DIPAK MISRA, J.

(1.) By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29-01-2008 passed by the Board of Secondary Education, MP., the respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the said authority has declined to grant affiliation to the petitioner-college for D.Ed. Course for the year 2007-2008, and further to issue a writ of mandamus to the said respondent to grant affiliation in respect of the course in question.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts which are essential to be stated are that the petitioner-institution had applied for grant of recognition for D.Ed. Course in the year 2006 to the National Council for Teachers Education, Western Regional Committee, the third respondent herein. On receipt of the said application the NCTE directed inspection of the College as per the provisions contained under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 [for brevity 'the Act']. During the pendency of the application the Union of India issued certain instructions to the Western Regional Committee not to proceed with the matter relating to grant of recognition. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Union of India the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 12720/07.

(3.) In the said writ petition a prayer was made to decide the application for recognition and grant interim relief regarding admission of students in D.Ed. Course inasmuch as the Board of Secondary Education had .fixed the cut-off date as 30-9-2007. The learned Single Judge on 11 -9-2007 passed the following order:

"Let Union of India, Barkatullah University and concerning University as well as State Government be arrayed as respondents, if not already impleaded. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on interim relief. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner-institution is hereby directed to admit the students for D.Ed. Course subject to decision of this petition as its own risk. The fees may not be accepted from the students by the petitioner."

(4.) On the basis of the aforesaid interim order, as pleaded, the petitioner admitted 50 students in the College and classes were held continuously.

(5.) As number of writ petitions were filed at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur and also at the Benches at Gwalipr and Indore by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice matters were transferred and directed to be heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench upheld the action of the Union of India and also dealt with the concept of legitimate expectation and interest. The Division Bench while deciding the batch of matters which included the writ petition filed by the present petitioner expressed the opinion as under:

"36. Presently to the legitimate expectation and interest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the institutions have given admission and if eventually the institutions are granted recognition the students should be permitted to appear in the examination. Learned single Judge of this Court while passing the interim order had clearly stated that institutions may admit students provisionally at their own risk without accepting fees from them and if they accept fees from the students they would be ready to face the consequences if the petition is decided against them. In view of the aforesaid order no equity can ever flow in favour of the institutions. We would like to place it on record that an institution which is desirous of imparting B.Ed and M.Ed, education or introducing a course meant for teachers is under obligation to be aware of the provisions contained under the 1993 Act. The said Act has been engrafted with a sacrosanct purpose. Grant of recognition is the condition precedent before any institution proceeds in any other matter like affiliation from the examining body. Whether the affiliation has to be granted automatically or not we have already refrained from dwelling upon the said issue, but, an onerous one, it is inconceivable how an institution without recognition can nurture the idea to admit students. A day-dreamer can build a castle in the air or for that matter castle in Spain, but it is absolutely inapposite on the part of aspirants registered bodies or institutions to admit students and pyramid relying on the bedrock of legitimate expectation that the students would be treated as students who have been admitted in such institutions in such courses which are valid in law. -An educational institution has to conduct itself in an apple pie order. It has to maintain the sacredness of the concept behind imparting education. They are under obligation to keep in mind that commercialization of course under 1993 Act is impermissible. Quite apart from the above, it is totally imprudent and in a way quite audacious to build a superstructure without an infrastructure. If we allow ourselves to say so, perception has been blinded and in the ultimate eventuate a cataclysm has been unwarrantedly invited. We may say without any fear of contradiction mat it is a perceptible deception and fraud on law. Ergo, the stance that they have to be given the benefit of legitimate expectation and their interest should be protected, is devoid of any substance and we - unhesitatingly repel the same."

(6.) It is worth-noting that after the disposal of the writ petition, as set forth, the NCTE has granted recognition in favour of the institution as per Annexure-P/7, dated 28-12-2007/11-01-2008, After receipt of the order of recognition the petitioner-institution submitted an application to the respondent No.2 for grant of affiliation on the ground that the petitioner had already been conducting classes from the month of October, 2007 and received recognition from the NCTE. Despite the aforesaid stand put forth before the respondent No.2 the said authority vide Annexure-P/1, dated 29-01-2008 rejected the application for grant of affiliation on the ground that the petitioner-institution had not completed 180 days of imparting training.

