( 1 ) YOUTH in his prime suffered by inhuman acts of the authorities, screams with a silent prayer God, Gaud What solace hath thou. Since prayers were not answered with total resentment and frustration knocks at the doors of this Court for justice. Cases like this are innumerable but the authorities who are charged with the duty of looking after the welfare of these students act insensitively and in total violation of norms but who is to be blamed? a blase public that has shrugged off this hideous mincing of youth in his prime, a seasoned killer like respondent institute or the University which is insensitive to this human issue. When a gentle lad is neatly chopped and packed in boxes to be thrown overboard piece meal, the University shrugs off and leaves the loved ones in the hands that held him close, cradled him and crooned lullaby to heal this raw wound. Who is the villain of this saga? Is it the college or the University? In my view both, but my hands are tied with precedents and I can only pretend that the tears are from cutting of onions and pray God, give these unfortunate lads peace and tell them justice hath not completely fled our shores and that demons shall surely pay for their deeds.

( 2 ) CAUSE for the agony is the disapproval of the admission by the University made by a private management on extraneous considerations and in blatant violation of the norms set down by the rules and the regulations by the State Government. Student had passed preuniversity examination securing less than 40% marks in aggregate in the year 1994. On an application made by him, respondent institute admitted him to B. E. degree course in its quota by collecting the necessary fees etc. Student was allowed to appear for first and second semester examinations of the academic year 1995-96 by the principal of the college who also happens to be the Chief Superintendent of the examinations for their center. The result of the examination is kept in dark. When the student was refused admission to the third semester of B. E. degree course and when his results of the earlier semester examinations are not made known to him, he was constrained to approach this Court for the necessary and suitable reliefs.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT University in its brief note only says that the results of the examination of the petitioner is not announced only because his admission to the course by the college has not been approved by the University. They totally place reliance on the amended Rules of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses (Amendment) Rules, 1994 to justify their action.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Sri B. G. Sridharan for petitioner pleads that the respondents having permitted the student to appear for first and second semester examination of B. E. Degree Course was not justified in not announcing the results of the examination and further not permitting the student to appear for third semester course and the ensuing examination. Relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan v. Kurukshethra University, AIR 1976 SC 376, submits that once the petitioner was admitted and allowed to appear for first and second semester examination the respondent University was obliged to announce the results of the examination and refusal to permit the student to prosecute third semester in B. E. degree course is wholly arbitrary, illegal and opposed to constitutional provisions.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel next submitted that the respondent institute was well aware of the fact that the petitioner had not secured 40% marks in their qualifying examination, yet he was permitted to prosecute his studies and therefore respondents action in cancelling the admission is hit by the principles of promissory estoppel. In support of this contention, learned counsel strongly relies upon the certain observations made by Supreme Court in the case of Sanatan Ganda v. Berhampur University,