IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 25495 of 2008(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. MARY.P.L., ARACKAL HOUSE, CHELOOR P.O. TRICHUR. 2. RABISHA.P.O., KARUKAYIL HOUSE, AVINISSERY P.O., TRICHUR. 3. SARANYA.K.B., RAMANKULATH HOUSE, KODUNGALLUR. 4. SRUTHY KRISHNA, KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR, TRICHUR. 5. VIDHU K.T., VAZHAPPULLY HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM, TRICHUR. 6. FABITHA.P.S.CHANDHANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAPPAD, TRICHUR. 7. JAYASREE P.K., KEYATH HOUSE, KODALY, TRICHUR. 8. PRINCY K.S., KARAYIL HOUSE, PADIYOOR, TRICHUR. 9. SONA P.S., PINDARAMKULATH HOUSE, NARAYANAMANGALAM, TRICHUR. 10. ABITHA K.T., KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, OLLUKKARA, TRICHUR. 11. AMRITA.R., KALARICKAL HOUSE MINALUR. 12. ASHLY M.S., EATTATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM, TRICHUR. WPC NO.25495/08 -2- 13. DEEPAK.P.S., PULIYATH HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI, TRICHUR. 14. DIVYA.C.U., MURUKKUMTHARA HOUSE, PUDUKKAD, TRICHUR. 15. DIVYA RAJ, K.KAIPATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM, TRICHUR. 16. DIVYA.V.P., VETTUVATHRA HOUSE, THALIKKULAM, TRICHUR. 17. LEKHA.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, KURUVATH HOUSE, KADAKARA, TRICHUR. 18. REEGA.N.R., NHATTUKETTY HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY, TRICHUR. 19. SANEESH.K.S., KOKKANTHARA HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY, TRICHUR. 20. SARIKA K.S., CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADIYOOR, TRICHUR. 21. SELVA.M.A., PALLIPARAMBU HOUSE, CHENTHRAPINNI, TRICHUR. 22. SUDIN K.S., KANNAMKULAM HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM, TRICHUR. 23. SUMANJU.K., KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, TRICHUR. 24. SUMEESH.K.S., KOOTTALA HOUSE, KODUNGALLUR. 25. AMBISHA.K.T., KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, OLLUKKARA, TRICHUR. 26. ARCHANA A.A., ANAKOTTU HOUSE, PERINJANAM, TRICHUR. 27. ASHA RAMANUNNI.K., KARUVANJERI HOUSE, TRICHUR. 28. CHANDRIKA.P.C., MANNANTHARA HOUSE, EDAKKULAM. 29. GEETHA NARAYANAN NAIR, PAREKKATTU HOUSE PERUMBILISSERY, TRICHUR. WPC NO.25495/08 -3- 30. GEETH M.T., THARAKKATTIL HOUSE, PADIYOOR, TRICHUR. 31. GINSHA.E.G., PETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM, TRICHUR. 32. HAZEENA.M.K., THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY, TRICHUR. 33. JAYASRI.N.A., PERINGAVIL HOUSE, ELTHURUTH, TRICHUR. 34. KAVITHA.K., KARAYAMVATTATH HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, TRICHUR. 35. LEENA.T.S., POLASSERY HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM, TRICHUR. 36. NIMMI, PANACKAL HOUSE, NATTIKA, TRICHUR. 37. REMYA.V.G., VAKKAYIL HOUSE, ALOOR, TRICHUR. 38. SANU.M.R., MARRASSERY HOUSE, PUDUKKAD, TRICHUR. 39. SMITHAMOL.N.J., THAMPURATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, TRICHUR. 40. SOUMYA.K.S., KOLLARA HOUSE, CHENTRAPINNI, TRICHUR. 41. THANSEERA.P.N., PALATHINKAL HOUSE, MATHILAKOM, TRICHUR. 42. VIJAYASREE.K.V., KOLAMTHRA HOUSE, EDAMUTTOM, TRICHUR. 43. DIVYA.A.U., ANAKKOTTU HOUSE, PERINJANAM, TRICHUR. 44. DIVYA.T.D., THATTIL HOUSE, KAVALAM. 45. KSHEMO.K.C., KOTTIYATTIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD, TRICHUR. 46. REMYA.P., PULIYATH HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA, TRICHUR. WPC NO.25495/08 -4- 47. RITTY JOSE, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, PAZHUVIL, TRICHUR. 48. SALINI.K.S., AINIPULLI HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTAM, TRICHUR. 49. SANDHYA.K.S., KOOTTALAM HOUSE, KODUNGALLUR. 50. SISSY.K.V., PANTHALLUKKARAN HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY, TRICHUR. 51. SUBITHA.V.S., CHILLELY HOUSE, MELADOOR, TRICHUR. 52. HYMA.P.D., PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM, TRICHUR. 53. NISHANTHI P.S., PERINGATHARA HOUSE, PERINJANAM, TRICHUR. 54. OGUS CHEEKU.K., KOLANGARA HOUSE, MANAKULANGARA, TRICHUR. 55. PRAVITHA V.S., VALLIYIL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, TRICHUR. 56. SALMATH.V.V., VALLIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PALAKKAD. 57. SHIJI T.R., THEPARAMIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM, TRICHUR. 58. SHYNI.T.P., ORUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY, TRICHUR. 59. SIMMY K.MADHAVAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, TRICHUR. 60. SUMA.T.P., KOCHATHU HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU, TRICHUR. 61. K.B.VIJAYALEKSHMI, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KANJANI, TRICHUR. 62. VIJAYASREE.A, ATHAMKAVIL HOUSE, KUTTIMUKKU. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR WPC NO.25495/08 -5- RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. 4. VIKRAM SARABHAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND B.ED COLLEGE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, K.D.NEELAMBARAN. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25495/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/B.ED/2006- 07/11784 DT 23.3.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF AFFILIATION DT 23.8.2005. EXT.P3: TRE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 15339/2007 DT 4.10.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GAI-D2/3737/07 DT 4.7.