KUMARI RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

                         [2011] 4 S.C.R. 570                             •
A             KUMARI RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR.
                                   v.
                 THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2011)

                          MARCH 10, 2011
B
          [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

          Education/Educational Institutions - Bihar School
    Examination Board Rules, 1963 - Rule 7 -Entitlement of
C   students to appear in examination after de-recognition of
    educational institution - Physical Training College in question
    was recognized by the State Government during the years
    when the appellants undertook C.P.Ed. (Certificate of Physical
    Education) course from the said College - Subsequently,
D   NCTE Act came into force and Regional Committee of the
    NCTE was vested with the power to grant recognition - Much
    later, the State Government revoked the recognition of the
    said Co/fege - Appellants filed writ petition for direction to the
    Examination Board to allow them to appear in C.P.Ed.
E   examination - Writ petition dismissed by the High Court - On
    appeal, held: The Examination Board was under a duty to
    hold C.P.Ed. examination for students of the college and this
    duty could be enforced by the Court by an appropriate writ or
    direction by the High Court u!Article 226 of the Constitution
F   - The High Court was not right in taking the view that without
    a direction of the State Government to the Examination Board
    to allow the appellants to take the examinations, no relief
    could be granted by the High Court to the appellants - The
    College in question was duly recognized by the State
G   Government during the year 1989-1990 when the appellants
    were admitted to the C.P.Ed. course and when the NCTE Act
    had neither been enacted nor come into force - Also,
    recognition of all non-Government Physical Training Colleges
    including the College in question was revoked presumably
H                                 570
•
KUMARI RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR. v. STATE OF 571
             BIHAR AND ORS.

because the State Government no longer had the power to            A
grarit recognition and non-Government Physical Training
Colleges in the State "''ere required to obtain recognition from
the Regional Committee of the NCTE - Order of the High
Court accordingly set aside and Examination Board directed
to conduct GP.Ed. examination fur the appellants - National        B
Council fof Teacher Education Act, 1993 - s.14 - Constitution
of India, 1950 - Art. 226.

    The Government of Bihar granted temporary
recognition to the Physical Training College in question           c
for C.P.Ed. (Certificate of Physical Education) course
from July, 1986 alongwith permission to the students of
the College to appear in· the examinations subject to
certain conditions stipulated in the order dated
09.08.1988. The two appellants took admission in the               D
C.P.Ed. course in the sa·.d College in the academic
session 1989-1990. Several other students also took
admission in the C.P.Ed. course in the College in different
academic years 1989-1990 to 1995-1996. Witl1 effect from
01.07 .1995, the National Council for Teacher Education
Act, 1993 came into force and under Section 14 of the              E
NCTE Act, the power to grant recognition was vested in
the Regional Committee of the National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE) with effect from 17.08.1995.
On 13.04.2004, the State revoked the recognition of the
College and all other Non-Government Physical Training             F
Colleges in the State.

    The two appellants and five other candidates, who
had l:ndergone the C.P.Ed. course in the said College
during the academic years 1989-1990 to 1995-1996,                  G
moved the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution for a direction to the Bihar School
Examination Board to release the forms and accept the
fees and forms of the appellants and the five other
                                                                   H
    572   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                              e
A candidates on the basis of the training courses
  completed in the academic sessions 1989-1990 to 1995-
  1996 from the College and to allow them to appear in the
  examination to be conducted in 2007. A Single Judge of
  the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. The order was
B upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.

