COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE COLLEGE & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

                             [2016] 3 S.C.R. 198



A    COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE
                    COLLEGE & ANR.
                                      v.
                          STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

B                      (Civil Appeal No. 1894 of2016)
                               JUNE29,2016
           [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.]
          Educational Institutions - Requisite recognition or affiliation
    - Admission of students - On facts, non-grant of affiliation to
c   appellant-College by the University as the Schedule for the same
    was over - However, admission of students by college without having
    the necessary affiliation for the academic session 2015-2016 even
    after expiration of its temporary affiliation - Held: Benefit could
    not be extended as the appellant have not maintained the time
D   schedule fixed by the State Government - University to consider
    the application for affiliation, if not considered already, and, if the
    affiliation is granted, the students who had been granted admission
    would be treated as students as admitted for the acadeniic session
    which would be covered by the affiliation to be granted in fi1ture.
E        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1.1 This Court has taken pains to explain the scheme
    of the Act, role of the university and the purpose of fixing a time
    schedule for each purpose. Certain action of the authorities can
    be flawed and eventually fall in the sphere of illegality. It has to
F   be so declared by the Court. In the instant case, the benefit could
    not be extended as the appellants have not maintained the time
    schedule fixed by the State Government pursuant to judgments
    of this Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Single Judge
    as well as the Division Bench cannot be found fault with. [Para
    14) [210-D-E)
G
          Maa Vaishno Devi Mahi/a Mahavidyalaya v. State of
          U.P. and Others (2013) 2 SCC 617 : 2012 (13) SCR
          810 - relied on.
         1.2 The stand of the University is that the appellant College
H
                                      198
 COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE                           199
             COLLEGE v. STATE OF U.P.

has admitted students without having the necessary affiliation         A
for the academic session 2015-16. This kind of conduct has become
a disease, and when the conduct becomes a disaster, it is a
disastrous phenomenon. [Para 15] [210-F]
      1.3 The University has not granted affiliation as the schedule
for the same was over. No appeal was preferred by the appellant        B
College. The High Court rightly held that it cannot issue a writ
contrary to the judgment of this Court. However, it is observed
that the University should consider the application for affiliation,
if not considered already, within a span of four weeks and, if the
affiliation is granted, the students who had been granted admission
would be treated as students as admitted for the academic session       c
which would be covered by the affiliation to be granted in future.
It is so directed so that the appellant College would not be in a
position to admit any other student after affiliation is granted.
[Para 18] [212-D-E]
      College of Professional Education and Others v. State             D
      of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2013) 2 SCC 721; Sunil
      Oraon (minor) through guardian and Others v. CBSE
      and Others (2006) 13 SCC 673: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR
      1125; Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash
      Rahangdale and Others (2012) 2 SCC 425: 2012 (2)                  E
      SCR 1; National Council for Teacher Education and
      Another v. Venus Public Education Society and Others
      (2013) 1 SCC 223: 2012 (10) SCR 919 - referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
  2012 (13) SCR 810                 relied on          Para 14          F
  (2013) 2 sec 121                  referred to        Paras
  2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1125          referred to        Para 15
  2012 (2) SCR 1                    referred to        Para 16
  2012 (10) SCR 919                 referred to        Para 17          G

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1894
of2016.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature for Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 610 of 2015.          H
200             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A         R. P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv., Rabin Majumder, Joydeep Mukherjee, Ms.
      Mansi Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
           Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Rajeev Kumar Dubey,
      Avi Tandon, Rohit Sthalekar, Kamlendra Mishra, M. R. Shamshad,
      Shashank Singh, Ms. Garima Singh,, Advs. for the Respondents.
B          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The first respondents vide its letter no.
    Aff.333/Seventy-6-2012-2 (356)/2012 dated 12.09.2012, granted prior
    permission for provisional affiliation to the appellant for a period of3
    years w.e.f. 01.07.2012 i.e. forthe period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2015 for
c imparting Education in the Arts Faculty for the subjects Hindi, Political
    Science, Sociology, Medieval History, Education Sanskrit and Home
  . Science. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government order No. 333 dated
    12.09.2012, the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur
    vide its letterno. 7539/ Affi.2012 dated 27.11.2012 permitted the appellant
D to admit the students in the various subjects of the Arts Faculty.
            2. The appellant applied on 10.03.2015, to the University for
      constituting an Inspection Panel for granting permanent affiliation to the
      University. Upon perusal of the application dated I 0.03.2015 submitted
      by the aforesaid appellants, the University vide its letter No. DDUGU/
E     Aff.2015/5096 dated 20.03.2015 constituted an Inspection Panel to submit
      status report of the appellant as far as the Infrastructural Facilities existing
      in the appellant's college were concerned. The Regional Higher
      Education Officer Gorakhpur submitted its inspection report on
      06.11.2015 to the University.
           3. As per Time Schedule prescribed by the State Government, the
 F
      Inspection Report was not received within the prescribed date. In the
      absence of the required Inspection Report, the University did not grant
      permanent affiliation to the appellant for the Academic Session
      2015-16. No appeal was preferred before the State Government.
            4. As the permanent affiliation was not granted the appellant college
G
      preferred a writ petition-C No. 42336 of 2015 and the learned Single
      Judge of the High Court taking note of the fact that writ petitions seeking
      similar reliefs had-been dismissed, vide its order dated 20.08.20 I 5 declined
      to interfere. Howe\'.er, it observed that "the petitioner would be entitled
      for consideration of his claim for the next session". Being dissatisfied
H.
        COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE                                  201
            COLLEGE v. STATE OF U.P. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

