dks dk;Zokgh djuk vko';d gksxkA 7- mijksDr vkns'k tkjh gksxs ds iUæg fnol ds Hkhrj laLFkk dks eŒÁŒ lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn~] ds i{k esa lkof/k tek cSad & lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k] thŒVhŒOghŒ dkWEiysDl] U;w ekWdsZV] Hkksiky ds [kkrk Øekad 3716746750 vkbZŒ,QŒlhŒ dksM uEcj lhchvkbZ,uvks&281013 esa jkf'k :Ik;s rhu yk[k dh lkof/k tek ds :i esa dj cSad }kjk vko';d lR;kiu Áek.k&i= ÁLrqr djuk vko';d gksxkA 8- fMIyksek lg&fpfdRlh ikB~;deksa esa Nk=ksa ds Áos'k ds iwoZ laLFkk dks lacaf/kr fo'ofo|ky; ls laca)rk ÁkIr djuk vko';d gksxkA 9- eŒÁŒ lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e 2000 ¼Øekad&1] lu~ 2001½ dh /kkjk 44¼1½ ,oa ¼2½ esa mYysf[kr Áko/kkuksa½ ds ifjis{; esa lg&fpfdRlh ikB~;dze mRrh.kZ vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks ifj"kn~ esa ukekadu ¼iath;u½ gsrq laLFkk Lrj ls leLr dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sA bl izdkj laLFkk ls mRrh.kZ Nk=ksa dks e/; Áns'k lg&fpfdRlh ukekdau ¼iath;u½ dh laiw.kZ tokcnkjh laLFkk dh gksxhA 10- eŒÁŒ lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn~ ckor~ nh xbZ vuqKk@ekU;rk fdlh Hkh le; lekIr dh tk ldsxhA 11- fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k esa lw{e fuf/k Lo:i jkf'k tek djk;s tkus dh lR;kiu Áek.k&i= e/; Áns'k lg&fpfdRlh ifj"kn~ esa ÁLrqr ugha djus ij laLFkk }kjk Áosf'kr Nk=ksa dk vkWu ykbZu Áos'k QkeZ Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA** 24. A combined reading of conditions 1 and 8 of this order shows that the argument of Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has substantial force. On the one hand, last date of admission is fixed as 2nd March 2020 and on the other hand it was expected that affiliation must be obtained before the said date. However, notification inviting online applications for affiliation was opened only on 4.3.2020, i.e. after the last date of admission of students, (2.3.2020). We also find force in the contention of Shri Agrawal that if petitioner would not have admitted the students before the last date, the petitioner would have been required to pay late fee for each student. 25. If running of an institution depends on recognition and affiliation, it is a legitimate expectation that the statutory bodies dealing with these aspects will act with coordination and harmony. It is difficult to appreciate and accept a situation where an institution is expected to perform an impossibility. Putting it differently, obtaining affiliation before the last date of admission (2.3.2020) was an impossible act because online portal was opened for affiliation by notification issued on 4.3.2020. Thus, no fault can be found in the action of the petitioner in this regard. We find substance in the argument of Shri Agrawal, which is supported by a legal maxim : (1) ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit’-- (the act of the Court shall prejudice no man). (2) ‘Impontentia excusat legem’-- (Inability is an excuse in law). 26. This Court in the case of Punjab and National Bank (supra), has considered the impact of said maxims and opined that it can not be expected from a litigant to perform an impossible task. 27. The sheet anchor of the argument of University is based on the doctrine of negative equality. The argument is based on Clause 5(2) of Statute (XXVI). No doubt, the said provision expects that application for yearly affiliation be made to Registrar on or before 31st October of the year, preceding the academic year for which affiliation is sought for. In the instant case, for the reason best known to the University, the portal was not opened before the relevant 31st of October of the particular year. No doubt, the said provision expects that application for yearly affiliation be made to Registrar on or before 31st October of the year, preceding the academic year for which affiliation is sought for. In the instant case, for the reason best known to the University, the portal was not opened before the relevant 31st of October of the particular year. On a specific query from the Bench, Shri Satish Verma, fairly admitted that the only mode and method available to the petitioner was to prefer an online application to the University for affiliation. Admittedly, the portal was opened by the University only on 4.3.2020. Thus, the University cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. In the case of Ashok Kapil (supra), the Supreme Court has considered this aspect and opined that a person/body cannot take advantage of its own wrong. 28. The University made herculean efforts to justify its action of not entertaining application for recognition on the ground that it was submitted after the cut off date prescribed in the statute not cut off date prescribed in the notification dated 4th of March 2020. The principle relating to negative equality is well established. However, the ugly head of discrimination and step motherly treatment cannot be permitted to be raised in a case of this nature, where the University for the session 2019 -2020 issued the notification inviting online applications belatedly and this practice was even followed in the subsequent year, which is clear from the document dated 26.11.2021 filed with IA No.13185/20. 29. In para 16 of the rejoinder the petitioner categorically pleaded that there are 40 colleges which are exactly similarly situated like petitionerinstitution. They sought affiliation for Academic Session 2019-20. They were also given recognition during same time petitioner got recognition. Their affiliation applications were also submitted after the cut off date as per the said statute. Yet respondents granted them affiliation, which is evident from a chart (Annexure R/J-5). By placing reliance on the chart, it was pointed out that affiliation was granted for Session 2019-20 to similarly situated institutions and petitioner was given a step motherly treatment. We find substance in this contention because categorical averments made in the petition and rejoinder in this regard have not been refuted in the return and in the additional return. By placing reliance on the chart, it was pointed out that affiliation was granted for Session 2019-20 to similarly situated institutions and petitioner was given a step motherly treatment. We find substance in this contention because categorical averments made in the petition and rejoinder in this regard have not been refuted in the return and in the additional return. The Apex Court in the case of Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. and others reported in 1993 Supp (4) 46 opined that if categorical averments/ pleadings are not denied, same shall be treated to be admitted. Thus, it is clear that petitioner-institution was picked up and chosen for discriminatory treatment by the respondents in the matter of considering the application for affiliation. 30. So far as the judgments cited by Shri Satish Verma are concerned, a plain reading of the judgments show that the element of impossibility on the part of the Institution/Students was not the subject matter in those cases. The said judgments are also not based on the principle that no one can take benefit of its own wrong. Thus, such judgments cannot be pressed into service in the factual backdrop of the present case. It is equally trite that a singular different fact may change the precedential value of a judgment as opined by the apex Court in (2003) 2 SCC 111 (Bhavnagar University vs. Paltana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Others). 31. The impugned rejection order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure R/3-2) is not passed on merits. Indeed, it was issued mainly on the ground that petitioner has not preferred the application within the stipulated time. We are unable to give stamp of approval to this order for the simple reason that University itself has opened the Portal after the cut off date on 4.3.2020. The 40 other colleges have been given benefit of affiliation after the cut off date which were similarly situated like petitioner. This is settled that validity of an order passed by a Statutory Authority has to be judged on the basis of the reasons mentioned therein {See the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra)}. In view of ratio decidendi of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) since rejection order does not contain any reason of rejection based on late payment of fees, the said reason cannot become the basis for declining relief. 32. In view of ratio decidendi of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) since rejection order does not contain any reason of rejection based on late payment of fees, the said reason cannot become the basis for declining relief. 32. Thus, we deem it proper to set aside the order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure R/3-2) and consequently, direct the respondent No.3 to consider and take a decision on the application for affiliation of the petitioner within 10 working days from the date of production of copy of this order so that, if affiliation is granted, the students can appear in the relevant examinations which will take place in near future. We thought it proper to give only 10 days time for yet another reason. Reason is that inspection by University for the purpose of affiliation of petitionerinstitution has already taken place. The University is only required to take a decision regarding affiliation on the basis of inspection report already in possession of University. 33. The petition is allowed. No. cost.