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 14.7.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ENCLOSING THE LIST DT 22.7.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN NO.15. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN NO.14. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EP8-111/B.ED/2007-08 DT 4.8.2008. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GAI-D2/3737/07 DT 6.8.2008. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA1/D2/3737/07 DT 17.10.2008. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EPR-III/B.ED/2007-08 DT 10.12.2008. EXTS.OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO VACATE THE INTERIM ORDER DT 15.12.2007. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DT 1.4.2008. EXTS. OF R4 EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOR B.ED PROGRAMME 2007-08 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 9.10.2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, KERALA. WPC NO.25495/08 -2- EXT.R4(c): NOMINAL ROLL OF STUDENTS 2007-08 OF VIKRAM SARABHAI B.ED COLLEGE, KAIPAMANGALAM. EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2007. EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. EXT.R4(f): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GAI/D2/3737/07 DT 17.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 25495 OF 2008 (I) ==================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the students of the 4th respondent, M/s.Vikram Sarabhai Educational Trust and B.Ed College. The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to accept the applications of the petitioners submitted for appearing for the 1st year B.Ed Course (Regular) Examination for the academic year 2007-08, which was scheduled to be held from 14/10/2008 onwards without insisting on the production of provisional affiliation order for the year 2007-08 in view of the directions of this court in the judgment in Vikram Sarabhai E.Trust & B.Ed.College v. University of Calicut (2008(2) KLT 1027). 2. The facts of this case are that Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the National Council for Teacher Education dated 23/3/2007 granting recognition to the 4th respondent College, for starting B.Ed course with an intake of 100 students. It is stated that despite Ext.P1, against the mandate of Section 14(6)of the NCTE Act, affiliation was not granted by the respondent University. That compelled the 4th respondent to file a writ petition before this court as WP(C) No.15339/07. On 4th of October, 2007, a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the arguments of both sides, WPC 25495/08 :2 : passed Ext.P3 order, the relevant portion of which reads as under. 1. The University shall grant provisional affiliation to the B.Ed Course for the academic year 2007-08, as sought by the petitioner. 2. The affiliation of the petitioner's College will be provisional and subject to the result of the W.P.(C). 3. The petitioner's College shall inform the students admitted to the course that their admission is subject to the final orders that would be passed in the W.P.(C), so that the students could not plead equity at the time of final hearing of the W.P.(C). 3. The 4th respondent, the Management, submits that in pursuance to Ext.P3 interim order passed by this Court, 62 students were admitted as shown in Ext.R4(c) list, who are the petitioners in this writ petition. Ext.R4(a) is the academic calender published by the University and Ext.R4(d) is stated to be the Attendance Register. 4. The University submits that aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, they had filed a Review Petition before the Division Bench as RP No.1152/07. It is stated that in the meanwhile, since the writ petition, along with a batch of connected matters, were referred by the Division Bench to be heard by a Full Bench, the petition filed by the University was closed by the Division Bench leaving it open to the University to move the Full Bench for appropriate orders. However, no order was passed either by the Division Bench or by the Full Bench modifying Ext.P3 interim order. 5. In the meanwhile, it would appear that the 4th respondent WPC 25495/08 :3 : Management initiated contempt of court proceedings against the University by filing COC No.1643/07. That petition was heard by a Division Bench on 17th of December, 2007 and taking note of the reference of the cases to a Full Bench, the filing of the application for review and such other developments, the Division Bench held that there was no wilful disobedience as contemplated in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and on that basis, dismissed the petition. 