JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- Special leave granted.

This Court judicially noticed mushroom growth of ill-equipped and under-staffed unrecognised educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra States and other States too are no exceptions. Obviously the field of education is found to be fertile, perennial and profitable business ventures with least capital outlay. This case is one such from the State of Maharashtra.

2. It would appear that, individuals or societies without complying with the statutory requirements, establish educational or training institutions ill-equipped to impart education and have the students admitted, in some instances despite warnings by the State Govt. and in some instances without knowledge of the concerned State Govt., but with connivance at lower levels.

3. In this case the respondents, in all 129, were admitted to D.Ed. course by unrecognised Yashomati Adhyapak Vidhyalaya, Warthi, District Bhandara. When the examinations were to commence from April 18, 1991, the management finding it difficult to have them sit for the examination, obviously encouraged the respondents to tap the doors of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench who sought direction to permit them to appear in the examination to be held on that day. The Division Bench allowed the Writ Petition No. 2450 of 1990 by order dated April 8, 1991 and directed the appellant to permit the respondents to sit in the examination for the first year commencing from April 18, 1991 and after their passing the examination, the passed candidates should be accommodated in a recognised institution to prosecute further courses. Assailing the legality thereof this appeal has been filed.

4. Sri Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that the respondents having had admission in an unauthorised college, have no right to seek writ of mandamus or direction from the Court to permit them to sit for the examination or to accommodate them in the recognised institutions to pursue further study. It is also contended that the direction issued by the High Court runs counter to the statute and in virtue directing the authorities to disobey the law which is impermissible. We find force in the contention.

5. In N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 (Supp) SCC 166 this Court held that the private institutions unauthorisedly established were invariably ill-housed, ill-staffed and ill-equipped. If the Govt. is directed to permit the students admitted into those institutions, to appear in the examination, we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Art. 32 or Art. 226 of the Constitution should be frittered away for such a purpose. So the request to permit the students who had training in unrecognised schools was deprecated by this Court.

6. In A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 667 when fervent request with all persuasion by the senior counsel, Sri K. K. Venugopal, to permit the students admitted in unrecognised and unauthorised institution to pursue balance course was made, this Court noted thus (at p. 1497 of AIR):

"We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made on behalf of the students any direction of the nature sought for would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws."

The request to permit the students to appear in the examination and to accommodate them elsewhere to enable them to prosecute further study was negatived by this Court.

7. In All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar (