The Principal, National College of Pharmacy, Manassery, Kozhikode – 673 602 v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/23RD JYAISHTA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 22817 of 2012 (B)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-------------------** **THE PRINCIPAL, NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, MANASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 602.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** **RESPONDENT:** **---------------------** **KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. PIN-680 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH & SCEINCES** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2013, ALONG WITH WPC 12150/2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **WP(C).No. 22817 of 2012 (B) --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.SOUTH-WEST/1690716191/2012/EOA DATED 10.05.2012.** - **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.220/NCP/12 DATED 04.07.2012 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.08.2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.2752/1/AC.1/3/2010 DATED 18.08.2012 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.07.2012 GIVEN TOTHE RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.13371/2012 DATED 07.08.2012.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.2752/1/AC.1/3/2010 DATED 25/10/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PHARMACY COUNCIL DATED 22/11/2012 WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27/11/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.14-168/2010-PCI/5657658685 DATED 7/9/12.** - **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.2752/1/AC.1/3/2010DATED 27/11/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN ON 17/11/202 ENCLOSING THE DETAILS AS OBTAINED FROM THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA.** - **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.06/06/KER/PHAR/2002/025 DATED 27/5/2002.** - **EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF AFFILIATION NO.GA1/D4/8125/2001 DATED 11/10/2002 GRANTED BY THE UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.32-268/2002-PCI-5615-16 DATED 22/6/2004 GIVEN BY THE PHARMACY COUNCIL.** - **EXHIBIT P15: TRSUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.2752/1/AC.1/3/2010 DATED 15/12/2012 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORTS.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **TRUE COPY** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **PJ** A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] June, 2013 **J U D G M E N T** This writ petition is filed by the Principal, National College of Pharmacy challenging the action of the respondent University denying the affiliation in respect of increased intake of students for the academic year 2012-2013 in respect of B. Pharm course conducted in the said college. 2. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would show that the said college started B.Pharm course in the year 2002 and has the approval of All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE). The college initially obtained sanction for B. Pharm course with intake of 68 students. Later by Ext.P1 order AICTE granted permission to increase the student intake to 120 for W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the academic year 2012-13. On this basis, the petitioner approached the respondent University for affiliation. 3. Initially by Ext.P4 dated 18.8.2012 the respondents had called upon the petitioner to submit the prescribed fee for considering the application for enhancement of seats and also to submit necessary NOC from the Government of Kerala. 4. The petitioner by Ext.P5 dated 6.7.2012 requested the University to consider the demand draft which they have given for a different purpose to be adjusted towards application fee for enhancement of special seats for B.Pharm course or to refund the amount of DD which they had submitted earlier. 5. Since no action was taken in the matter, the petitioner filed this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the University had no right to insist for 3 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P NOC from the State Government and the same is covered by various judgments of this Court including the one at Ext.P6 which is the judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 12323/2012 and 13371/2012. The petitioner therefore filed the above writ petition on 1.10.2012 challenging Ext.P4. 6. By an interim order dated 4.10.2012, this Court permitted the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the Vice Chancellor within a period of three days and the Vice Chancellor was directed to consider the same. In fact the petitioner had a complaint that in respect of several other institutes, the Governing Council of the University had granted affiliation despite the fact that the period was over. By Ext.P7 dated 25.10.2012, the University informed the petitioner that, in order to consider their application for affiliation in respect of enhancement 4 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P of seats, they have to produce the approval of Pharmacy Council of India. By Ext.P8 letter dated 27.11.2012 petitioner forwarded the Pharmacy Council's approval. Ext.P9 is the valid approval, for admissions upto 100 students. 7. In the meantime by letter dated 27.11.2012 (Ext. P10), the University informed the petitioner that since they have not submitted the approval of Pharmacy Council of India and the last date for admitting students for the academic year 2012-2013 was over by 30.10.2012 (wrongly written as 30.11.2012), the application for affiliation for enhancement of seats will be considered only for the year 2013-2014. 8. By another communication dated 15.12.2012 (Ext.P15) the University has informed the petitioner that the governing council in the meeting held on 5 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P 1.12.2012 did not permit provisional affiliation for enhancement of seats for the academic year 2012-2013. 9. The petitioner therefore impugnes the letters issued by the University by way of Ext.P4, P7, P10 and P15. 10. Counter affidavit is filed by the University inter alia contending that as per the notification issued by the University even in respect of enhancing of the seats, the application should reach the University on or before 30.11.2011. Notification is produced as Ext.R1(a). There is a provision to accept the application upto 45 days on submitting fine of 50% of the actual fee. It is therefore the contention of the University that in so far as the petitioner has submitted the application only after the stipulated date of 30.11.2011, the petitioner cannot aspire to get the affiliation. 