6. WP(C) No.15339/07 filed by the 4th respondent was heard by a Full Bench of this Court and was disposed of by judgment dated 23rd May 2008 reported in Vikram Sarabhai E.Trust & B.Ed.College v. University of Calicut (2008(2) KLT 1027). Para 15 of the judgment, being relevant is extracted below for reference. We have already answered the point referred for our decision that there is no conflict between the decision of the Apex Court and that of the Division Bench of this Court mentioned above. Going by the materials on record, we find it difficult to hold that this is a case where no facilities are provided for the conduct of the course. If the inspection report of the University is correct, certain facilities may be inadequate in accordance with the NCTE norms and to that extent, the grant of recognition by the NCTE may not be proper. But, we think, this is not the forum to adjudicate this dispute, as this is not a case of “no facilities” or the recognition is obtained by fraud. The University, therefore, cannot be permitted to collaterally attack Ext.P1 in this writ petition. It has to take recourse to the remedies available to it under the Statute against WPC 25495/08 :4 : the grant of recognition by the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE allegedly without the essential infrastructural facilities. Of course, if this was a case, where no facilities were provided, this being a discretionary jurisdiction, we would have declined to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner. But, this being a marginal case, until the recognition is stayed or set aside by the competent authority, we are of the view that the University is bound to act under S.14(6) of the NCTE Act and grant affiliation. If there are other requirements to be satisfied by the petitioner like payment of any fee etc., which are not at variance with the NCTE Act, the Regulations framed thereunder and the decision of the NCTE, then the University may ask the petitioner to comply with such requirements within a time frame and thereafter grant affiliation. Condition No.4 of Ext.P1 cannot override the mandatory provisions of the NCTE Act. The said condition should be read down to make it in conformity with the provisions of S.14(6) of the said Act. If, so far, the University has not granted affiliation to the petitioner's College, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the same shall be done within one modified or recalled by the competent authority or court, needless to say, this direction to grant affiliation will be subject to such orders. 7. Petitioners submit that by Ext.P4 dated 4/7/2008, the University intimated the 4th respondent that it has resolved to implement the judgment of the Full Bench and asked the College to submit the documents/details mentioned therein. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P4, the College furnished the documents/details sought for by the University under cover of Ext.P5 letter dated 14/07/2008. In the meantime, the petitioners were continuing their studies and the 4th WPC 25495/08 :5 : respondent College, by Ext.P6 dated 22/7/2008 forwarded the applications of the petitioner students to the University in order to present them for the ensuing B.Ed Degree Examinations to be held in October, 2008 and Exts.P7 and P8 shows that the College remitted the requisite fee also. The applications were received by the University, but however, the University by Ext.P9 dated 4/8/08 returned the applications stating that along with the applications, the College had not submitted affiliation order. 8. Immediately thereafter, the University issued Ext.P10 dated 6/8/08, in purported compliance with the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above, granting affiliation to the College for the academic year 2008-09 with an intake of 100 students and subject to the other conditions mentioned therein. Since the petitioners were admitted for the academic year 2007-08, and for want of affiliation for 2007-08, as they could not continue their studies or appear for the University examination, they filed this writ petition with the prayers mentioned above. 9. On 13/10/2008, after lengthy arguments, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondent University to accept the applications of the petitioners provided they are resubmitted as directed, so that the students could take part in the examination which was already scheduled to 17/10/2008, and subject to the other conditions incorporated in the WPC 25495/08 :6 : order. It was made clear that the appearance of the students in the examination will be provisional and subject to further orders in the writ petition. 10. Meanwhile, the 4th respondent College filed a contempt of court case before the Division Bench of this Court as COC No.1286/2008. Averments in the petition filed in the contempt of court case, read out by the Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent shows that the fact that the students were already admitted for the Academic year 2007-08 was disclosed in the pleadings. The Division Bench before which the contempt matter came up for orders, prima facie found that the Registrar of the University against whom proceedings were initiated, had wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions of the Full Bench and for the purpose of framing charges, directed his personal appearance. At that stage, it would appear that the Registrar filed an unconditional apology and producing a copy of Ext.R4(f) order dated 17/10/2008, substituting the year “2008-09” mentioned in Ext.P10 with “2007-08”. In view of this, the Division Bench felt that the complaint need not be taken cognizance of and accordingly the case was dropped recording the order dated 17/10/2008. This was done by judgment dated 20th of October, 2008. 