( 1 ) THESE petitions have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court under Sec. 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The learned single Judge observed that though the question raised was covered by the law declared by the Supreme Court, and Division Bench decisions of this Court against the petitioners, since it was stated that similar matters were pending in Writ Petitions Nos. 621 to 638 of 1987 these writ petitions should also be placed for disposal before a Division Bench. ( 2 ) THIS is yet another instance, where a private institution admitted to the B. Ed. course candidates, who were ineligible for admission under the University Regulations, having not secured the minimum marks prescribed under the relevant regulation. The facts are few and not in dispute. ( 3 ) THE petitioners claim that they are graduates having obtained B. A. degree. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to have obtained their B. A. degrees from the Venkateswara University, both having obtained 40% marks. Petitioner No. 3 obtained his B. A. degree from the University of Madras and as is apparent from the mark sheets produced by him, he secured 42% marks at the B. A. Examination. ( 4 ) THE Gold Field College of Education, Robertson pet, Kolar Gold Field is a private institution affiliated to the Bangalore University. Its Principal is respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. Respondent No. 1 is the Bangalore University and respondent No. 2 is the Controller of Examinations of the Bangalore University. The petitioners claim that they applied to the third respondent for admission to the B. Ed. degree course for the academic year 1985-86 and they were admitted to that course by respondent No. 3. The aforesaid respondent under cover of his letter dated 16-10-1985 submitted to the University the list of students admitted to the College for the approval of the University. It appears that the University sought certain clarifications, and from the correspondence placed before us, Annexures-E. F and G, it appears that the University wanted to be satisfied about the eligibility of the petitioners for admission to the B. Ed. degree course. From the clarification given by the College, it appears that respondent No. 3 admitted them to the B. Ed. course giving them the benefit of relaxation under Regulation No. 2 of the Revised Regulations for B. Ed. degree course. From the clarification given by the College, it appears that respondent No. 3 admitted them to the B. Ed. course giving them the benefit of relaxation under Regulation No. 2 of the Revised Regulations for B. Ed. Degree Course of the Bangalore University. It appears that the University never approved their admission to the B. Ed. course. In the meantime, on the strength of the admission granted to them by respondent No. 3, the petitioners claim that they, have pursued the regular course of studies and they have also been permitted to take the examination, but their results have not been declared on the ground that they were ineligible for admission to the B. Ed. course. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners urged before us that in terms of Regulation No. 2 of the Regulations framed for B. Ed. , degree course, the petitioners were eligible for admission and had been rightly admitted by respondent No. 3. The refusal of the University to grant approval to the admission of the petitioners is therefore arbitrary. Regulation No. 2 provides as follows:"regulation No. 2:-- The reservation of seats to the candidates belonging to SCs, STs, etc. , shall be made as per the G. Os issued from time to time. The requirement of 45% may be relaxed to the extent the required number of candidates are not available in the respective categories for which reservations are made. The relaxation of marks should not go below 40%. If any of the reserved seats are not filled due to non-availability of eligible candidates, the same may be filled by other eligible candidates from the unreserved category. "it was submitted that Regulation No. 2 envisages a case, where sufficient number of candidates belonging to SCs and STs, etc. and entitled to the reservation quota are not available, and in such a situation, the Regulation provides that those seats may be filled up by candidates belonging to the general category. It was, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, when sufficient number of candidates belonging to the SCs and STs, were not available for admission, those seats were filled up by candidates, like the petitioners, who belong to the general category. It was contended that the admission granted to the petitioners was therefore in accordance with Regulation No. 2. It was, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, when sufficient number of candidates belonging to the SCs and STs, were not available for admission, those seats were filled up by candidates, like the petitioners, who belong to the general category. It was contended that the admission granted to the petitioners was therefore in accordance with Regulation No. 2. It was submitted that in so far as the candidates belonging to the SCs and STs, were concerned, they were entitled to relaxation under the Regulation to the extent that in their cases, admission could be granted if such candidates had secured marks not less than 40% in their B. A. examination. Once the relaxation was granted to them, all candidates, whether belonging to the reserved category or unreserved category, who had secured 40% marks or more became eligible for admission. If sufficient number of SCs and STs, were not available for admission, the remaining seats could be filled up by other candidates from the unreserved category. It