Committee of Management IMIRC College v. State of U.P. and Others and other connect matters. The order impugned in the

challenged in various appeals with leading Special Appeal No.24 of 2025, State of U.P. and another versus Pt. Ram Charitra Mishra Mahavidyalaya Shksha Sansthan and others. The Special Appeal in case of petitioner's institution was also registered as Special Appeal no.37 of 2025. It is a relevant fact that both the State Government as well as University had filed Special Appeals challenging the said judgment and order dated

03.01.2025.

6. The aforesaid special appeals were thereafter heard and decided together by means of judgment and order dated 07.02.2025 dismissing all the intra Court appeals filed by State as well as University arising out of judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 while issuing certain directions.

7. It is purportedly in pursuance of such directions that impugned orders have been passed and have been challenged.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner submit that State Government has completely misunderstood the purport and impact of judgments rendered by Writ Court and Appellate Court inasmuch as liberty had been granted to State Government to reconsider the issue of grant of afÏliation to institutions only in terms of recommendations made by University and approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India but State Government on the contrary misinterpreting the aforesaid judgments has required the University to submit a fresh recommendation with regard to grant of such afÏliations and has thereafter proceeded to pass impugned orders on the basis of fresh recommendation dated 10.02.2025 submitted by University. It is therefore submitted that since the specific direction issued by Writ Court was for reconsideration only in terms of recommendations made by University earlier as well as approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India, such a course of action as has been followed by State Government overreaches the aforesaid judgments.

9. Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has drawn attention to judgment and order dated

07.02.2025 passed by Appellate Court with the submission that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically recorded that a feasibility study was in fact conducted by University and report submitted on 15.06.2024, which was bound to be considered for approval and report could not have been ignored or rejected except on a valid deficiency. It is also submitted that in paragraph- 15 of the judgment, Appellate Court has clearly left it upon for State Government to deal with feasibility study in exercise of reconsideration as per applicable norms pursuant to impugned judgment and order.

10. It has also been submitted that in paragraph- 17 of appellate judgment, it has been specifically indicated that intra Court appeal does not deserve interference for a different view in the backdrop of reasons recorded therein besides what has been observed by Writ Court and therefore it is in the light of fresh directions issued by Appellate Court that University was required to reconsider its proposal in the light of feasibility study dated

15.06.2024 and has therefore now been considered by passing the impugned order.

11. Mr. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for University has reiterated his submissions as were made before the Writ Court as well as Appellate Court to the effect that a feasibility study in fact had been conducted prior to recommendations made by AfÏliation Committee.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is the impact and purport of judgment and order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Writ Court as well as judgment and order dated

07.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Court which requires examination.

13. In the judgment and order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Writ Court, the aspect under consideration was only whether a feasibility study had or had not been conducted prior to recommendations made by AfÏliation Committee of University since the orders impugned in the writ petitions specifically indicated recommendations of AfÏliation Committee had been made without any feasibility study being undertaken.

14. The Writ Court thereafter has examined the provisions of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Act, 2000, the regulations framed thereunder and Government Order dated

05.01.2024 and reached a conclusion as follows:- "24. Clearly in terms of discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that a feasibility study/ onsite/ physical inspection is required to be undertaken not only by the University but by the State Government itself at the stage of issuance of no objection certificate.

25. There does not appear to be any provision either under the Government Order dated 05.01.2024, the Act of 2000 all regulations framed thereunder for such a feasibility study being mandatory provision for a third time prior to issuance of afÏliation.

26. The aspect that since there is no requirement for a feasibility study at the stage of afÏliation, the aspect of such a feasibility study being mandatory or directory, looses importance."

15. The Writ Court thereafter held that in terms of provisions quoted therein, the feasibility study was assumed to have been undertaken and considered prior to recommendations of AfÏliation Committee. The orders impugned in the writ petition was therefore found to be against the specific provisions and in view thereof, orders impugned were quashed with a direction being issued to State Government to reconsider grant of afÏliation to petitioner's institution in terms of recommendation made by University and approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India.