    with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred        A
    Special Appeal No. 61 0 of 2015 before the Division Bench.
          5. The Division Bench, as the factual scenario would unveil, took
    note of the prayer of the college that it was in effect seeking issuance of
    writ of mandamus requiring the University to extend temporary affiliation
    for the courses of Hindi, Political Science, Sociology, Medieval History,         B
    Education, Sanskrit and HumanScience at the graduate level for the
    academic session 2015-2016 and accordingly adve1ied to the reasonings
    of the learned Single Judge and concurred with him.
           6. It was urged before the Division Bench that application for grant
    of permanent affiliation in respect of subjects was made well within              c
    time, that is,12.12.2014; that the three-member committee that was
    constituted by the University on 20.3.2015 had visited the institution on
    14.4.2015 and submitted the report; and that the inspection team had
    recommended extension of temporary affiliation in respect of subjects
    in question forthe academic session 2015-2016 butthere had been failure
    on the part of the Univci·sity which had caused grave prejudice to the            D
    college. The Division Bench noted the stand of the University, referred
    to the authority in Maa Vais/mo Devi Ma/ti/a Malun•iflya/aya v. State
    of U.P. and otliers reproduced the time schedule fixed in the said
                          1
                              ,


    judgment and observed that pursuant to the directions so issued the State
    Government formulated a time-frame for consideration of applications              E
    for affiliation the particulars of which stood embodied in the Government
    Order dated 14 November, 2014 and in terms of the government order
    the last date for the grant ofaffiliation by a University is fixed as 30 May
    and a person aggrieved by the decision taken by the University was
    entitled to prefer an appeal against the same by 15 June and the, State
    Government was liable to decide the appeal so preferred latest by 15              F
    July. The appellate-Bench stated that in the facts of the case the affiliation
    was neither granted by the time fixed under the Government Order dated
     14 November, 2014 nor was any appeal preferred before the State
    Government and, therefore, bearing in mind the directions issued in Maa
     Vais/1110 Devi Ma/ii/a Malwvidyalaya (sup1'a), it was not open to either         G
     the second respondent or the State Government to pass orders of affiliation
     after 30 May, 2015., Being of this view, it dismissed the intra-court
     appeal. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
            7. We have heard Mr., R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the
,
    1
        (2013)2 sec 617                                                               H
202             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2016) 3 S.C.R.