      The appellants contended before this Court that their
  College was recognized by the State Government during
  the years 1989-1990 to 1995-1996 when the appellants
C and five other candidates undertook the C.P.Ed. course
  and that the Regional Committee of NCTE was vested
  with the power to grant recognition only after the NCTE
  Act came into force on 01.07 .1995 and, therefore, the
  Bihar School Examination Board should be directed to
  allow the appellants to take the C.P.Ed. examination.
D
       Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The word "shall" in sub-rule (1) of the Rule
  7 of the Bihar School Examination Board Rules, 1963
E indicates that a duty is cast duty on the Bihar School
  Examination Board to conduct the Certificate in Physical
  Education (C.P.Ed.) examinations on such terms and
  conditions as may be laid down by the State
  Government. In the order dated 09.08.1988 of the State
F Government granting recognition to the College, there
  were ten conditions. It is clear from the terms and
  conditions of the order dated 09.08.1988 that the students
  of the College were to appear in the C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed.
  examinations conducted by the Bihar School
  Examination Board.         Hence, the Bihar School
G Examination Board was under a duty to hold the C.P.Ed.
  and D.P.Ed. examinations for the students of the college
  and this duty could be enforced by the Court by an
  appropriate writ or direction by the High Court under
  Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court was not
H
•
KUMAR! RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR. v. STATE OF 573
             BIHAR AND ORS.

right in taking the view in the impugned order that without   A
a direction of the State Government to the Bihar School
Examination Board to allow the appellants to take the
examinations, no relief could be granted by the High
Court to the appellants. [Para 7) [580-E-H; 581-A-C]
                                                              B
     2.1. The High Court was also not right in
distinguishing the present case from the case of Sunil
Kumar Parimal. In the case of Sunil Kumar Parimal, this
Court having found that the College in question in that
case was recognized by the State Government prior to          C
the date when the NCTE Act came into force and the
NCTE came into existence, directed that the students of
the College would be permitted to appear in the
examination for the courses of C.P.Ed and D.P.. Ed. for
the Sessions 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 to be conducted          D
by the Bihar School Examination Board on the next
available opportunity. The decision of this Court in Sunil
Kumar Parimal squarely applies to the facts of this case
also, as the College in question herein was duly
recognized by the State Government during the year
1989-1990 when the appellants were admitted to the            E
C.P.Ed. course and when the NCTE Act had neither been
enacted nor come into force. The order of the State
Government granting recognition to the College in which
the appellants studied in the year 1989-1990 was issued
on 09.08.1988, several years before the,NCTE Act came         F
into force. The recognition of the College had not been
revoked by the State Government until 13.04.2004 and on
13.04.2004 the recognition of all non-Government
Physical Training Colleges including that of the College
in the present case were revoked presumably because           G
the State Government no longer had the power to grant
recognition and the non-Government Physical Training
Colleges in the State were required to obtain recognition
from the Regional Comlnittee of the NCTE under the
NCTE Act. [Paras 8, 9, 10] [581-D"H; 582-B-D; 583-C-D]        H
    E74      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                   e
A       2.2. The impugned order of the High Court is
    accordingly set aside and the Bihar School Examination
    Board is directed to conduct the C.P.Ed. examination for
    the appellants as soon as possible. [Para 12] [584-8]

        StJnil Kumar Parimal & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
8
    (2007) 10 sec 150 - held applicable.

        Bhagwan Budha Prathmik Technical Training College
    Nirmali v. TheState of Bihar & Ors. 2010 (12) SCALE 364 -
    held inapplicable.
c
          L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State of T. N. & Ors. (2000) 7
  SCC 618; St.John's Teachers Training Institute (for Women),
  Madurai & Ors. v.State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC
  595; State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale &
D Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 435 and N. M. Nageshwaramma, etc. v.
  State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., etc. 1986 (Supp.) SCC 166
  - distinguished.

         P.M. Joseph v. State of T. N. (1993) Writ LR 604 -
    referred to.
E
                         Case Law Reference:

     (2007) 1o sec 150           held applicable      Para 4, 8

     2010 (12) SCALE 364         held inapplicable Para 5, 9
F    (2000) 1 sec 618            distinguished        Para 5, 10

     (1993) 3 sec 595            distinguished        Para 5, 11
     (1992) 4 sec 435            distinguished        Para 5, 10

G    1986 (Supp.) sec 166        distinguished        Para 5
     (1993) Writ LR 604          referred to          Para 10

        'CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
    2416 of 2011.
H
•   KUMAR! RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR. v. STATE OF 575
                 BIHAR AND ORS.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 23.05.2008 of the          A
    High Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No. 972 of 2007.