16. It is a fact relevant to note that at the stage of Writ Court proceedings, only the meetings of AfÏliation Committee dated 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024 were under consideration.

17. However, upon filing of special appeals, appellants i.e. State Government and University submitted that in terms of directive issued by State Government earlier preceding the commencement of Academic Session 2024-25, a final feasibility report was submitted to State Government on 15.06.2024 whereafter the matter regarding afÏliation for some reason or the other got delayed and ultimately on completion of requisite process, recommendations based on resolution of AfÏliation Committee was forwarded to State Government on 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024.

18. The Appellate Court thereafter considered the aspect of submission of report dated 15.06.2024 and came to a conclusion that the aforesaid feasibility report having been submitted in pursuance of directions issued by State Government itself was required to have been taken into consideration prior to recommendation for afÏliation. In fact the Appellate Court in its judgment has clearly held that unless and until the feasibility report had any valid deficiency, it was mandatorily required to be considered while forwarding the recommendations for afÏliation.

19. It is the admitted case of parties that while recommending afÏliations, the AfÏliation Committee in its recommendations dated

06.11.2024 and 30.11.2024 in fact, did not consider the feasibility report dated 15.06.2024.

20. It is in this backdrop that aspect of consideration of feasibility report dated

15.06.2024 is required to be considered, particularly since the said report had not been brought to the notice of Writ Court nor any such pleading had been made therein at that time.

21. For the said aspect, it is the judgment by Appellate Court which is required to be considered, which in the relevant paragraphs 12 to 17 has clearly held that it was mandatory upon AfÏliation Committee to have considered the feasibility report dated 15.06.2024 unless it was required to be rejected or ignored for any valid deficiency.

22. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows:- "12. It is submitted that the instructions clearly indicate the aspect that there is a constant decline in number of students enrolling for the aforesaid course and therefore was an aspect required to be considered in terms of Regulation 6.01(c) (i) of the Regulations.

13. It is therefore submitted that since student intake is constantly declining with regard to the aforesaid course, the State Government did not find it conducive to grant afÏliations to new colleges for purposes of quality education.

14. Mr. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for University concerned on the basis of instructions submits that a detailed procedure pertaining to issuance of no objection certificate by the State Government, grant of approval by the P.C.I. and recommendation for grant of afÏliation by the University is already indicated in the Government Order dated 05.01.2024, the Act of 2000 and Regulations framed thereunder. It is submitted that the procedure as required to be followed at the instance of University as indicated in Regulation 6.01 under Chapter VI and Regulations has been followed by the University whereafter only recommendation regarding afÏliation has been made by the AfÏliation Committee of the University for further action to be taken by the State Government.

15. Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for P.C.I. on the basis of material on record submits that the P.C.I. has already granted approval to all Institutions concerned which is based on the no objection certificate issued by the State Government.

16. It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that all the Institutions concerned have applied for fresh afÏliation for conducting the B Pharm Course for the academic year 2024-2025. It is also admitted that on the basis of applications submitted, no objection certificate was issued by the State Government to all these Institutions whereafter the P.C.I. has also granted its approval to all Institutions. The dispute only pertains to refusal of State Government in issuing directions for afÏliation of petitioners' Institutions with the University.

17. A perusal of the impugned orders will make it evident that grant of afÏliation to all petitioners' Institutions has been declined primarily on the ground that prior to recommendation being made for grant of afÏliation, no feasibility study was undertaken and also on the ground that there is a constant decline of students' applications for enrollment in the aforesaid courses."

23. Upon consideration of the aforesaid relevant paragraphs of Appellate Court judgment, while it has been held that consideration of feasibility report dated 15.06.2024 was mandatory upon AfÏliation Committee, at the same time it has also held in paragraph-15 that State Government at that stage ought not to have sidelined the perspective plan submitted on 15.06.2024.

24. In the considered opinion of this Court, the words 'at that stage' have particular relevance for purposes of adjudication of this dispute.

25. For the said purpose, the preceding paragraphs of Appellate Court judgment are required to be examined and as per which it becomes obvious that the stage mentioned in paragraph-15 of the judgment refers to the stage of grant of No Objection Certificate by State Government and is not for purposes of grant of afÏliation or recommendation made therefrom.

26. The aforesaid finding recorded by Appellate Court also appears to be in terms of discussion made by Writ Court as evident from Appellate Court judgment itself.

27. In such circumstances, where the mandatory provision has been ignored by AfÏliation Committee, the Appellate Court in paragraph-15 has stated that no specific shortcoming or deficiency in feasibility study was pointed out and therefore holds that it would be open to be dealt with in exercise of reconsideration as per applicable norms pursuant to the impugned judgment/order.

28. The specific aspect by Appellate Court was therefore reconsideration as per applicable norms pursuant to the impugned judgment/order.

29. The appellate judgment/order clearly refers to judgment and order rendered by Writ Court on

03.01.2025, which does not grant any liberty to State Government to reopen the aspects at the stage of issuance of No Objection Certificate, subsequently, at the stage of grant of afÏliation. The said directions issued by Writ Court have not been set aside or modified by Appellate Court and are therefore required to be considered in the terms in which they were made.

30. The observation made by Appellate Court in paragraph-15 of judgment and order dated

07.02.2025, in the considered opinion of this Court only indicates a lacuna in the case of opposite parties, the rectification of which was required to be made at the stage of grant of No Objection Certificate by State Government.

31. The said interpretation has been made by this Court in view of statutory provisions of the Act of 2000, the regulations made thereunder as also with regard to provisions of Government Order dated 05.01.2024. The observation of Division Bench for reconsideration for report dated

15.06.2024 cannot be read in isolation has to be seen in totality of observations made, particularly once it has upheld the judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 to the effect that the stage of consideration of a feasibility report is only for purposes of grant of No Objection Certificate and not subsequently at the stage of afÏliation. The said aspect is also evident from paragraph-17 of judgment of Appellate Court in which the aforesaid observation of Writ Court judgment has in fact been upheld that feasibility report was required to be considered by AfÏliation Committee prior to making recommendations in terms of Regulation

6.04 of the Regulations.

32. However, apart from the aforesaid aspect of consideration of feasibility report dated

15.06.2024, the State Government in fact directed the University by letters dated 07.02.2025 and

08.02.2025 for reconsideration and acting thereupon, the AfÏliation Committee of University convened a meeting and passed a fresh resolution dated 10.02.2025, which forms basis of impugned order.

33. Even from a combined reading of judgments rendered by Writ Court and Appellate Court, there does not appear to be any direction whatsoever for undertaking an exercise by State Government as has been done for requiring a fresh proposal to be submitted by AfÏliation Committee.

34. The Writ Court in its judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 has clearly issued a direction for reconsideration by State Government on the basis of recommendations of AfÏliation Committee and approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India.

35. The aforesaid recommendations of AfÏliation Committee as indicated in the judgment rendered by Writ Court clearly pertain to recommendations dated 06.11.2024 and 30.11.2024. Once the said directions have not been interfered with by the Appellate Court, the only course of action available to State Government was to have reconsidered the aspect of afÏliation of petitioner's institution only in terms of reports dated 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024.

36. The action taken by State Government in pursuance of judgments rendered by Writ Court and Appellate Court therefore not being in consonance with the directions, are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so far as it relates to petitioner. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to pass appropriate orders pertaining to grant of afÏliation to petitioner's institution in the light of judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 and of the Appellate Court dated

07.02.2025 as has been explained hereinabove is particularly on the basis of recommendations dated 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024 made by AfÏliation Committee of University. Appropriate directions by State Government shall be passed within a period of two weeks from today. In case afÏliation is now granted to petitioner's institution, the State Government would also consider remedial steps for fulfilling the vacant seats remaining in institution prior to commencement of studies in the college.

