7. In that case though the institution in question was granted permission
and recognition for +2 Arts stream and the roll strength was fixed, it, without prior permiss
ion, increased the roll strength, introduced a new subject and also opened +2 Science stream i
n the institution, and having admitted the students, sought recognition on the ground that the
interest of the students will be jeopardised if recognition is not granted.
It has been thus held :- The rules and regulations governing the field provide that an institu
tion can be opened only with the prior permission and such permission is necessary before reco
gnition is granted and further that no new subject/s can be introduced nor the roll strength i
ncreased nor a new stream opened. So if ignoring the permission an institution does something
which is not permissible it has to suffer the consequences. It cannot first do something in br
each of the rules and regulations and then take recourse to hardship likely to be suffered by
the students as a sword to literally blackmail the authorities for granting retrospective perm
ission and recognition. And, if the Courts are to regularise such illegal acts, it would amoun
t directing the authorities to do something which is contrary to law. Obviously, no such direc
tion can be issued as the writ jurisdiction is to be exercised for directing the authorities t
o act in accordance with law and not to do something which is contrary to law. The fact that t
he temporary recognition was granted cannot ipso facto, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, be used as a lever by the petitioner for directing the Governmental authorities to grant
permanent recognition.