is not possible to accept this interpretation of the Regulation without doing violence to the language of Regulation No. 2, which is quite clear and unambiguous. Regulation No. 2 does not provide for a general relaxation in the matter of eligibility for admission to the B. Ed. course. It only provides for relaxation in favour of candidates belonging to the reserved category. It provides that in their cases only the requirement of having obtained 45% marks in the B. A. examination could be relaxed and they could be admitted to the course if they had obtained 40% or more marks in their B. A. examination. The requirement of 45% could be relaxed only to the extent the required number of candidates were not available in the respective category in which reservations were made. It is, therefore, apparent that the relaxation was granted to the candidates belonging to the reserved category alone, and such relaxation in their favour did not amount to a general relaxation regarding eligibility for admission to the course. Regulation 2 does not at all provide for any relaxation whatsoever in favour of candidates belonging to the general category. Only candidates belonging to the reserved category could be granted the benefit of relaxation under Regulation No. 2. Regulation 2 does not at all provide for any relaxation whatsoever in favour of candidates belonging to the general category. Only candidates belonging to the reserved category could be granted the benefit of relaxation under Regulation No. 2. The last part of Regulation No. 2 further clarifies that if the reserved seats were not filled up due to non-availability of eligible candidates, the same may be filled up by other eligible candidates from the unreserved category. The words, "other eligible candidates from the unreserved category" clearly imply that those candidates must be eligible for admission under the Regulations including Regulation No. 1, which provides that a candidate belonging to the general category must have obtained at least 45% marks in the degree examination to qualify for admission to the B. Ed. course. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners cannot get the benefit of Regulation No. 2, which provides for relaxation only in favour of candidates belonging to the reserved category, such as, SCs and STs, etc. The candidates, such as the petitioners, who belong to the general category cannot derive any benefit from Regulation No. 2 so far as relaxation in the matter of eligibility is concerned. If sufficient number of candidates belonging to the reserved category are not available, the available seats can be filled up by candidates belonging to the unreserved category, but possessing the requisite eligibility, which includes their obtaining at least 45% marks in the degree examination. In the instant case, admittedly, none of the petitioners had obtained 45% or more marks in the degree examination and all of them belonged to the general category. It, therefore, follows that respondent No. 3 wrongly admitted them to the B. Ed. course contrary to the provisions of the Regulations. Since the petitioners were not eligible for admission, the University rightly did not grant the approval sought for. ( 6 ) IT is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court that the admission of a candidate, who does not fulfil the eligibility requirement under the Regulations is illegal and invalid and such a candidate can claim no benefit of the illegal admission granted to him. We may only refer to some of the decided cases and the observations made in some of them. We may only refer to some of the decided cases and the observations made in some of them. In Asgar Hussain v. University of Bangalore (1984 (1) Kar LJ 579), it was held that where the University cancelled the selection of an eligible candidate, it was not open for the Court to set aside a valid cancellation of an invalid admission. This Court observed:"9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, cancellation of whose admission is found to be valid, contended that as they have already been admitted to the course and they have also spent considerable money and time, there was no justification for cancelling their admission. In support of their contention they relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College v. Sanjay Gulati (AIR 1973 SC 580) (Sic ). In particular, they relied on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the judgment in which the admission of the students though made contrary to the rules by holding what was called spot-test was allowed to stand reversing the order made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. ( 7 ) IN the above case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the selection of certain candidates on being challenged by better merited candidates before the High Court. The Supreme Court considered that having regard to the fact that the candidates whose selections were quashed by the High Court had completed one or two semesters, it would be unjust to cancel their admissions at that stage. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the same consideration must weight in favour of these petitioners. ( 8 ) IT appears to me that the said consideration given by the Supreme Court in favour of the students who had been admitted by conducting spot-test in violation of the rules and who had completed one or two semesters cannot be applied to cases, where the students have been admitted to the course even though they were ineligible for admission. In other words if certain students, who were eligible for admission to a course were admitted in preference to better merited candidates and if such selection remain undisturbed for considerable time, the Court would decline to set aside their selection for the reasons that though their selection can be said to be contrary to rules of admission it cannot be said that they were ineligible, for admission. This is because, in the absence of a challenge to such selection before the Court by better merited candidates, the selection of the admission less merited candidates would remain valid and there would be no basis for cancelling the admission of such students. Even in a case, where better merited candidates challenged the selection of candidates with lesser merit, it would be open for the Court to decline to interfere on grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence on the part of the petitioning candidate or on other equitable grounds such as lapse of time and the like. But the cases of ineligible candidates, whose selection is cancelled by the University stand entirely on a different footing for, the Court is requested to set aside a valid cancellation of invalid admission and it is not open for the Court to do so. The cases of the four petitioners, who are ineligible and still admitted are of this category and, therefore, there is no basis or justification to set aside the orders of the University. " a writ appeal was preferred against the judgment in Asgar Hussain's case and that writ appeal was dismissed. Similarly, writ petition Nos. 2117 to 2185 of 1987 wherein the legality of similar disapproval was questioned, were dismissed by this Court. Writ Appeal Nos. 672 to 740 of 1987 filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge were also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10-6-1987. Similarly, writ petition Nos. 2070 to 2116 of 1987 raising a similar question were dismissed on 12-2-1987 and appeals therefrom were also dismissed on 9-7-1987. Another batch of 14 writ petitions, being writ petition Nos. 6307/ 1986, 6406 to 6410, 6303 to 6305, 6315, 6306, 5528, 5529 and 5849 of 1987, were dismissed by this Court on 7-8-1987. Similarly, the contention of the petitioners was rejected in G. Nagaraju v. Principal, S. T. J. Polytechnic, Harappanahalli ( AIR 1982 Kar 110 ). A similar contention was negatived in Sobhana Kumar S. v. Mangalore University ( AIR 1985 Kar 223 ) and in S. Harinatha Reddy v. Bangalore University (ILR 1990 Kar 457 ). Again such a contention was repelled in W. P. Nos. 6897 to 6901 of 1989 decided on 10-1-1990, and appeals therefrom being writ appeal Nos. 308 to 312 of 1990 were also dismissed on 12/03/1990. Again such a contention was repelled in W. P. Nos. 6897 to 6901 of 1989 decided on 10-1-1990, and appeals therefrom being writ appeal Nos. 308 to 312 of 1990 were also dismissed on 12/03/1990. It will, thus, appear, that the position in law is fairly well settled. ( 9 ) IT has then contended that the petitioners had been admitted by respondent No. 3 and they were permitted to take the examination, result whereof has been withheld. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. E. Society v. Director of School Education ( AIR 1989 SC 183 ) and it was submitted that in that case, though the law was declared against the petitioners, the Court directed that the cases of the petitioners shall be considered by the respondents, and if they had undergone the necessary B. Ed. course, they should be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination and to publish their results. The law declared by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and it is binding upon this Court. A concession granted to a party in a particular case in the special facts and circumstances of that case is not the law declared by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, and with a view to do justice to the parties, may make such an order. That is what the Supreme Court did in Andhra Kesari Education Society's case, because the students were admitted on the strength of the interim order made by the Supreme Court. The Court felt that the students were perhaps led to believe that the Supreme Court had permitted them to admit them. In those circumstances, concession was shown to the students of grant-society in that case. In the instant interim order was made in favour of the (students?) herein. They might have been permitted by Respondent No. 3 to complete the course; but for reason, they cannot claim a concession as a of right. ( 10 ) IT is unfortunate that education has become fuss, indeed there is no risk in such business. Several judgments of this Court, for whatever Private Institutions have been admitting large number of students to various courses for which they are ineligible. This must be brought to an end. ( 10 ) IT is unfortunate that education has become fuss, indeed there is no risk in such business. Several judgments of this Court, for whatever Private Institutions have been admitting large number of students to various courses for which they are ineligible. This must be brought to an end. In every case, a concession is prayed for and the settled law shall have no effect or purpose. In a case before the Supreme Court, it was not held that the students were ineligible for admission. What was contended was that the appellant was not recognised by the University. In the at case, we find that the petitioners were not even eligible for admission. It would indeed be a sad day if such ineligible candidates are permitted to acquire B. Ed. degrees which enable them to become teachers entrusted with the duty of guiding the fate of our future generations. The law being well settled, there is no scope for granting any relief to the petitioners. ( 11 ) THESE writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The rule is discharged. Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .