- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this petition there are two petitioners, namely, Himalaya Ayurvedic Medical College, Bareilly and Amafhha Ayurvedic Medical College, Allahabad. As regards the petitioner No. 2, it was not granted affiliation and hence the facts of the case are covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ashaq Husain Allia v. Chancellor, Writ Petition No. 4663 of 2002 decided on 29-4-2003 following the Supreme Court decisions in 1998 (5) SCC 377 and 2001 (10) SCC 264. Hence the petition as regards petitioner No. 2 is concerned is, therefore, dismissed. As regards the petitioner No. 1, Himalaya Ayurvedic Medical College is concerned, it is stated in paragraph 5 of the second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Kanpur University that the petitioner No. 1 was granted affiliation to Kanpur University from 1-7-1996 to 30-6-1998. Prior to 1-7- 1996 no affiliation was granted to the college by the University. In fact the University has not recommended further grant of affiliation as is clear from the order of the Central Council of Indian Medicine dated 9-8-2001 which has recommended transfer of the students of the sessions 1997-98 to some other college. It is also stated in paragraph 5 that the Chancellor vide letter dated 11-4- 2001 has rejected the claim of affiliation with retrospective effect prior to 1-7-1996. Merely because affiliation was granted to some other institutes that does not necessarily mean that the petitioner should also have been granted affiliation. Each institute has to be considered separately by the authorities and it not for this Court to direct for affiliation. As regards students admitted in petitioner No. 1 before 1-7-1996 and after 30-6-1998 the admissions were clearly illegal because there was no affiliation, as held by this Court in Ashaq Husain Allia v. Chancellor (supra ). Even as regards those admitted between 1-7-1996 to 30-6-1998 it has been stated in paragraph 5 of the second supplementary counter-affidavit of the University that the C. C. I. M. by order dated 9-8-2001 has recommended transfer of those students to some other colleges. No doubt such students who were admitted between 1-7-1996 to 30-6-1998 will suffer hardship but since the affiliation came to an end after 30-6-1998 this Court cannot direct that they should be allowed to give examinations or that their results be declared.
(3.) WE may mention that this practice of granting provisional affiliation has already been disapproved by this Court in a Division Bench of Committee of Management v. Chancellor, Writ Petition (M/b) No. 5881 of 2002 decided on 18-11-2002 by Lucknow Bench. Section 37 of the U. P. State Universities Act refers to affiliation and not provisional affiliation as held in that decision. Affiliation is to be granted after inspection of the college and hospital to ensure that they have proper buildings, apparatus, equipments, teaching staff etc. but after this is done either permanent affiliation should be granted or the application for affiliation should be rejected as held in the aforesaid decision. There is no provision for provisional affiliation under the U. P. State Universities Act. In fact even after joint of permanent affiliation the same can be cancelled if the conditions mentioned in Section 37 (8) or 37 (9) exist. This practice of granting provisional affiliation has become a major source of corruption and has to be deprecated. It is an unnecessary hardship to the teachers, students etc. For the reasons given above, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;