6 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P 11. It is also contended that the University has conducted an inspection only on account of interim orders passed by this Court directing the Vice Chancellor to consider the representation to be submitted by the petitioner. Merely for the reason that an inspection has been conducted does not give a valid right to the petitioner to claim affiliation. The Governing Council of the University has to consider as to whether the late application could be entertained and it was decided not to entertain the said application. Hence, according to the University, there was no mandate on their part to give affiliation to the petitioner's college as claimed and they were justified in calling upon the petitioner to produce the approval of the Pharmacy Council. 12. It is also contended that students were admitted by the petitioner college without getting the 7 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P affiliation and therefore the students are not entitled to participate in the examination to be held for B. Pham students in the said academic year. 13. The petitioner, however, has a case that despite the fact that an application was submitted on 4.7.2012 and there was sufficient time for considering the said application. As the last date of admissions was only 30.10.2012, there was no justification on the part of the University in delaying the matter by stating reasons which were not accepted by this Court in various judgments. 14. Initially there was a direction to get the NOC from the Statement Government which is not at all required. That apart, in Ext.P4 the petitioner was asked to remit the prescribed fees which the petitioner had replied in terms of Ext.P5 dated 6.7.2012. W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 15. Subsequently, after considering the application of the petitioner, Ext.P7 dated 25.10.2012 came to be issued wherein there was a request to produce the approval of Pharmacy Council of India. This according to the petitioner was totally baseless. The petitioner refers to Exts.P13 and P14 to demonstrate that though the petitioner had obtained affiliation from the University for starting B. Pharm Course for the academic year 2002-2003 as per order dated 11.10.2002 of the University of Calicut, the Pharmacy Council of India had approved the same only by letter dated 22.6.2004 produced as Ext.P14 wherein they have approved the course during the academic year 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 for the conduct of first and second year B. Pharm course. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, obtaining a prior approval of Pharmacy 9 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P Council of India was not the required procedure that was adopted. It is further argued that, on the basis of the request made by the University at Ext.P7, the petitioner had produced an approval from the Pharmacy Council of India (Ext.P8) and the same was forwarded to the University on 27.11.2012, even before the receipt of the same, Ext.P10 was issued stating that the time limit had already crossed. The reasons stated in Ext.P10 apparently is that the last date for admitting students for the academic year 2012-13 is over by 30.10.2012. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid contentions, the short question that is required to be considered in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for affiliation from the University in respect of the students admitted by them during the academic year 2012-2013, though the application for the same 10 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P was not submitted within the time stipulated as per Ext.R1(a) notification. 17. It is not in dispute that as far as the B. Pharm course is concerned, the competent authority to recognize the course is AICTE in terms of All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is also not in dispute that as per Ext.P1 the AICTE has enhanced the student strength from 60 to 120. Apparently, it is not possible for college to apply for affiliation without getting recognition from the AICTE. But as per the notification Ext.R1(a) all applications, including that for enhancement of seats has to be submitted before 30.11.2011. It is also not in dispute that if an application is submitted on 30.11.2011 without getting the recognition of AICTE it can only be rejected by the University. 11 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in **State of Maharashtra** v. **Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others** (2006) 9 SCC 1. That was a case in which affiliation was to be given by the University in respect of starting B.Ed. colleges. The Maharashtra University Act, 1994 had imposed certain restrictions in the form of Ss.82 and 83, which inter alia included S.82(3). It states that the management seeking permission to open a new college or institution of higher level shall apply to the Registrar of the University before the last day of October or preceeding the year from which permission is sought. While considering the scope of Ss. 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra University Act, the Supreme 12 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P Court held that “to us, it appears that what the High Court wanted to convey was that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by the 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the Act. once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act, every university (“examining body”) is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and Sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases.” 19. The learned counsel for the University however contended that getting affiliation from the University is not a formality and not automatic on getting recognition for enhancement of seat from AICTE. Whereas it is for the University to consider whether affiliation should be granted or not. In order to consider such grant of affiliation, necessarily University can stipulate conditions to be performed 13 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P and when one of the conditions is to submit necessary application within a time limit, if no such application is submitted, the University cannot be called upon to provide affiliation. Still further it is argued that if the petitioners have admitted students without affiliation, they were taking a risk in the matter and in such a situation the students will not get any benefit arising out of the said admission. **Abhyudya Sanstha** v. **Union of India** [(2011) 6 SCC 145] is relied upon wherein the two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held in paragraph 22 as under: “The question which remains to be considered is whether the Court should direct regularisation of the admission of the students, who were allotted to the appellants by the State Government, etc. pursuant to the directions given by this Court. Although, in the absence of cogent material, it is not possible to record a finding that the students W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** were party to the patently wrong and misleading statement made by the appellants, the Court cannot overlook the fact that none of the appellants has been granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal and in view of the prohibition contained in Section 17-A of the Act read with Regulation 8 (12), the appellants could not have admitted any student. However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court”. ## 20. In **Chairman, Bhartia Education Society** **and another** v. **State of Himachal Pradesh and others** [(2011) 4 SCC 527], the Supreme Court held at paragraph 22 and 24 as under: “Sub-section (6) of Section 14 no doubt mandates every examining body to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt of the order of NCTE granting recognition to such institution. This only means that recognition is a condition precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by NCTE while granting recognition. For example, NCTE is required to 16 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P satisfy itself about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper functioning of an institution for a course or training in teacher education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory required for proper functioning of the institution. But this does not mean that the examining body cannot require compliance with its own requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates for admission to courses or manner of admission of students or other areas falling within the sphere of the State Government and/or the examining body. Even the order of recognition dated 17.7.2000 issued by NCTE specifically contemplates the need for the institution to comply with and fulfil the 17 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P requirement of the affiliating body and the State Government, in addition to the conditions of NCTE”. xx xx 24. The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements in regard to eligibility of students for admission to a course in addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The State Government and the examining body may also regulate the manner of admissions. As a consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of the matters regulated and governed by the examining body, the examining body may cancel the affiliation irrespective of the fact that the institution continues to enjoy the recognition of NCTE. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to make the process of affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any kind of discretion W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** in the examining body to examine whether the institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition. An institution requires the recognition of NCTE as well as affiliation with the examining body, before it can offer a course or training in teacher education or admit students to such course or training. Be that as it may“. ## 21. In **National Council for Teacher Education and Another** v. **Venus Public Education** **Society and others [** (2013) 1 SCC 223], the Supreme Court held in paragraph 33 as under: “Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. 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, regard being had to thefact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been 19 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P laid down in many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the 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. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. 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 that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited 20 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been “transparency”. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking “vision of hope”, chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable and accordingly we 21 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P unhesitatingly repel the same “. 22. Unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 24933/2011 is relied upon to indicate that affiliation is not an automatic procedure. 23. Therefore the question to be considered is whether the University can deny the affiliation to a college, which has been granted recognition for enhancing seats, for reasons reflected in the impugned orders. 24. In Ext.P4 they requested the petitioner to produce NOC from the State Government which is apparently not required. In regard to the fee element, the petitioner had requested the respondent University to adjust Rupees two lakhs available with them which was remitted for another purpose. There was no reply stating that no such W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** adjustment was possible. Therefore I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel for 1[st] respondent when it is submitted that there was no application in the proper format with the regular fee. The application was filed and the fee was directed to be adjusted and there was no reply from the University in that regard. 25. Thereafter the University came with an objection that the recognition of approval of Pharmacy Council was not obtained. As evident from Exts.P13 and P14, Pharmacy Council's approval is granted after two years from the date when the college got affiliation from the University. Therefore that by itself is not a reason to reject the affiliation. 26. The next contention urged is as evident from Ext.P10 is that the last date for admitting students for the academic year 2012-13 was over by 30.10.2012 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** and they had not submitted the approval of Pharmacy Council. First of all, as stated earlier the requirement of producing the Pharmacy Council Certificate was not mandated earlier. That apart, the petitioner had obtained the relevant approval as per Ext.P8 dated 22.11.2012 and the same was forwarded to the University as per their letter dated 27.11.2012 (Ext.P8). Apparently Ext.P10 was issued before receiving the approval of Pharmacy Council of India. Ext.P11 is another letter dated 17.11.2012 issued by the petitioner to University to process the application and give affiliation. This apparently was not done and finally by Ext.P15, it was informed that the matter was placed before the Governing Council who decided not to permit the grant of affiliation. 