37. With aforesaid directions, petition succeed and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

challenged in various appeals with leading Special Appeal No.24 of 2025, State of U.P. and another versus Pt. Ram Charitra Mishra Mahavidyalaya Shksha Sansthan and others. The Special Appeal in case of petitioner's institution was also registered as Special Appeal no.37 of 2025. It is a relevant fact that both the State Government as well as University had filed Special Appeals challenging the said judgment and order dated

03.01.2025.

6. The aforesaid special appeals were thereafter heard and decided together by means of judgment and order dated 07.02.2025 dismissing all the intra Court appeals filed by State as well as University arising out of judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 while issuing certain directions.

7. It is purportedly in pursuance of such directions that impugned orders have been passed and have been challenged.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner submit that State Government has completely misunderstood the purport and impact of judgments rendered by Writ Court and Appellate Court inasmuch as liberty had been granted to State Government to reconsider the issue of grant of afÏliation to institutions only in terms of recommendations made by University and approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India but State Government on the contrary misinterpreting the aforesaid judgments has required the University to submit a fresh recommendation with regard to grant of such afÏliations and has thereafter proceeded to pass impugned orders on the basis of fresh recommendation dated 10.02.2025 submitted by University. It is therefore submitted that since the specific direction issued by Writ Court was for reconsideration only in terms of recommendations made by University earlier as well as approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India, such a course of action as has been followed by State Government overreaches the aforesaid judgments.

9. Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has drawn attention to judgment and order dated

07.02.2025 passed by Appellate Court with the submission that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically recorded that a feasibility study was in fact conducted by University and report submitted on 15.06.2024, which was bound to be considered for approval and report could not have been ignored or rejected except on a valid deficiency. It is also submitted that in paragraph- 15 of the judgment, Appellate Court has clearly left it upon for State Government to deal with feasibility study in exercise of reconsideration as per applicable norms pursuant to impugned judgment and order.

10. It has also been submitted that in paragraph- 17 of appellate judgment, it has been specifically indicated that intra Court appeal does not deserve interference for a different view in the backdrop of reasons recorded therein besides what has been observed by Writ Court and therefore it is in the light of fresh directions issued by Appellate Court that University was required to reconsider its proposal in the light of feasibility study dated

15.06.2024 and has therefore now been considered by passing the impugned order.

11. Mr. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for University has reiterated his submissions as were made before the Writ Court as well as Appellate Court to the effect that a feasibility study in fact had been conducted prior to recommendations made by AfÏliation Committee.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is the impact and purport of judgment and order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Writ Court as well as judgment and order dated

07.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Court which requires examination.

13. In the judgment and order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Writ Court, the aspect under consideration was only whether a feasibility study had or had not been conducted prior to recommendations made by AfÏliation Committee of University since the orders impugned in the writ petitions specifically indicated recommendations of AfÏliation Committee had been made without any feasibility study being undertaken.

14. The Writ Court thereafter has examined the provisions of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Act, 2000, the regulations framed thereunder and Government Order dated

05.01.2024 and reached a conclusion as follows:- "24. Clearly in terms of discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that a feasibility study/ onsite/ physical inspection is required to be undertaken not only by the University but by the State Government itself at the stage of issuance of no objection certificate.

25. There does not appear to be any provision either under the Government Order dated 05.01.2024, the Act of 2000 all regulations framed thereunder for such a feasibility study being mandatory provision for a third time prior to issuance of afÏliation.

26. The aspect that since there is no requirement for a feasibility study at the stage of afÏliation, the aspect of such a feasibility study being mandatory or directory, looses importance."

15. The Writ Court thereafter held that in terms of provisions quoted therein, the feasibility study was assumed to have been undertaken and considered prior to recommendations of AfÏliation Committee. The orders impugned in the writ petition was therefore found to be against the specific provisions and in view thereof, orders impugned were quashed with a direction being issued to State Government to reconsider grant of afÏliation to petitioner's institution in terms of recommendation made by University and approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India.

