Govind Mathur, J.

This intra court appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated February 19, 2016, passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2016. By the judgment impugned learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant petitioners to have direction to restrain the respondent University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') from cancelling their admission to the course of M.Sc. (Chemistry) and further to allow them to appear in the M.Sc. (Final) examination.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that acting upon a programme for admission to the post graduation courses issued by the University, the respondent No.2 College (hereinafter referred as 'the College'), admitted the appellant petitioners to the course of M.Sc. (Chemistry) and also allowed them to appear in M.Sc. (Previous) examination. The result of the petitioners was also declared but their mark sheets were not issued being not enrolled as scholar with the University. As per the University, admission of the appellants was bad since inception being not having 60% marks in qualifying examination, an eligibility for admission to M.Sc. (Chemistry), hence their admissions were not confirmed and they were not enrolled to the course concerned.

3. Learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by observing and holding as under:-

"From a perusal of the chronology as noticed herein before, it is apparent that in the Policy of the State there is no provision for the Colleges to be permitted to grant admission by relaxing the minimum qualifying norms in case the seats remained vacant with them, despite that the respondent No. 2 College granted the admissions and petitioners despite being aware of the eligibility requirements took admission at their own risk and consequence; the attempt on the part of respondent No. 2 College and the petitioners to tilt the balance of equity in their favour merely by managing appearance of the petitioners in M.Sc. (Previous) examination despite being not enrolled with the University only on provisional basis, only with a view to overcome the ineligibility of the petitioners cannot be encouraged by permitting the petitioners to complete their course despite the fact that they are clearly ineligible in terms of the criteria laid down by the State Government.

The respondent No.2 College has clearly violated the Guidelines/Policy/Rules laid down by the State for the purpose of granting admissions to various courses and has apparently only with a view to suppress and/or hide its wrong doing has put forth the students before this Court only with a view to see that on account of sympathy for the careers of the students, the illegal and unethical action of the respondent No.2 would get legitimacy.

Any relief granted in the present circumstances would harm the larger interest of the students/the educational scenario as a whole as the same would encourage the Private Colleges/Colleges/Institutions in granting admission to ineligible candidates and would seek to invoke the sympathy in the name of the careers of students and, therefore, the said attitude/attempt has to be nibbed in the bud."

4. Suffice to notice that during pendency of the petition for writ the appellants appeared in M.Sc. (Final) examination, result of which is awaited. The appearance in the examination was in pursuance to an interim order passed by Single Bench of this Court.

5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants applied for admission to M.Sc. (Chemistry) by relying upon the conditions given in the prospectus published and issued by the College and that nowhere discloses the eligibility for admission to the course concerned. The appellants being under bona fide belief that they are eligible to be admitted to the course concerned, submitted applications and took admission and if there is any fault in their admission, that is due to the College