- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. Heard Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri Jagdeo Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-State of U. P. and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting re spondent No. 2-the Chhatrapati Sahu Jee Maharaj University, Kanpur and have perused the record.
(2.) TIME was granted to the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Neeraj Tiwari for obtaining instructions, which they state that they have received, and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is be ing disposed of at this stage. Admitted facts of this case are that for the Session 2002-03, the N. C. T. E. granted recognition to the petitioner-institution for conducting B. Ed, course of one year duration with an intake of 100 students. The Chancellor of the University also granted such affiliation in the year 2003 and in compliance thereof Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut also passed orders grant ing affiliation. Then on 2. 2. 2008, on an application moved by the petitioner-in stitution, the N. C. T. E. further granted recognition for intake of additional 100 students in B. Ed, course of one year duration. The State Government granted its approval for the additional 100 seats on 25. 4. 2008. Pursuant thereto on 22. 8. 2008 the Meerut University also accorded affiliation for 100 additional seats of B. Ed, to the petitioner-institution. The dispute now is with regard to allotment of students to the peti tioner-institution. In the facts of this case, out of 100 students which were to be allotted initially, only 83 had been allotted out of which 78 have joined and thus there is a shortfall of 22 students in the initial quota of 100 seats, besides the 100 further seats which are to be filled up after the approval/affiliation granted for 100 additional seats. Thus, it is contended that the total intake of students in the petitioner-institution should be 200 and they should be allotted full 200 students for the current Session 2007-08.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the State Government has appointed respondent No. 2. University for conducting counselling for admission to the B. Ed, course of all the recognized/affiliated institutions in the State of U. P. Although the coun selling had been held earlier but in view of certain directions issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4172 (M. B.) of 2008 the spe cial counselling is now going on from 20. 11. 2008 to 23. 11. 2008 for allotting stu dents to only 5 institutions. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that an advertisement has been published in today's (i. e. , 20. 11. 2008) newspapers, one of which has been produced before me (and has not been disputed by Sri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 or Sri Tomar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State of U. P.) by which two more institutions have been included for such counselling. Sri Tomar has, however, submitted that the said two institutions have been included because of certain orders passed by this Court in some other writ petitions. In these circumstances, the petitioner-institution has approached this Court with the prayer for a direction to the respondents to include the peti tioner-institution in the special counselling of B. Ed, course to be held from 20. 11. 2008 i. e. , today.;