(7.) We have heard Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

(8.) It is submitted by Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner-college had admitted students on the basis of interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and later on the NCTE, the highest body has granted the recognition it relates back to the date of admission that took place by virtue of the order of the learned Single Judge and the respondent No, 2 should have been well advised to extend the benefit and not rejected the order of affiliation. It is his further submission that the Board has committed gross illegality by ascribing reason that the examination for the students will be held in May June, 2008 by which date the petitioner-institution would not be in a position to complete 180 days of training course. It is also contended by him that Rajya Shiksha Kendra which is a wing of the respondent No.l, directly controlled by the respondent No.2 has issued a letter dated 17-01-2008 to all the Principals directing to fill the seats for D.Ed. Course within three days and that would show that 180 days imparting of training would not be applicable to the State Government colleges.

(9.) Mr. Deepak Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State submitted that the writ petition is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as in the earlier round of litigation this Court had in clear-cut terms opined that without recognition no admission could have been granted. It is propounded by him that once the said view has been expressed admission to the Course can take place only after the recognition and the respondent No.2 has rightly refused to grant permission to the students of the petitioner-institution to appear in the examination on the ground that 180 days in imparting of training is not complete. The learned counsel submitted that the Government colleges have the recognition and affiliation and, in any case, the petitioner cannot take any benefit from Annexure-A/8 in view of the previous decision of this Court.

(10.) To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully scrutinised the assertions made in the writ petition. We have also scrutinised the order passed by the NCTE granting recognition. The same is dated 28-12-2007/11-01-2008. On the basis of the said recognition an application was submitted by the petitioner- institution for grant of affiliation for the year 2007-2008. On a perusal of the order of refusal by the respondent No.2 it is clearly discernible that for the year 2007 the last date of admission was 30-11 -2007. There is reference to the directions issued by the NCTE that the students who are to take admission have to be given training for a period of 180 days. As the examination is going to be held in May- June, 2008 they cannot be extended the benefit to appear in the D.Ed. Examination in the year 2008. In this background affiliation for the year 2007-2008 has been rejected.

(11.) The submissions of Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are basically based on the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is vehemently contended by him that because of the interim order of this Court the institution has admitted the students. The Division Bench of this Court had already dealt with the said facet. When in the final order the relief was denied the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the interim order and moreso, when this Court has expressed the opinion that it was inconceivable how an institution without recognition can nurture the idea to admit students. The imperative guidelines for imparting of training for 180 days is not disputed before us. The examination is scheduled to be held in May-June, 2008 Recognition has been granted on 28-12-2007/11-01-2008. By the principle of sheer arithmetics 180 days training is not possible and hence, the order passed by the respondent No.2 cannot be faulted.

(12.) Ordinarily so saying, we would have dismissed the writ petition but, a significant and unavoidable one, the educational institution which is expected to understand the norms, guidelines, circulars, regulations and the Act governing the field of education in proper perspective, made an adroit attempt to move an application before the Board to obtain permission for appearing in the Examination to be conducted in May-June, 2008 solely and singularly on the basis that it had admitted students on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court. When interim order merged with the final order this Court unequivocally expressed the view that it was inconceivable how an institution without recognition could foster the idea to admit students. This Court had also observed that a day dreamer can build a castle in the air or for that matter castle in Spain, but it is absolutely inapposite on the part of the aspirants registered bodies or institutions to admit students and pyramid the foundation relying on the bedrock of legitimate expectation that the students would be treated as students to have been admitted in such institutions in such courses. This Court had also observed that an educational- institution has to conduct itself in an apple pie order and has to maintain the sac-redness of the concept behind imparting education. This Court had also expressed the opinion that the perception of the institutions had been blinded as a result of which a cataclysm had been unwarrantably invited. Despite the aforesaid observations a superstructure is sought to be built again to have the permission from the Board to appear in the examination knowing fully well that admission can take place only after grant of recognition. Anything that had been done prior to grant of recognition, as held by this Court, has no existence in the eyes of law.

(13.) In the aforesaid premises, we direct dismissal of the writ petition with costs which is determined at Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand). Petition dismissed.