11. In view of Ext.R4(f) order referred to above, it would appear WPC 25495/08 :7 : that the 4th respondent requested the University to permit the petitioners herein, who were admitted for the academic year 2007-08, to be admitted for practicals, since by virtue of the interim order dated 13.10.2008, they had already appeared for the theory papers. It was thereupon the University issued Ext.P12 order dated 10/12/2008, which reads as under. With reference to the above, I am to inform you that the theory examination for these candidates has been conducted only on the basis of the orders of the Hon.High Court in WP(C) No.25495/2008(I). The Hon.High Court has directed to conduct the examination from 17.10.2008 only (ie., the theory examination) 12. Counsel for the petitioners Sri.V.G.Arun, submits that in view of Ext.P10 as modified by Ext.R4(f) granting affiliation to the 4th respondent for the academic year 2007-08, admission granted to them should be treated as regular and they should be permitted to appear for practicals and that on that basis, their results should also be declared. 13. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal appearing for the 4th respondent fully supported the case of the petitioners and contended that in view of Ext.P3 interim order, the Full Bench judgment referred to above and Exts.P10 and Ext.R4(f) orders granting affiliation, petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for. 14. Standing counsel for the University Sri.P.C.Sasidharan contended that the Full Bench rendered the judgment on 23/5/2008 and WPC 25495/08 :8 : that taking note of the fact that orders of affiliation were not already passed pursuant to Ext.P3 interim order, directed that orders of affiliation be passed within one month. It is stated that it was thereafter that affiliation was granted by the University by Ext.P10 order, which was modified by Ext.R4(f) order dated 17/10/2008. It is stated that even though technically the affiliation granted relates back to the academic year 2007-08, petitioners were admitted long prior to actual grant of affiliation. It is stated that therefore the admission granted to the petitioners were at best in anticipation of affiliation, which is clearly prohibited in terms of Clause 19(c) of Chapter 23 of the University Statutes. He also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in C.B.S.E and another v. P.Sunil Kumar and others (1998(5) SCC 377), State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others (1992(4) SCC 435) and M.G.University v. Gis Jose (2008(4) KLT 216). 15. Yet another argument that was raised by the learned counsel for the University is that no benefit whatsoever will enure to the students on the strength of Ext.P3 order, in view of Clause 3 of the order itself. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rural Education & Social Trust v. University of Calicut (2007(2) KLT 609) and contended that except with affiliation, no WPC 25495/08 :9 : student can be admitted. It was also brought to my notice that this judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed by the Apex Court by rejecting the SLP filed by the unsuccessful appellant before the Division Bench. 16. From the submissions made by both sides, the issue that arises for my consideration is whether the petitioners, who were admitted by the 4th respondent during the academic year 2007-08, are entitled to have the benefit of that admission for the reason that the affiliation was granted by the University by Ext.P10 and Ext.R4(f) orders, with effect from 2007-08 in implementation of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vikram Sarabhai E.Trust & B.Ed.College v. University of Calicut (2008(2) KLT 1027). 17. Ext.P1 is the proceedings issued by the NCTE, granting recognition to the 4th respondent for conducting B.Ed Course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students. Although in terms of the provisions contained in Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act, University ought to have granted affiliation, which position is settled by the Full Bench judgment referred to above, affiliation was not granted by the University. It was in these circumstances, that compelled by the refusal on the part of the University to grant affiliation, that the 4th respondent Management filed WPC 25495/08 :10 : WP(C) No.15339/07 before this Court. In that writ petition, by Ext.P3 order passed by this Court on 4/10/2007, the University was directed to grant affiliation to the College. It was thereafter that the 62 students, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, were admitted. The details of the students admitted are available in Ext.R4(c) list attached to the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. The Attendance Register maintained, a copy of which is Ext.R4(d), also shows that the students have attended the classes as stated in the writ petition and the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent. 18. Admittedly, Ext.P3 interim order passed by this Court also was not complied with, but on the other other hand, the University attempted to get the order varied by filing RP No.1145/08. However, no modification whatsoever was made. This led to the filing of contempt case numbered as COC No.1643/07. Although the contempt was closed by judgment dated 17th of December 2007 finding that there was no wilful disobedience as provided in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, that does not, in my view, mean that the University stood exonerated from their liability to comply with Ext.P3 interim order or that this Court has upheld this conduct. The writ petition was finally allowed by judgment dated 23rd of May, 2008 (2008(2) KLT 1027) and directions issued by this Court are WPC 25495/08 :11 : contained in para 15 of the judgment, where the right of the College to be affiliated for the academic year 2007-08, in pursuance to Ext.P1 order passed by the NCTE, was upheld. 19. True, as contended by the counsel for the University, it was granted one months time to pass orders, if orders were not already passed. Thereafter though the University by Ext.P4 order, intimated the 4th respondent its decision to implement the judgment, ultimately, the affiliation granted by Ext.P10 was for the year 2008-09. It is thereafter that the 4th respondent initiated proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act before this Court as COC No.1286/08. As already noticed, the Division Bench prima facie found that contempt was committed by the University and directed the personal appearance of the Registrar for framing charges. It was at that stage that compelled by the situation, the University issued Ext.R4(f) order dated 17.10.2008 correcting Ext.P10 and making the affiliation effective from the year 2007-08 and tendered apology. Although the counsel for the University argued that the University has willingly granted the affiliation for the year 2007-08, in the aforesaid circumstances, I am not persuaded to think that the University has granted the affiliation out of generosity or grace, but was out of compulsion. WPC 25495/08 :12 : 20. From the above, it is therefore evident that the college was thus granted affiliation from the year 2007-08. If that be so, there is no reason why the students who were admittedly enrolled in the college during the academic year 2007-08 should be denied their legitimate right to enjoy the benefits arising out of such affiliation. If I take a view to the contrary, it will be putting the clock back to the stage at which Ext.P10 was issued, where affiliation granted by the University was for the year 2008-09. Thus, if I accept the contention of the University that the students are not eligible for any benefit even inspite of Exts.P10 and Ext.R4(f), University will be achieving what it unsuccessfully attempted by issuing Ext.P10 and what was disapproved by the Division Bench of this Court, while considering COC No.1286/08. Ultimately the students will be the victims and will be loosing an year of their prime youth for no fault of theirs. 21. At this stage, I must also deal with certain contentions urged by the counsel for the University. 22. Firstly, he submitted that the students were admitted in the college in anticipation of affiliation. According to him, this was against the provisions contained in Clause 19(c) of Chapter 23 of the University Statutes. As I have already found, the students in question were admitted WPC 25495/08 :13 : by the College subsequent to Ext.P3 order passed by this Court directing grant of affiliation. If that be so, admission was granted only after this Court recognised the right of the 4th respondent to be granted affiliation for 2007-08 and the writ petition was ultimately allowed by a Full Bench of this Court. Therefore, I am not persuaded to accept the contention that the College granted admission in anticipation of affiliation. 23. Secondly, it was contended that the University was not intimated of the admissions that were made. First of all this contention will not hold good atleast subsequent to Ext.R4(f) when the affiliation was granted effective from 2007-08. During the course of the arguments, Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent read out the pleadings in COC 1286/2008, in which the 4th respondent had disclosed that they had in pursuance to Ext.P3 granted admission to the petitioners. It was in this petition that the Division Bench found that prima facie contempt was committed by the University and it was to avoid further proceedings that thereafter by Ext.R4(f), affiliation was granted for the year 2007-08. Therefore, atleast at the time when affiliation was granted for 2007-08, the University was aware that the petitioners were already admitted by the 4th respondent. If so, they cannot now be allowed to contend that admission granted was not intimated to the University. WPC 25495/08 :14 : 24. Even otherwise, I have no reason to think that immediately after the admissions and before Ext.R4(f) order was issued, even if the college had intimated the University, they would have entertained any such communication from the college. This is all the more so for the reason that despite Ext.P3 interim order, judgment of the Full Bench of this Court and Ext.P4 decision of the University to implement the judgment, when applications were made by Ext.P6 and fee were remitted by Exts.P7 and P8 for allowing the students to appear for their exams, University chose to return the applications for not enclosing the order of affiliation, which it was bound to grant, but did not. Therefore, I have no good reason to