RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who had been admitted to the 1st year of the M. B. B. S. Degree Course at a private Meaical college known as Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore, during the academic year 1985-86, has presented this petition questioning the decision of the Bangalore University disapproving his admission with a further direction to discharge him from the 1st year M. B B S. Course during the academic year 1985-86. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The petitioner had appeared for the All India Central Board of Secondary Education examination which is equivalent to second year Pre-University course examination conducted by the Board of Pre University of this state, in Match 1985. He failed in the said examination. Again he appeared for the supplementary examination held in July 1985. The result of the said examination was announced on 31st august 1985. The petitioner passed in the subject in which he had failed and thereby passed the All India Central board of Secondaiy Education examination. Thereafter, he sought admission to the 2nd respondent-College in september 1985 He was admitted to the 1st year M. B B. S. Course by the said college. ( 3 ) AS required under the Regulations of the University, the 2nd respondent sought approval for the admission of students to the 1st year M. B. B. S. Course made during the academic year 1985-86. By communication dated 1-7-1986, the University granted approval for the admission of a large number of candidates. However, as regards a few candidates including the petitioner, the university declined to accord approval. The relevant portion of the decision of the University reads:"the candidate has passed the qualifying examination during August 1985 in the supplementary examination. Such students who have passed their qualifying examination in the supplementary are not eligible for admission in the same academic year. Htnce, he is not eligible for admission to I MBBS course during 85 86. It was requested in this office latter No. ACAI/r2/insp/med/1488/85 86 dated 26-12- 86 to discharge the student immediately under intimation to this office. Action taken to discharge Anil Kumar sukhwani from I MBBS Course during 85-86 may be intimated. Htnce, he is not eligible for admission to I MBBS course during 85 86. It was requested in this office latter No. ACAI/r2/insp/med/1488/85 86 dated 26-12- 86 to discharge the student immediately under intimation to this office. Action taken to discharge Anil Kumar sukhwani from I MBBS Course during 85-86 may be intimated. "as can be seen from the above decision of the University, it disapproved the admission of the petitioner on the ground that he had passed the qualifying examination in August, 1985 and therefore he was not elibible for admission during the academic year 1985-86. The petitioner is challenging the legality of the said decision of the University. ( 4 ) SRI P. Viswanatha Shelly, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as the last date fixed for admission for the 1st year M B. B. S. Coursewas 31- 10-1985 and as the petitioner had passed the examination equal to the Pre University Course by 31st August 1985 and he was admitted in the third week of septembar 1985, the disapproval of his admission by the University was arbitrary. ( 5 ) SRI V. Tarakaram, learned counsel for the university, per contra, submitted as follow : The relevant regulation which prescribes the academic terms for the Medical Degree Course reads :"the academic year shall consists of two terms which are 8th August to 31st December and 8th February to 30th June. "on the above basis, the learned counsel for the University submitted that in order that a candidate is eligible for admission to Medical Degree Course during any academic year, he must have become eligible for admission prior to the date on which academic term commenced. In the present case, the academic term for the 1st year M. B. B. S. commenced on 8th August 1985 and on that date, the petitioner was only a failed student of the All India Central board of Secondary Education examination equivalent to that of Pre University course and therefore he was ineligible for admission to the M. B. B. S. Course during the academic year 1985 86. ( 6 ) THE question is not res Integra. Exactly the same situation has been created by a private Engineering College of Bangalore during the academic year 1982-83. ( 6 ) THE question is not res Integra. Exactly the same situation has been created by a private Engineering College of Bangalore during the academic year 1982-83. In the said case, two students who had failed in the Pre-University examination held in March-April, 1982 had been admit ted for Engineers g Degree course during the academic year 1982-83 and their admissions were cancelled by the University on the ground that they had passed the Pre-University course in the supplementary examination held after the commencement of the Engineering Decree Course. The legality of the said decision of the University was questioned in W. P. Nos. 14377 and 14378 of 1983. The relevant portion of the Judgment in Asgar Hussain v University of Bangalore, reported in 1984 (1) Kar. L. J. 579. at 585. It reads:" (II) W. P. s. 14377 and 14378 of 1983 : Admittedly the petitioners had not passed the Pre-University examination held in March 1982 as they failed in one subject in the sa:d examination. It is only during September 1982 examination, the petitioners passed in the failed subject. According to regulations, the academic year 1982- 83 commenced on 15th June 1983. The relevant regulation reads - 2. Duration of the Course :-The course of study shall expend over a period of 4 years. Each academic year will ordinarily begin on 15th of June and close on 15th of March of each year with winter and summer vacations to be prescribed by the University. " Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that actually the classes commenced from 1st July 1982 and the admission of the petitioners was valid as the last date for admission was upto 31st October 1982 and the petitioners had passed in the failed subjects before 31st October 1982. Admittedly the classes during the academic year commenced on 1st July 1983. In my opinion, the last date fixed for admission has no relevance to the question of eligibility. The significance of the last date fixed for admission is, a candidate possessing eligibility before the commancement of the course and selected, who might for one or other reasonable cause unable to join the course immediately, is given time till that date to join the college. Admittedly both the petitioners were ineligible for admission to the course at the time of commencement of the course and for more than three months thereafter. Admittedly both the petitioners were ineligible for admission to the course at the time of commencement of the course and for more than three months thereafter. Therefore, there can be no doubt that these two petitioners were ineligible for seeking admission to the Engineering course during the academic year 1982-83. The disapproval of their admission by the University is correct and there is no ground for interfering with the said decision of the University. However, if the pe'itioners have secured more than 50% in the Pre University examination, there could be no objection for their admission to the first year B. E. Degree Course during the current academicyear. " ( 7 ) THE said decision applies on all force to the facts of this case. Similar contention, namely, that as the last date fixed for admission was 31st October, 1985 and as the students concerned had passed the examination before that date their admission could not be cancelled had been specifically raised in that case and has been repelled. The contention of the University that the candidate for admission to any course during the particular academic year must have secured the eligibility before the commencement of the academic term has been upheld by this Court in the said decision. Therefore, in the light of the said decision, the contention urged for the university was that this writ petition was liable to be rejected. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however contended that on the principle of equitable estoppel, the university should be prevented from cancelling the admission of the petitioner. The principle of equitable estoppel applies where a party had made a representation to another party and the latter had acted on the basis of such representation and had altered his position the reversal of which causes manifest injustice to him. In the present cese, the universitv did not make any representation to the petitioner on which he had acted. On the other hand the representation of the University made known to all the private colleges and to the public at large in the case of Asgar Hussain v University of Bangalore, the judgment of whirh has been reported as early as in 1384 (1) Kar. L J. 579, was that no candidate securing eligibility after the commencement of the academic term for a course was eligible for admission to the course during that academic year. L J. 579, was that no candidate securing eligibility after the commencement of the academic term for a course was eligible for admission to the course during that academic year. The illegal admissions made by private colleges eager to collect capitation fees to which the candidates seeking admissions are also parties, which has become the bane to our educational system, hardly constitute the basis to plead equitable estoppel against the university. (See Martin v Varsity of mysore, 1983 (2) Kar. L. J 175 and Shoban kumar v Mysore University, A. I. R. 1985 karnataka 223 ). ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that as the petitioner had secured the seat on payment of capitation fee his admission should at least be approved for the next academic year. The submission is well founded. ( 10 ) IN the result, I make the following order. (i) The writ petition is dismissed subject to the condition that admission of the petitioner shell bs regarded as having been made for the academic year 1986-87 and the University shall accord approval to his admission for the academic year 1986-87, if he is eligible in accordance with the regulations. --- *** --- .