The same petitioner has approached this Court by filing these two writ petitions aggrieved by the stand of the University that the admission of the petitioner to the MBA Course is irregular and is liable to be cancelled.

2. The petitioner was having the qualification of B.Com with Computer Application which enabled him to get admission to MBA course. At the time of applying for the MBA course, he was awaiting the result of the supplementary examination of EDP and Computer Applications of B.Com which was held in August 2006 since he failed in the public examination held in May 2005.

3. The petitioner submitted an application before the University requesting to communicate to the third respondent-College the provisional marklist for enabling him to join MBA course without losing a year. Ext.P1 is the copy of the provisional marklist dated 27/10/2006. The last date for receipt of the application, fixed by the College for joining the course was 31/10/2006. The petitioner was admitted to the course.

4. The final publication of the result of the supplementary examination was made on 19/04/2007 by the University. When the petitioner applied for appearing for the first semester MBA examination, his application was rejected on the ground that he had not submitted the qualifying certificate and marklist. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application and Ext.P3 is the copy of memo, rejecting the application, issued by the University. The petitioner was permitted to appear for the first semester examination by issuing a provisional hall ticket. The second respondent scheduled the second semester examination on 27/07/2007 and as his results were withheld he could not apply for the same. This is under challenge in W.P.(C). No.21343/2007. On the basis of the interim direction of this Court dated 11/07/2007, the University accepted the fees for the second semester examination subject to the result of the writ petition. By subsequent interim orders, he was allowed to remit the fees and appear for the third and fourth semester examinations.

5. Therefore, in the light of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has appeared for all the semester examinations.

6. In W.P. (C).No.11735/2008, the challenge is against Ext.P9 proceedings issued by the University whereby the request for regularising the petitioner's admission has been rejected by the University.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. The stand of the University appears to be that the communication of the confidential mark list will not enable the petitioner to get admission to P.G Course. The same can be used only for ranking a candidate for admission. The contention, therefore, is that the Principal is not justified in admitting the petitioner on 31/10/2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even going by the final result published, there is no change in the result. It is pointed out that the University had communicated the marks to the College in terms of the relevant regulations, which enables a candidate to make such an application. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has not obtained admission by fraud or misrepresentation and reliance is placed on the principles stated in the decision Tiju Thomas v. Principal St. Stephens College and Another [ILR 1991 (3) Ker.832].

8. Some of the facts relevant in the case show that the supplementary examination for B.Com degree was conducted on August 2006. The last date for receipt of the application was 31/10/2006. In the meanwhile, the provisional mark list was communicated by Ext.P1 communication dated 27/10/2006. The final marklist was published by the University only on 19/04/2007. Therefore, it is evident that there is long delay on the part of the University in publishing the result of the examination. Then the question is whether in such circumstances, the admission of the candidate should be cancelled when there is no fault on th