27. Though it was stated that the affiliation cannot be considered in not submitting the 24 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P application in time, that is on or before 30.11.2012, it was not taken as a reason in any of the impugned orders for rejecting the affiliation. The reasons stated in Ext.P4 was reconsidered by the University and later they took the view by Ext.P7 that approval of Pharmacy Council of India was required, which was reiterated in Ext.P10. Ext.P7 was issued at a time when the last date of admissions were not over. In fact if that was a condition precedent for granting affiliation University could have made such a demand in Ext.P4 itself. 28. The question therefore is whether the University could have insisted for the approval of Pharmacy Council for giving affiliation of the University to the petitioner college. As I have already held, Ext.P14 would indicate that the Pharmacy Council had given approval for the 1[st] and 25 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P 2[nd] year course which commenced only in June, 2004. That apart, there was no request from the University to produce the approval from Pharmacy Council, when Ext.P4 was issued. But when Ext.P7 was received the petitioner submitted the said approval also. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the reasons stated for not granting the affiliation was not justifiable as matters stand now. 29. In regard to the time limit specified in Ext.R1 (a), I do not think that the same applies to applications for affiliation submitted by colleges having AICTE recognition in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar case (supra). 30. When AICTE recognition is given, definitely affiliation is to be given by the University or college complying with the requirements as stipulated by the University in the guidelines 26 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P prescribed for giving affiliation. Nothing has been brought to my notice to indicate that the petitioner college had not complied with any of the requirements which the University had insisted for either under any statute or guidelines framed by the University in that regard. 30. In respect of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents it is relevant to note that those are judgments which has not taken into consideration of three Judges Bench's view of the Supreme Court. That apart, on a reference to the facts of those cases would show that the facts as narrated in the judgments cited does not apply to the facts involved in the present case. It is true that the petitioner college had admitted students without getting the affiliation from the University. W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 31. In Venus case (Supra) the college did not have recognition from AICTE. In Abhyudya case (Supra) also the college did not have NCTE recognition. In Bhartia Education Society's (Supra) affiliation was refused by the University. In that case also recognition was given by NCTE only in 2001. The case was filed by students who were admitted when there was no recognition and affiliation. 32. The fact remains that the petitioner college had recognition from AICTE and had applied for affiliation. The affiliation had been denied for reasons which are not in accordance with the procedure prescribed. As already indicated initially they requested for NOC from State Government which apparently was not required as per the law laid down by this Court. Subsequently they requested 28 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P for the approval from the Pharmacy Council which is also obtained subsequently. Therefore as on the date when the Governing Council had considered the matter, University does not have a case that the petitioner college had not complied with any requirement at all for the purpose of affiliation. Such being the situation, it could only be seen that there was delay on the part of the University in taking appropriate steps to consider affiliation application which resulted in the petitioner not being able to obtain affiliation before admitting the students. Going by the judgment in Dnyaneshwar Shikshan's case (supra) which was in respect of NCTE Act and regulations, the Supreme Court had categorically indicated that once recognition is granted by the NCTE, every University is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution. Therefore, affiliation though is not automatic, there 29 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P is an obligation on the part of the University to grant affiliation, but of course subject to the requirement to be complied with. As already indicated there is no legal and valid objection that could be raised by the University for not granting affiliation to the petitioner college. This is not an instance, as pointed out in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent University. That apart when a three Judges Bench had taken a view that there is an obligation on the part of the University to grant affiliation, a contrary view expressed by a Bench of lesser strength shall not be treated as the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 33. W.P.(C) No.12150/2013 is filed by one of the students who had been admitted to the aforesaid course during the academic year 2012-13. The writ petition is filed to compel the University to grant the 30 W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P affiliation on the basis of the request made by the 2[nd] respondent. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent University adopts the contentions raised in W.P.(C) No. 22817/2012 in W.P.(C) No.12150/2013. 34. Having regard to the aforesaid factual circumstances of the case, these writ petitions are allowed as follows: i) Exts. P4, P7, P10 and P15 are quashed. The respondent - University is directed to pass appropriate orders to grant affiliation for the increased intake of students as permitted by the AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council for the academic year 2012-2013. ii) Necessary orders in this regard may be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) Nos. 22817 of 2012 - B & 12150 of 2013 - P **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** iii) In W.P.(C) No.12150/2013, since the relief sought for are similar to that of W.P.(C) No.22817/2012, no separate orders are required in the matter. iv) Additional students admitted in terms of Ext.P1 recognition shall be permitted to attend the examination for the academic year 2012-2013. Sd/- **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.** rka /true copy/