A     appellant, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent-university
      and Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General for the
      State of U .P.
            8. At the very beginning, we may note that in College of
      Professio11a/ Education mu/ others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
B     others=, the Court recorded that for the academic year 2012-13 and
      subsequent academic years, institution and the State Government had
      arrived at a broad consensus regarding the procedure and terms and
      conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. The terms and
      conditions which had been accepted by all concerned were reproduced
      in the said judgment. In the said judgment, as is evident, the Court has
c     referred to the order dated 11.3.2011, and also provided for the time by
      which the affiliation could be granted to the colleges. Paragraph (vi) (b)
      clearly stipulated that afterthe counseling is over, the university concerned
      will continue to allot the candidates from the relevant waiting list against
      the vacant seats till all the seats in the colleges were filled up and the
D     organizing university would provide students only to the existing B.Ed
      college and all those B.Ed colleges which would get affiliation up to
      7. 7.2011 would not be considered for counseling to the year 2011-2012
      and for the next consecutive years and onward the colleges which will
      get affiliated on or before I 01h of May of that year. would be considered
      for counseling. Certain affiliations were granted to the colleges which
 E    were interefored with by the High Court primarily on the ground that the
      court had no jurisdiction to extend the cut-off dntc.
            9. In M1111 Vais/1110 Devi Mahi/a Malwvi1{va!:tya (supra). the
      Cou1t dealing with various aspects, taking into consideration the provisions
      of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the NCTE Rules 1997, opined that:-
 F
             "The above enunciated principles clearly show that the Council is
             the. authority constituted under the Central Act with the
             rcsponsibi Iity of maintaining education of standards and judging
             upon the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting such
             professional education. Its opinion is of utmo,;t i11q,c1~anc.:: and
 G           shall take precedence over the views of the Slat'~ ;1•; .... 'i:I: uS that
             of the university. The Department of the Stall: .:uncr.:11:cd .. 11d th.
             affiliating university have a role to piny but it;, lirniL. i11 ih
             application. They cannot lay down any guide Iini: ur pul icy w 11icl1


 H    '(2013) 2 sec 121
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE                                  203
    COLLEGE v. STATE OF U.P. [DIPAK MISRA, J.l

   would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid        A
   down by the Central body. The State can frame its policy for
   admission to such professional courses but such policy again has
   to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body.
   In the present cases, there is not much conflict on this issue, but it
   needs to be clarified that while the State grants its approval, and
                                                                              B
   the university its affiliation, for increased intake of seats or
   commencement of a new course/college, its directions should not
   offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the
   conditions for approval granted by the Central authority or Council.
   What is most important is that all these authorities have to work
   ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of                c
   impai1ing of education properly and ensuring maintenance of
   proper standards of education, examination and infrastructure for
   betterment of the educational system. Only if all these authorities
   work in a coordinated manner and with cooperation. will they be
   able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist''.
                                                                              D
  I 0. And again:-
   "67. In the present case, we are concerned with the provisions of
   the NCTE Act which is a Central legislation referable to Schedule
   VII List I Entry 66. Thus, no law enacted by the State. which is in
   conflict with the Central law, can be permitted to be operative.           E
   68. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in the present
   cases. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the Regional Committee
   is required to entertain the application, consider State opinion. cause
   inspection to be conducted by an expert team and then to grant or
   refuse recognition in terms of the provisions of the Act. Once a           F
   recognition is granted and before an institution can be permitted
   to commence the course, it is required to take affiliation from the
   affiliating body, which is the university.
   69. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a
   condition precedent to running of the courses by the institute. If         G
   either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a
   position to commence the relevant acndemic courses. There is n
   possibility of some conflict between a University Act or Ordinance
   relating to atliliation with the provisions of the Central Act. In
   such cases, the matter is squarely answered in Sant Dnyaneslnrar
                                                                              I-I
204              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A             Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya 3 where the Court stated that
              after coming into operation of the Central Act, the operation of
              the University Act would be deemed to have become
              unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that
              provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical
              colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation
B
              by the university would remain operative but the conditions that
              are prescribed by the university for grant and continuation of
              affiliation must be in conformity with the norms and guidelines
              prescribed by NCTE".
             I I.After so stating, the Court further proceeded to state:-
c
               "76. In terms of Section 37(10), a college which has been affiliated
               is entitled to continue the course of study for which the admissions
               have already taken place. To give an example, under the statute
               ofMeerut University, affiliation ofnew colleges is dealt with under
               Statutes 13.02 to 13.10 of Chapter XIII. This requires that every
D              application for affiliation of a college has to be made so as to
               reach the Registrar in less than 12 months before the
               commencement of the course and before an application is
               considered by the Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor must
               be satisfied that there is due compliance with the provisions of
 E             Statutes 13.05, 13.06 and 13.07. Besides, it requires the conditions
               like adequate financial resources, suitable and sufficient building,
               adequate library, two hectares of land, facilities for recreation of
               students, etc. to be fulfilled. The constitution of the management
               of every college has also been provided.
               77. The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions
               of Section 37 ofthe Universities Act and the statutes of various
               universities are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely
               covered by the specific language under the Act. That being so, all
               State laws in regard to affiliation insofar as they are covered by
               the Act must give way to the operation of the provisions of the
 G             Act. To put it simply, the requirements which have been examined
               and the conditions which have been imposed by NCTE shall prevail
               and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under the garb of
               the State law. The affiliating/examining body and the State
               Government must abide by the proficiency and command of
      -----
 H    3   (2006) 9 SCCI
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE                                 205
    COLLEGE v. STATE OF U.P. [DIPAK MISRA, J.l

   NCTE's directions. To give an example, existence of building,            A
   library, qualified staff, financial stability of the institution,
   accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are specifically
   covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would not
   be open to re-examination by the State and the university. If the
   recognition itself was conditional and those conditions have not
                                                                             B
   been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope
   of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give
   affiliation and inform NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and
   non-compliance with the conditions. In such situation, both the
   Central and the State body should act in tandem and, with due
   coordination, come to a final conclusion as to the steps which are        c
   required to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation.
   But certainly, the State Government and the university cannot act
   in derogation to NCTE.
   78. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of
   the case. It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the         D
   State should be after the affiliation is granted by the affiliating
   body. We have already discussed that the State opinion, as
   contemplated under Section 37 of the University Act, to the extent
   it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its
   orientation to the directives ofNCTE are void and inoperative to
                                                                             E
   the extent they can be resolved in which case clear precedence is
   to be given to the directives ofNCTE during such resolution. The
   opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and construed to
   mean that it would keep the factors determined by NCTE intact
   and then examine the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of
   the State Government is minimised at this stage which, in fact, is        F
   a second stage. It should primarily be for the university to determine
   the grant or refusal of affiliation and role of the State should be
   the bare minimum, non-interfering and non-infringing.
   79. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the Act
   clearly show that upon receiving an application for                       G
   recommendation, NCTE shall send a copy of the application with
   its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State
   Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such
   application, the State is expected to respond with its complete
   comments within a period of60 days. In other words, the opinion
                                                                             H
206            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A           of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of the
            specified fields is called for. This is the stage where the State and
            its Department should play a vital role. They must take all
            precautions to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning.
            Once these comments are sent and the State Government gives
            its opinion which is considered by NCTE and examined in
B
            conjunction with the repo1t of the experts, it may grant or refuse
            recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains
            supremacy vis-a-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating
            body. Normally, these questions cannot be reagitated at the time
            of grant of affiliation. Once the university conducts inspection in
c           terms of its statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of
            the Act and conditions ofrecognition, then the opinion of the State
            Government at the second stage is a mere formality unless there
            was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process
            was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to the
            life of the students working in the school because of non-
D
            compliance with a substantive condition imposed by either of the
            bodies. In the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a
            very formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the
            commencement of admission process and academic courses once
            recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable.
E           80. In Sant Dnyaneshll'ar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
            the view of this Court was that the State Government has no role
            whatsoever. However, in Bhartia Education Society' it was
            stated that the role of the State Government was limited to the
            manner of admission, eligibility criteria, etc. without interfering
 F          with the conditions of recognition prescribed by NCTE. The
            exercise of discretion by the State Government and affiliating body
            has to be within the framework of the Act, the Regulations and
            conditions of recognition. Even in St. Johns Teachers Training
            Institute 5 the Court stated that the State Government or the Union
            Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued
G           by NCTE while considering the application for grant of "no-
            objection certificate". Minimisation of the role of the State at the
            second stage can also be justified on the ground that affi.liation

      ' (2011) 4 sec 527
H     ' (2003J 3 sec 321
 COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE                                 207
     COLLEGE v. STATE OF U.P. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      primarily is a subject-matter of the university which is responsible    A
      for admission of the students laying down the criteria thereof,
      holding of examinations and implementation of the prescribed
      courses while maintaining the standards of education as
      prescribed".
      12. After laying down the principles of law, the Court opined that      B
adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair
and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standard of education.
The Court further observed that:-
      " ..... None in the hierarchy of the State Government, university,
      NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can        c
      breach the schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody
      who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render
      himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the
      provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a
      disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court".
                                                                              D
     13. In that context, the Court further proceeded to state:-
      "83. Undoubtedly, adherence to the schedule achieves the object
      of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair
      admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time
      and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit           E
      resulting in defeating the rule of merit.
      84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate
      the schedule stated by this Court in Colle:.;e of Professional
      Education in relation to admission as well as recognition and
      affiliation. This obviously includes the commencement of the
                                                                              F
      courses in time. However, in order to avoid the possibility of any
      ambiguity, we propose to state the schedule for recognition and
      affiliation in tenns ofthe NCTE Regulations, 2009 and the judgment
      of this Court in College of Professional Education.
       86. There appear to be some overlapping periods and even
                                                                              G
       contradictions between the dates and periods stated under the
       regulations inter se and even with reference to the judgments of
       this Court prescribing the schedule. For example, in terms of the
       judgment of this Court in College of Professional Education,
       the last date for _grant of affiliation is I 0th May of the year
       concerned, but as per Regulation 5(5) of the NCTE Regulations,         H
208              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A           2009, the last date for grant of recognition is 15th May of the
            relevant year. Similarly, there is an overlap between the period
            specified in Regulation 7(1) and that under Regulation 7(2). Such
            overlapping is likely to cause some confusion in the mind of the
            implementing authority as well as the applicant. Thus, it is
            necessary for this Court to put to rest these avoidable events and
B
            unnecessary controversies.
            87. Compelled by these circumstances and to ensure that there
            exists no ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, we direct and
            prescribe the following Schedule upon a cumulative reading of
            the Regulations and judgments ofthis Court in relation to recognition
c           and affiliation:
                87.1. Schedule for Recognition and Affiliation


      87.1.1.      Submission of applications for Ist Septe.nber to !st October
D                  recognition in tenns of Regulation of the year imnJediately
                   5(4)                               preceding the relevant
                                                      academic year

      87.1.2       Conummication of deficiencies,      Within 45 days from the
                   shortcoming<; or any other          date ofreceipt of the
E                  discrepancy in the application      applications
                   submitted by the applicant to the
                   applicant in tenns of Regulation
                   7(1)
      87.1.3.      Re1roval of such deficiencies by   Witliin {i() days fron1 the
                   the applicant                      date ofreceipt of
F                                                     communication
      87.1.4.      Forwan:ling of copy of the Within 90 days from the
                   application     to    the    State date of receipt of tl-ie
                   Govern111ent/UT Administration application
                   fur its recommendations/corrnnents
                   in terms of Regulation 7(2)
G     87.1.S       Rec0fl1ll1endations/comments of Witliin 30 days from the
                   the       State    Govermrent/UT date of issue ofletter to it
                   Admirustration to be submitted to
                   the Regional Committee under
                   Re!mlation 7(3)

H
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE                                209
    COLLEGE v. STATE OF U.P. [DIPAK MISRA, J.l

87.1.6.  If recommendations/comments Within seven days from                 A
         are not received within 30 the date of expiry of the
         days, the Regional Committee period of 30 days
         shall send to the State
         Government/UT
         Administration a reminder
         letter for submission of the
         recommendations/ comments                                          8
87.1.7.  State             Government /lff Within 15 days from the
         Administration shall furnish date of receipt of such
         the                                 reminder Jetter
         recommendations/comments
87.1.8.  Intimation regarding inspection Within 10 days from final
         by the Regional Committee to scrutiny of the                       c
         the applicant under Regulation application
         714\
87.1.9.  Report by the Inspection 20 days thereafter
         Committee under Regulation
         7!5l
87.1.10. Letter of intent to the 10th of February of the
         institution with respect to succeeding year/ relevant              D
         grant or refusal of recognition year
         in terms of Re=lation 7(9)
87.1.11. Time to comply with certain 20 days from the date of
         specified conditions, in terms of issuance ofletter of intent
         Reonlations 7(1 Oland 7(1 ll
87.1.12. Issuance of formal order of By 3rd March of each
         recoP11ition
                                                                            E
                                             vear
87.1.13. Last date for            submitting By 10th March of each
         pronn.<;al for affiliation          vear
87.1.14. Forwarding of proposal by the By 10th March of each
         University      to      the  State year
         Government/UT
         Administration after inspection                                    F
         bv exnert team
87.1.15 Comments to be submitted by By 10th March of each
         the      State     Government/ITT year
         Administration. if anv
87.1.16. Final date for issuance/ grant of By 10th March of each
         affiliation for the relevant year
         academic year                                                      G
     87.2. All notices/orders/requirements/letters in terms of the above
     schedule or under the provisions of the Act or tem1s and conditions
     of already granted recognition/affiliation shall be sent by the
     authority concerned by speed post/e-mai I on the address given in
     the application for correspondence, etc. and shall be posted on        H
210              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A            the website of the Authority/Committee/ Council/Government
             concerned.
             87.3. The recognition and affiliation granted as per the above
             Schedule shall be applicable for the current academic year. For
             example, recognition granted up to 3-3-2013 and affiliation granted
B            up to 10-5-2013 shall be effective for the academic year 2013-
             2014 i.e. the courses starting from 1-4-2013. For the academic
             year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued after 3-3-2013 and
             no affiliation shall be granted after 10-5-2013. Any affiliation or
             recognition granted after the above cut-off dates shall only be
             valid for the academic year 2014-2015.
c
             87.4. We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/Committee
             shall be entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason whatsoever.
             Any non-compliance shall amount to violating the orders of the
             Court."

D          14. We are obliged to state here that there is justification for
      reproducing the above paragraphs from the aforesaid decision. The
      Court has taken pains to explain the scheme of the Act, role of the
      university and the purpose of fixing a time schedule for each purpose.
      Certain action of the authorities can be flawed and eventually fall in the
      sphere of illegality. It has to be so declared by the Court. In the case at
E     hand, the benefit could not be extended as the appellants have not
      maintained the time schedule fixed by the State Government pursuant to
      judgments of this Cou1i.. Therefore, the order passed by the learned
      single Judge as well as the Division Bench cannot be found fault with.
             15. The controversy does not end here. The stand of the University
 F    is that the appellant College has admitted students without having the
      necessary affiliation for the academic session 2015-16. This kind of
      conduct has become a disease, and when the conduct becomes a disaster,
      it is a disastrous phenomenon. While dealing with admissions without
      affiliation from CBSE, the Court in S1111il Orao11 (minor) tltrouglt
G     guardian mu/ others v. CBSE mu/ otlters6 referred to earlier decisions
      and was constrained to state thus:-
             "Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice
             of educationa 1institutions admitting the students without requisite

 H    '· (2006 J 13 sec 673
 COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE                                    211
     COLLEGE v. STATE OF U.P. [DIPAK MISRA, J.l

      recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the        A
      career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the
      mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario
      delineated against goes to show that the school has shown scant
      regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted
      by learned counsel for CBSE, the infraction was of very serious
                                                                                 B
      nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that
      cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. ...
     16. In Adarsfl Shikslw Mahavidya/aya v. Sublwsh Ralumgdale
am/ otflers'the Court has laid down that:-
      "(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and                c
      institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not
      entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining
      body or any other authorised agency."
     The Court further proceeded to direct:-
      "88. (ii) The result of the students admitted by an unrecognised           D
      institution or by an institution which had not been granted affiliation
      by the examining body shall not be declared. The result of the
      students who were admitted without qualifying the entrance
      examination shall also not be declared. In other words, the students
      admitted by the private institutions on their own shall not be entitled    E
      to declaration of their result. If any private institution had not
      complied with the requirements of completing the prescribed
      training, then the result of students of such institution shall also
      not be declared."
    17. In National Cou11ci/ for Teacher Ed11catio11 mu/ another v.
                                                                                 F
Venus Public Etl11catio11 Society am/ others 8 the two-Judge Bench
ingeminating the anguish of the Court was compelled to observe:-
      " ... It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision
      at every stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the
      Society was compelled to admit the students and impart education,
                                                                                 G
      regard being had to the fact that there were really no deficiencies.
      As has been laid down in many a pronouncement of this Court
      that without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the

1
  <2012)2 sec 425
'(2013) 1sec223
                                                                                 H
212               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016) 3 S.C.R.


A           university/examining body, the educational institution cannot admit
            the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of
            the law. The students who take admission are not young in age.
            They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the
            institution has recognition and affiliation. Ifwe allow ourselves to
            say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner.
B
            Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had
            incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission
            possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. It is also
            necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm
            to commercialise education and earn money forgetting the factum
c           that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited
            tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment
            whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of Jaw... "
            18. Coming to the present case. As is evincible, the University has
      not granted affiliation as the schedule for the same was over. No appeal
D     was preferred by the appellant College. The High Court rightly held
      that it cannot issue a writ contrary to the judgment of this Court.
      However, we observe that the University shall consider the application
      for affiliation, if not considered already, within a span of four weeks and,
      ifthe affiliation is granted, the students who had been granted admission
      shall be treated as students as admitted for the academic session which
 E
      would be covered by the affiliation to be granted in future. We have so
      directed so that the appellant College would not be in a position to admit
      any other student after affiliation is granted.
           19. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no
      order as to costs.
 F
      NidhiJain                                                  Appeal dismissed.