16. It is a fact relevant to note that at the stage of Writ Court proceedings, only the meetings of AfÏliation Committee dated 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024 were under consideration.

17. However, upon filing of special appeals, appellants i.e. State Government and University submitted that in terms of directive issued by State Government earlier preceding the commencement of Academic Session 2024-25, a final feasibility report was submitted to State Government on 15.06.2024 whereafter the matter regarding afÏliation for some reason or the other got delayed and ultimately on completion of requisite process, recommendations based on resolution of AfÏliation Committee was forwarded to State Government on 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024.

18. The Appellate Court thereafter considered the aspect of submission of report dated 15.06.2024 and came to a conclusion that the aforesaid feasibility report having been submitted in pursuance of directions issued by State Government itself was required to have been taken into consideration prior to recommendation for afÏliation. In fact the Appellate Court in its judgment has clearly held that unless and until the feasibility report had any valid deficiency, it was mandatorily required to be considered while forwarding the recommendations for afÏliation.

19. It is the admitted case of parties that while recommending afÏliations, the AfÏliation Committee in its recommendations dated

06.11.2024 and 30.11.2024 in fact, did not consider the feasibility report dated 15.06.2024.

20. It is in this backdrop that aspect of consideration of feasibility report dated

15.06.2024 is required to be considered, particularly since the said report had not been brought to the notice of Writ Court nor any such pleading had been made therein at that time.

21. For the said aspect, it is the judgment by Appellate Court which is required to be considered, which in the relevant paragraphs 12 to 17 has clearly held that it was mandatory upon AfÏliation Committee to have considered the feasibility report dated 15.06.2024 unless it was required to be rejected or ignored for any valid deficiency.

22. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows:- "12. It is submitted that the instructions clearly indicate the aspect that there is a constant decline in number of students enrolling for the aforesaid course and therefore was an aspect required to be considered in terms of Regulation 6.01(c) (i) of the Regulations.

13. It is therefore submitted that since student intake is constantly declining with regard to the aforesaid course, the State Government did not find it conducive to grant afÏliations to new colleges for purposes of quality education.

14. Mr. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for University concerned on the basis of instructions submits that a detailed procedure pertaining to issuance of no objection certificate by the State Government, grant of approval by the P.C.I. and recommendation for grant of afÏliation by the University is already indicated in the Government Order dated 05.01.2024, the Act of 2000 and Regulations framed thereunder. It is submitted that the procedure as required to be followed at the instance of University as indicated in Regulation 6.01 under Chapter VI and Regulations has been followed by the University whereafter only recommendation regarding afÏliation has been made by the AfÏliation Committee of the University for further action to be taken by the State Government.

15. Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for P.C.I. on the basis of material on record submits that the P.C.I. has already granted approval to all Institutions concerned which is based on the no objection certificate issued by the State Government.

16. It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that all the Institutions concerned have applied for fresh afÏliation for conducting the B Pharm Course for the academic year 2024-2025. It is also admitted that on the basis of applications submitted, no objection certificate was issued by the State Government to all these Institutions whereafter the P.C.I. has also granted its approval to all Institutions. The dispute only pertains to refusal of State Government in issuing directions for afÏliation of petitioners' Institutions with the University.

17. A perusal of the impugned orders will make it evident that grant of afÏliation to all petitioners' Institutions has been declined primarily on the ground that prior to recommendation being made for grant of afÏliation, no feasibility study was undertaken and also on the ground that there is a constant decline of students' applications for enrollment in the aforesaid courses."

23. Upon consideration of the aforesaid relevant paragraphs of Appellate Court judgment, while it has been held that consideration of feasibility report dated 15.06.2024 was mandatory upon AfÏliation Committee, at the same time it has also held in paragraph-15 that State Government at that stage ought not to have sidelined the perspective plan submitted on 15.06.2024.

24. In the considered opinion of this Court, the words 'at that stage' have particular relevance for purposes of adjudication of this dispute.

