D.N.PRASAD,J. - (1.) A very short question arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the appellant. Bethcsda Womens Teachers Training College. Some intervention applications have been filed by the aggrieved students as well. We shall accordingly be disposing of the appeal together with the intervention applications.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal while granting relief in favour of the appellant (which directly benefited the students) however, restricted the holding of examination for the students for the Academic Sessions 1995 -96. 1996 -97. 1997 -1998. 1999 -2000 and 2000 -2001 only to the extent of 80 students per Session and perhaps on the premises that such number should be the relatable to the Intake capacity of the Teaching Institution for each of the aforesaid Academic Sessions. To us, it appears that the intake capacity may be a very highly relevant factor as far as attending classes in future and teaching the students are concerned. A limited intake capacity undoubtedly is a relevant factor for attending classes and for undertaking teaching of the students because the intake capacity is strongly linked with the availability of infrastructure facility. No institution should be compelled to have an unlimited intake capacity because that could jeopardise the infrastructure facilities which might be designed to cope with a fixed number of students, since these cannot be stretched so as to cater to a number which may be more than the facilities which might be available to serve them.
(3.) SUCH , however, is not the case with respect to the taking of the examination for the past Sessions. Mere taking of the examination has no bearing with the infrastructure facility insofar as teaching or other matters related thereto are concerned. If 100 students in each Academic Session, instead of 80 are said to have been studying in the past few academic Sessions, allowing all of them for examination with respect to each Academic Session, instead of 80. cannot be said to jeopardise the infrastructure facility or to stretch this facility to any disadvantage to anyone. Mere taking of an examination is altogether different than imparting the teaching, or for that matter students studying in the Class rooms and availing of the infrastructure facilities. To that extent, therefore, perhaps the learned Single Judge was not very correct in restricting the number of examinees to 80 for the limited purpose of taking examination. That part of the judgment, therefore, needs modification.;