          Sunil Kumar, Shree Pakash Sinha and Shekhar Kumar
    for the Appellants.
        Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Lakshmi Raman Singh,            B
    Amitesh Kumar, Dr. Amaresh Kumar, Mrinal Amaresh and
    Shuvodeep Roy for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                   c
         2. This is an appeal against the order dated 23.05.2008
    of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in Letters
    Patent Appeal No.972 of 2007.
                                                                   D
      3. The facts very briefly are that the Government of Bihar
 in the Department of Human Resource Development granted
 temporary recognition to the Champaran Physical Training
 College (for short 'the College') for C.P,Ed. (Certificate of
 Physical Education) and D.P. Ed. (Diploma in Physical E
 Education) courses from July, 1986 alongwith permission to
;the students of the College to appear in the examinations
 subject to certain conditions stipulated in the order dated
 09.08.1988. The two appellants took admission in the C.P.Ed.
 course in the College in the academic session 1989-1990. F
 Several other students also ~ok admission in the C.P.Ed.
 course in the College in diff~nt academic years 1989-1990
 to 1995-1996. With effec~:trom 01.07:'.1995, the National
 Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the NCTE
 Act') came into force and under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, G
 the power to grant recognition was vested in the Regional
 Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education
 (NCTE) with effect from 17.08.1995. On 13.04.2004, the State
 revoked the recognition of the College and all other Non-
 Government Physical Training Colleges in the State. The two
                                                                 H
    576     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [20111 4 S.C.R.     •
A appellants and five other candidates, who had undergone the
  C PEd. course in the College during the academic years
  1989-1990 to 1995-1996, moved the High Court under Article
  226 of the Constitution in C.W.J.C. No. 11413 of 2007 for a
  direction to the Bihar School Examination Board to release
B the form and accept the fees and forms of the appellants and
  the five other candidates on the basis of the training courses
  completed in the academic sessions 1989-1990 to 1995-
  1996 from the College and to allow them to appear in the
  examination to be conducted in 2007. By order dated
c 07.11.2007, a learned Single Judge of the High Court
  dismissed the Writ Petition. The two appellants and the five
  other candidates then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 972 of
  2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the
  impugned order dated 23.05.2008, the Division Bench of the
D High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. Aggrieved,
  the appellants have filed this appeal.

       4. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
  the appellants, submitted that before the Division Bench of
  the High Court, the appellants contended that the College
E was recognized by the State Government during the years
  1989-1990 to 1995-1996 when the appellants and five other
  candidates undertook the C.P.Ed. course and that the Regional
  Committee of NCTE was vested with the power to grant
  recognition only after the NCTE Act came into force on
F 01.07.1995 and, therefore, the Bihar School Examination
  Board should be directed to allow the appellants to take the
  C.P.Ed. examination. He submitted that before the High Court
  the appellants relied on the decision in Sunil Kumar Parimal
  & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2007) 10 SCC 150] in which
G this Court has held that the Tirhut Physical Education College,
  Muzaffarpur, was duly recognized by the State Government
  and lost its recognition only with effect from the date the NCTE
  Act came into force, and hence the candidates, who had
  undertaken the course in the aforesaid College recognized by
H
•   KUMAR! RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR. v. STATE OF 577
          BIHAR AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    the State Government before the NCTE Act came into force, A
    were eligible to appear in the examination of C.P.Ea. course.
    He submitted that the High Court did not accept the cont~ntion
    of the appellants and instead held that lirhut Physical Edur;.lion
    College, Muzaffarpur, was a recognized institution and d~,_,pite
    repeated requests of the State to allow the students to appear s
    in the examination, the Bihar School Examination Board did
    not follow the request of the State Government, but in the facts
    of the present case no such request had been made by the
    State Government and no direction was issued by the State
    Government to the Bihar School Examination Board to allow c
    the students of the College to take the C.P. Ed. examination.
    He submitted that the High Court further held that the order
    passed by this Court in Sunil Kumar Parimal's case was in
    exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
    Constitution to do complete justice between the parties and D
    the High Court had no such power to do complete justice
    under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Sun ii Kumar further
    submitted that the High Court also held that after the NCTE
    Act had come into fQrce the College had also not applied for
    recognition and in fact the recognition of the College had been E
    cancelled in the year 2004 and that it was only after the College
    was derecognized that the appellants sought to appear in the
    examination to be conducted by the Bihar School Examination
    Board in the year 2007, to which the appellants were not
    entitled. He argued that the case of the appellants is squarely
    covered by the decision of t~is Court in Sunil Kumar Parimal's F
    case (supra) and this Court should direct the Bihar School
    Examination Board to allow the appellants to take the C.P.Ed.
    examination. Learned counsel for the respondents nos. 8 and
    9, namely, the Secretary and the Principal of the College,
    adopted the aforesaid arguments of Mr. Sunil Kumar.                G

          5. In reply, Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel appearing
    for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, namely, the State of Bihar and the
    Bihar School Examination Board and their officers, submitted
                                                                      H
   578
           \
               SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 4 S.C.R.      •
A that the Bihar School Examination Board has conducted
  examinations on several occasions during the years 1989-90
  onwards, but the appellants did not make any request to sit in
  the examination in all the years till 2007 and it is only after the
  State Government started recruitment of teachers in large
B numbers and appointed Panchayat Teachers that the appellants
  were anxious to take a chance in the examination. He further
  submitted that the recognition of the College in which the
  appellants had studied was in fact withdrawn by the State
  Government in 2004, and after the NCTE Act came into force,
C the College had not been granted recognition by the Regional
  Committee of the NCTE. He submitted that Section 16 of the
  NCTE Act is very clear that no examining body shall hold
  examination for a course or training conducted by a recognized
  institution unless the institution concerned has obtained
  rec0gnition from the Regional Committee of the NCTE under
D Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section
  15 of the NCTE Act. He argued that since the College had
  not obtained recognition of the Regional Committee of the
  NCTE under Section 14 or permission for the course or training
  under Section 15 of the NCTE Act: the Bihar School
E Examination Board was clearly prohibited under Section 16 of
  the NCTE Act from holding the examination for the appellants.
  Mr. Gopal Singh submitted that considering the judicial
  pronouncements in L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State of T. N. &
  Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 618], St. John's Teachers Training Institute
F (for Women), Madurai & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
  [(1993) 3 SCC 595], State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao
  Roundale & Ors. [(1992) 4 SCC 435] and N. M.
  Nageshwaramma, etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.,
  etc. [1986 (Supp.) SCC 166] the appellants are not entitled to
G take the examination after derecognition of the College. He
  also cited a recent decision of this Court in Bhagwan Budha
  Prathmik Technical Training College Nirmali v. The State of
  Bihar & Ors. [2010 (12) SCALE 364] in which it has been
  held that after the NCTE Act came into force in July, 1995 the
H
•   KUMAR! RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR. v. STATE OF 579
          BIHAR AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

    State Government had no auth9rity to issue the order dated           A
    16.03.2007 granting recognition to an institution for the period
    1987-1995.

         6. We have considered the submissions of the learned
    counsel for the parties and we find from the record of this          8
    case that the College was established after permission was
    granted by the State Government to open the College and the
    College started C.P.Ed. and D.P. Ed. courses from July 1986.
    Thereafter, a spot inspection of the College was carried out
    pursuant to .the orders of the State Government in the               C
    Department of Youth Affairs, Games and Culture, and the
    Inspection Committee comprising the Director-cum-Deputy
    Secretary, Student and Youth Welfare, Deputy Director, Youth
    Welfare-Bihar and Principal, Government-cum-Teaching
    College, Patna, submitted a report dated 04.12.1987 stating          D
    thatthe College had a building over 10 acres 30 decimals of
    land, seven Lecturers, two Instructors, one Library and other
    non-teaching staff and all the Teachers were eligible and
    experienced and that the College was running properly. On
    the basis of the said report dated 04.12.1987, the Government
    of Bihar in the Department of Human Resource Development             E
    by order dated 09.08.1988 granted temporary recognition to
    the College from July 1986 for the C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed.
    courses till further orders "along with permission to the students
    to appear in the examination".
                                                                         F
         7. Rule 7 of the Bihar School Examination Board Rules,
    1963 which has been referred to in paragraph 6 of the reply
    of the Bihar School Examination Board reads as follows:

         "7. Departmental Examination;; to be conducted by               G
         the Board: (1) The Board shall on, such terms and
         conditions as may be laid down by the State Government,
         conduct the following departmental Examinations, namely:-


          (a) Certificate in Social Education;                           H
    580      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 4 S.C.R.     •
A          (b) Diploma in Physical Education;

           (c) Certificate in Physical Education;

           (d} Short Training Course in Physical Education;

B          (e) Primary Training Course in Physical Education; and

           (f) Training School Examinations:

                Provided that the State Government may, by
         notification in the official gazette, authorize the Board to
c        conduct such other departmental examinations not
         specified or withdraw the authority given to the Board to
         conduct any of the examinations mentioned, in this sub-
       . rule.

D               (2) The State Government may give instructions to
          the Board about the content as well as the academic and
          vocational standards of these examinations, and may
          modify these instructions, as and when necessary."

    The word "shall" in sub-rule (1) of the Rule 7 indicates that a
E   duty is cast duty on the Bihar School Examination Board to
    conduct the Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.)
    examinations on such terms and conditions as may be laid
    down by the State Government. In the order dated 09.08.1988
    of the State Government granting recognition to the College,
F   there were ten conditions and condition no.6 was to the
    following effect:-

          "Students will be compulsorily required to perform
          successfully as per the standard of one star, in the test
G         conducted by Government Health and Physical Training
          College, Rajendranagar, Patna, before appearing in the
          examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination
          Board."

    It is thus clear from the terms and conditions of the order dated
H
•    KUMARI RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR. v. STATE OF 581
           BIHAR AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

     09.08.1988 of the State Government granting recognition that       A
     the students of the College were to appear in the C.P.Ed. and
     D.P.Ed. examinations conducted by the Bihar School
     Examination Board. Hence, the Bihar School Examination
     Board was under a duty to hold the C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed.
     examinations for the students of the college and this duty could   B
     be enforced by the Court by an appropriate writ or direction by
     the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High
     Court was not right in taking the view in the impugned order
     that without a direction of the State Government to the Bihar
     School Examination Boarrl to allow the appellants to take the      c
     examinations, no relief could be granted by the High Court to
     the appellants.

           8. The High Court was also not right in distinguishing the
      present case from the case of Sunil KumarParimal (supra).
      In the case of Sunil Kumar Parimal (supra), this Court had        D
    · found that the Tirhut Physical Education College, Muzaffarpur,
      had been granted permission to enroll the students in C.P.Ed.
      and D.P. Ed. courses for the Sessions 1994-1995 to 1995-
      1996 and was duly recognized by the State Government and
      this Court held that the NCTE Act will be applicable              E
      prospectively to those students who have to undertake the
      examination after the Act came into force. This Court having
      found that the aforesaid College was recognized by the State
      Government prior to the date when the NCTE Act came into
      force and the NCTE came into existence, directed that the         F
      students of the College would be permitted to appear in the
      examination for the courses of C.P.Ed and D.P. Ed. for the
      Sessions 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 to be conducted by the
       Bihar School Examination Board on the next available
      opportunity. In our considered view, the decision of this Court   G
      in Sunil Kumar Parimal (supra) squarely applies io the facts
      of this case also as the College was duly recognized by the
       State Government during the year 1989-1990 when the
       appellants were admitted to the C.P.Ed. course and when the
       NCTE Act had neither been enacted nor come into force:           H
    582      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 4 S.C.R.     •
A        9. The decision of this Court in Bhagwan Budha Prathmik
    Technical Training College Nirmali v. The State of Bihar &
    Ors. (supra), cited by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to
  5, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case,
  after the appointed date (17.08.1995) when the NCTE had
B been established under the NCTE Act, the State Government
  passed an order dated 16.03.2007 granting recognition to the
  Teachers' Training College at Nirmali, District Supaul (Bihc:.r)
  for 1987-1989 onwards and this Court held that after the
  appointed date the State Government cannot exercise the
c power of recognition nor can the examining body hold
  examination of the students of a teacher training institute unless
  the institution was recognized by the Regional Committee of
  the NCTE as laid down in Section 16 of the NCTE Act. In the
  facts of the present case, on the other hand, we find that the
  order of the State Government granting recognition to the
0
  College in which the appellants studied in the year 1989-1990
  was issued on 09.08.1988, several years before the NCTE Act
  came into force.

        10. In L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State of T. N. & Ors.
E (supra) on which great reliance has been placed by learned
  counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5, some students had filed
  writ petitions contending that they had undergone secondary
  grade teachers' training in different training institutes between
  the period 1989 to 1991 and that they had taken public
F examination in May 1992, but their results were not published
  and certificates were not awarded. The Court found that the
  institutes, in which they had undergone training, had recognition
  but the same was withdrawn subsequently by virtue of the
  judgment in P.M. Joseph v. State of T. N. (1993 Writ LR 604)
G holding that the orders of recognition had been granted only on
  extraneous considerations. On these facts, this Court held that
  as the students had undergone the training in the institutes
  which were derecognized by virtue of the judgment in P. M.
  Joseph's case, the prayers of the students for writ of mandamus
H
•
KUMAR! RANJANA MISHRA Al\J ANR. v. STATE OF 583
      BIHAR AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
for issuing of mark-sheets and/or diplomas/certificates contrary    A
to the judgment in P.M. Joseph's case could not be granted
by the High Court. In the facts of the present case, however,
the recognition to the College that was granted by the State
Government for the years 1989-1990 during which the
appellants were admitted in-the course had not been withdrawn        B
on the ground that the recognition was granted for extraneous
considerations. On the contrary, we find from the record of this
case that until 13.04.2004 the recognition of the College had
not been revoked by the State Government and on 13.04.2004
the recognition of all non-Government Physical Training              c
Colleges including that of the College in the present case were
revoked presumably because the State Government no longer
 had the power to grant recognition and the non-Government
 Physical Training Colleges in the State were required to obtain
 recognition from the Regional Committee of the NCTE under
                                                                     0
 the NCTE Act.

        11. We have also perused the decisions of this Court in
  St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for Women), Madurai
  & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (supra), State of
  Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & Ors. (supra) and E
  N. M. Nageshwaramma, etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
  Anr., etc. (supra) cited by learned counsel for respondent nos.1
  to 5 and we find that in these decisions-this Court has held that
  the students studying in the unrecognized institutions are not
  entitled to any relief, interim or final, from the Court for taking F
- examinations. The main reason given by this Court for refusing
  such relief is that standards of education, sports, administration
  and maintenance of'the Teachers Training Institutes should not
  be compromised by granting such reliefs. These decisions
  have no relevance to the facts in the present case in which we G
  find that after inspection of the College the Inspection
  Committee had submitted a report stating that the College had
  the required facilities and the teaching ~nd other staff and on
  the basis of such report the State Government had, in fact,
                                                                     H
A
    584      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 4 S.C.R.

    granted temporary recognition to the College by orde~f,lated
                                                                   •
    09.08.1988 and the appellants were admitted in the College
    during the year 1989-1990 when the recognition granted by t~
    State was in force.

          12. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the
8
    impugned order of the High Court and direct the Bihar School
    Examination Board to conduct the C.P.Ed. examination for th~
    appellants as soon as possible. No costs.

    B.B.B.                                     Appeal allowed.