25. For the said purpose, the preceding paragraphs of Appellate Court judgment are required to be examined and as per which it becomes obvious that the stage mentioned in paragraph-15 of the judgment refers to the stage of grant of No Objection Certificate by State Government and is not for purposes of grant of afÏliation or recommendation made therefrom.

26. The aforesaid finding recorded by Appellate Court also appears to be in terms of discussion made by Writ Court as evident from Appellate Court judgment itself.

27. In such circumstances, where the mandatory provision has been ignored by AfÏliation Committee, the Appellate Court in paragraph-15 has stated that no specific shortcoming or deficiency in feasibility study was pointed out and therefore holds that it would be open to be dealt with in exercise of reconsideration as per applicable norms pursuant to the impugned judgment/order.

28. The specific aspect by Appellate Court was therefore reconsideration as per applicable norms pursuant to the impugned judgment/order.

29. The appellate judgment/order clearly refers to judgment and order rendered by Writ Court on

03.01.2025, which does not grant any liberty to State Government to reopen the aspects at the stage of issuance of No Objection Certificate, subsequently, at the stage of grant of afÏliation. The said directions issued by Writ Court have not been set aside or modified by Appellate Court and are therefore required to be considered in the terms in which they were made.

30. The observation made by Appellate Court in paragraph-15 of judgment and order dated

07.02.2025, in the considered opinion of this Court only indicates a lacuna in the case of opposite parties, the rectification of which was required to be made at the stage of grant of No Objection Certificate by State Government.

31. The said interpretation has been made by this Court in view of statutory provisions of the Act of 2000, the regulations made thereunder as also with regard to provisions of Government Order dated 05.01.2024. The observation of Division Bench for reconsideration for report dated

15.06.2024 cannot be read in isolation has to be seen in totality of observations made, particularly once it has upheld the judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 to the effect that the stage of consideration of a feasibility report is only for purposes of grant of No Objection Certificate and not subsequently at the stage of afÏliation. The said aspect is also evident from paragraph-17 of judgment of Appellate Court in which the aforesaid observation of Writ Court judgment has in fact been upheld that feasibility report was required to be considered by AfÏliation Committee prior to making recommendations in terms of Regulation

6.04 of the Regulations.

32. However, apart from the aforesaid aspect of consideration of feasibility report dated

15.06.2024, the State Government in fact directed the University by letters dated 07.02.2025 and

08.02.2025 for reconsideration and acting thereupon, the AfÏliation Committee of University convened a meeting and passed a fresh resolution dated 10.02.2025, which forms basis of impugned order.

33. Even from a combined reading of judgments rendered by Writ Court and Appellate Court, there does not appear to be any direction whatsoever for undertaking an exercise by State Government as has been done for requiring a fresh proposal to be submitted by AfÏliation Committee.

34. The Writ Court in its judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 has clearly issued a direction for reconsideration by State Government on the basis of recommendations of AfÏliation Committee and approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India.

35. The aforesaid recommendations of AfÏliation Committee as indicated in the judgment rendered by Writ Court clearly pertain to recommendations dated 06.11.2024 and 30.11.2024. Once the said directions have not been interfered with by the Appellate Court, the only course of action available to State Government was to have reconsidered the aspect of afÏliation of petitioner's institution only in terms of reports dated 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024.

36. The action taken by State Government in pursuance of judgments rendered by Writ Court and Appellate Court therefore not being in consonance with the directions, are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so far as it relates to petitioner. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to pass appropriate orders pertaining to grant of afÏliation to petitioner's institution in the light of judgment and order dated

03.01.2025 and of the Appellate Court dated

07.02.2025 as has been explained hereinabove is particularly on the basis of recommendations dated 06.11.2024 and

30.11.2024 made by AfÏliation Committee of University. Appropriate directions by State Government shall be passed within a period of two weeks from today. In case afÏliation is now granted to petitioner's institution, the State Government would also consider remedial steps for fulfilling the vacant seats remaining in institution prior to commencement of studies in the college.

37. With aforesaid directions, petition succeed and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench