S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Dau Dayal Mahila PG College Firozabad is affiliated to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University Agra. The dispute in these writ petitions relates to admission by the College in M.Ed. Course. 25 petitioners in second writ petition have been admitted in M.Ed. Course by the College in question. The college in question is self financed college. In the first writ petition an interim order was passed on 5.12.2006 which is quoted below: "On 3.10.2006 this Court had directed the respondent-University to provide 50% of the M.Ed. Students for the academic Session 2006-07 in the institution of the petitioner or show cause by the next date and 12.10.2006 was the date fixed. On the next date, on a statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-University mentioning that he had received instructions but as the Registrar of the University had been placed under suspension, the counter affidavit could not be filed, as such, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, on several dates the case was passed over on the illness slip sent by the learned counsel for the respondent-University. The case has thus come up today but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till date the respondent-University has not provided 50% of the M.Ed. Students for the said Session. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that in case if within ten days from today the students are not provided to the petitioner-institution, the institution shall be at liberty to admit students and fill up the remaining seats, in accordance with law, after ten days. Let this matter be listed on 20.12.2006. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, within 24 hours, on payment of usual charges. The matter relates to the admission for the academic session 2006-07. Thereafter same Hon'ble judge passed another order on 02.01.2007 refusing to recall the interim order dated 5.12.2006. The said order which is on the order sheet is also quoted below: "A short counter affidavit without giving any reply to the averments made in this writ petition had been filed by the respondent-University on 22.11.2006. Another detailed counter affidavit has been filed on 2.1.2007 alongwith an application with the prayer for recalling the interim order dated 5.12.2006 . In my view, the interim order dated 5.12.2006 does not require to be recalled. The said application be treated as an application for vacating the stay order. List before the appropriate Court immediately after two weeks by which time the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit. The college in question on the strength of interim order dated 5.12.2006 admitted 25 students, i.e. petitioners of the second writ petition in M.Ed. course for the session 2006-07. During arguments learned counsel for the university very vehemently argued that counter affidavit (short counter affidavit) had already been filed on 22.11.2006 hence the assumption in the interim order dated 5.12.2006 that till then no counter affidavit was filed was wrong. The management of the college as well as admitted students claim that as within 10 days from the order dated 05.12.2006 students were not provided to the college in question hence the college in question admitted 25 students (petitioners in the second writ petition) in accordance with law. The short counter affidavit was filed on 22.11.2006. In para 3 of the short counter affidavit filed in the first writ petition it was mentioned that "admission examination for M.Ed. 2005-2006 has been held on 10.9.2006 but result has not been declared so far". It was further stated that as entrance test for 2006-07 had not been held, hence students could not be provided to the college in question. Thereafter extremely thick counter affidavit along with recall application was filed on 02.01.2007. In para 47 of counter affidavit it was stated as under : "That so far the sending the students in the college is concerned it is submitted that the all 25 seats shall be filled up by the University by the Counsellig which is scheduled to be held w.e.f. 07.01.2007." (sic) In para 18 of the counter affidavit in the first writ petition it has been mentioned that in M.Ed Course there is no management quota for academic session 2006-07 in accordance with Supreme Court Judgment of "P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra" 2005 (6) SCC 537 (Seven judges) = AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3226 A full Bench of this Court reported in Tuples Educational Society and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.and Ors. 2008(3) ALJ 673 held that Management could not independently on its own admit the students in B.Ed. course. The said judgment was challenged through several special leave petitions which were dismissed on the concession made by Purvanchal and Agra Universities on 23.2.09. The said order of the Supreme Court is quoted below: "HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The stand of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Universities is that they are going to hold examination for the students admitted in 2005-2006 of Purvanchal Vishwavidyalaya and another 2006-2007 of Agra and Meerut Universities. In view of this stand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are permitted to withdraw these petitions and the same are, accordingly, disposed of leaving the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case". The said cases related to admission in B.Ed. Course and not M.Ed. Course. In the second writ petition by 25 students alleged to have been admitted by the college in question it has been stated that after permission granted by this Court in earlier writ petition on 05.12.2006 petitioners were admitted and they attended the classes etc. from 05.01.2007 till 31.01.2008. The prayer in the second writ petition is that M.Ed examination of 25 petitioners for the academic session 2006-07 shall be directed to be conducted and result should be directed to be declared. In para 6 of the counter affidavit filed in the second writ petition it has been stated that examination for M.Ed. Course of 2005-06 was held between 06.05.08 to 02.06.08 and in view of this delay examination committee decided that session 2006-07 be declared as zero session. The decision is stated to have been taken on 30.06.2008 which has been approved by the executive council of the university on 01.10.2008. As far as admission of the 25 petitioners of the second writ petition is concerned, they in their writ petition of 2009 have not mentioned as to what procedure was followed for selecting them for admission. In para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Management of the college in the earlier writ petition it was stated as follows: "That as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 05.12.2006 the deponent has filled all the 25 girl students through merit in M.Ed. Course. The students had already completed their classes for the session 2006-07 and only exams are left to be held. Therefore this writ petition has become fictitious now. The copy of list of M.Ed. student of session 2006-07 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R.A.-1 to this affidavit." In the list also there was absolutely no mention that what procedure was followed for admission. Even date of admission has not been given. The list annexed as Annexure RA - 1 has also been annexed as Annexure 20, to the second writ petition of 2009 which no where states that on what date admissions were made and on what basis and whether any procedure for admission was followed or not. Annexure 21 to the second writ petition of 2009 is copy of a letter written by the Management of the college to Vice Chancellor of University. In para 5 of the said letter it is mentioned after quoting the order dated 05.12.2006 passed in first writ petition that on the failure of the University to send the 25 students, the college in accordance with order of the High Court dated 05.12.2006 admitted the students in M.Ed. Course for the session 2006-07 according to the rule on the basis of qualification and that they had completed the course only examination was to be held. In the said letter also absolutely nothing was stated regarding criteria of admission. The High Court in his interim order dated 05.12.2006 permitted the college in question to admit the students in accordance with law and not utterly arbitrarily. It has not been stated that any procedure worth its name for selecting the students for admission was followed. Neither it has been stated that any test was conducted nor it has been stated that a general advertisement was issued for admission and out of the total applicants, those 25 students were selected for admission who had obtained highest marks in their qualifying examination. In the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the submission of the management and the colleges was recorded in Para-2 as follows: "The submission of the petitioners in both the writ petitions has been that during 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the absence of any entrance test conducted by all the educational institutions coming together, or by the State Government, the private unaided educational institutions were entitled to grant admissions to the students on the basis of marks obtained in the last qualifying examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by an interview." There is no allegation that the 25 students (petitioners in the second writ petition) were admitted on the basis of marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination followed by any interview. It is clear that the college granted admission to the 25 students of its choice. What was the basis of choice is any ones guess. This is pure and simple selling of seat rather degree, it can not be permitted by the Court. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.;