JUDGMENT M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. The petitioner, T. Subini, passed Pre degree Examination conducted by the University of Kerala in April 1991. The photostat copy of the mark list dated 23-6-1991, which is marked as Ext. P 1, shows that the petitioner secured 120 marks in English out of 300 and 83 marks in additional language (Hindi) out of 150. So far as the optional subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics are concerned, she secured 56, 72 and 52 marks respectively, the maximum in each of the subjects being 150. That would mean that the total marks obtained in so far as the optional subjects alone are concerned, will be 56+72 + 52= 180 marks out of 450 marks. The marks obtained by her in English and Hindi would be 120+83 = 203 out of 450 marks. The grand total of the marks obtained by her in all the subjects, that is, English, Hindi plus all the three optional subjects will be 383 out of 900 marks. 2. While that was the factual position as per Ext. P1 mark list, when the petitioner applied to the second respondent - College for admission to the B. Sc. degree course, the petitioner filled up the application form (photostat copy of which is now produced before us by the second respondent as Ext. R5(1)), she mentioned that she got 120 marks out of 300 for English, 83 out of 150 for Hindi and in the optional subjects, 56 out of 150 in Physics, 72 out of 150 in Chemistry and 52 out of 150 in Mathematics and instead of 180 as the total in optional subjects, she mentioned 383 marks. So far as the other column relating to grand total is concerned, she left it blank. When the college authorities took up the various applications for considering them for admission, they simply went by the wrong total given in the application by the petitioner. In other words they thought that the petitioner had obtained 383 marks out of 450 optional subjects whereas the petitioner had obtained only 180 marks out of 450. The college authorities filled up the last column in the application form under the head 'grand total' and put the figure 586 which was arrived at by adding another 203 marks (120+83) to 383. The college authorities filled up the last column in the application form under the head 'grand total' and put the figure 586 which was arrived at by adding another 203 marks (120+83) to 383. In other words, the grand total was arrived at by the college authorities by adding 120 + 83 marks (marks obtained in English and Hindi) which is already part of the marks 383 mentioned by the petitioner in the column relating to the 'total for the optional subjects. It is on account of the above mistake that the petitioner was given admission. This mistake was discovered on 13-8-1991 within two day's of the admission the petitioner was not allowed to attend classes and a show cause notice was later issued on 9-9-1991. It stated that the petitioner had given wrong information in her application and that led to a mistake and the college authorities would like the petitioner to show cause why her admission should not be cancelled. Petitioner initially did not receiver the notice, but ultimately a reminder was given on 19-9-1991. At that stage, she filed the present Writ Petition. 3. When the Petition writ came up before the learned single Judge, h directed the matter to be placed before a Division Bench on the ground that in a similar matter, a Division Bench of this Court admitted a Writ Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at some considerable length and we have heard learned counsel for the college authorities as well as the University. With the consent of all the counsel, we are disposing of the main Writ Petition. 5. It will be noticed from the above said facts that while the petitioner was attending classes on 13-8-1991, the mistake was discovered and she was sent out of the class. She met the Principal, Manager and other college authorities including the Vice Chancellor. In other words, the petitioner was not permitted to sit in the class except for two days, namely, 12-8-1991 and 13-8-1991 and once the mistake was discovered on 13-8-1991, she was sent out of the class and the show cause notice was issued on 9-9-1991. She met the Principal, Manager and other college authorities including the Vice Chancellor. In other words, the petitioner was not permitted to sit in the class except for two days, namely, 12-8-1991 and 13-8-1991 and once the mistake was discovered on 13-8-1991, she was sent out of the class and the show cause notice was issued on 9-9-1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner and if at all there was a mistake, it was on the part of the college authorities in accepting the application and in thinking that the petitioner had secured 383 marks out of 450 in the optional subjects. He also submitted that the respondents are now estopped from going back and cancelling the admission. 6. From the facts above mentioned, it is clear that the petitioner gave total marks in the optional subjects as 383 out of 450 whereas she got only 180 marks out of 450. The petitioner has added the marks obtained by her English and Hindi, namely, 120 and 83 marks respectively to the marks stained by her in the optional subjects and showed the total as 383 out of 450. So far as the contents of the application form are concerned, they cannot be said to have misled the petitioner. There is a separate column using the word 'total' and giving total marks as 450 immediately after the columns relating to the three optional subjects where the maximum is 150 in each subject. After the above column, there is another column referred to as "grand total" mentioning 900 marks as the total. It will be noticed that the maximum total marks in English and Hindi being 300 and 150 respectively and the maximum total marks in the optional subjects being 450, the grand total comes to 900 marks. It is not understandable as to how instead of putting the marks in the column relating to 'grand total' and showing that the petitioner obtained 383 out of 900, she left that particular column relating to 'grand total' blank and mentioned the marks 383 in the column relating to 'total' which relates to a maximum of 450. It is not understandable as to how instead of putting the marks in the column relating to 'grand total' and showing that the petitioner obtained 383 out of 900, she left that particular column relating to 'grand total' blank and mentioned the marks 383 in the column relating to 'total' which relates to a maximum of 450. In other words, when the petitioner put 383 in the column relating to 'total' rather than in the column relating to 'grand total', it cannot be said that the petitioner was not conscious of what she was doing. Otherwise there is no reason as to why the marks relating to 'grand total' was left blank leaving it to the college authorities to be filled up. We are, therefore, satisfied that the mistake was of the petitioner. It is also possible to characterise the same as a very negligent act if not deliberate. 7. Whatever It be, the mistake was realised within two days add the petitioner was sent out of the class and subsequently this was followed by a show cause notice. The petitioner was put on notice and asked not to attend classes. There is no material before us that within those two days the petitioner chose not to attend any other interview or not to pay fees for admission in any other college and that she suffered any prejudice. It is not as if in the belief that she got admission in this College, petitioner had suffered any prejudice in 'foregoing any other seat or attending interview in any other college. Learned counsel for the petitioner when specifically asked about this matter, consulted his client in the Court and mentioned to us that the petitioner had, in fact, not applied for any other course. It is, therefore, clear that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of the college authorities trying to correct a mistake committed by them in view of the misleading figure of the total marks given by the petitioner In her application form. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to refer to various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The decision in Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University ( AIR 1976 SC 376 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to refer to various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The decision in Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University ( AIR 1976 SC 376 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the regulations provided that once the candidate was given admission, the same could not be withdrawn. That was in view of the specific terms of the regulation that the Supreme Court found that the University could not cancel the admission. Further, by the time the defect was realised about five months had passed by. We are, therefore, of the view that that case turned upon the mandatory provisions of the relevant regulations and cannot help the petitioner. 9. Another decision in Ashok Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University ( AIR 1989 SC 823 ) relied upon is also distinguishable. There the main point was as to whether the receipt of the petitioner's application after the expiry of the last date for receipt could be a ground for subsequent rejection of the application. Para.17 of the said judgment, in fact, shows that the receipt was a mistake on the part of the University and the same could have been corrected. In fact, the discussion in the case shows that the petitioner mentioned various reasons as to why his delayed application should be accepted after the due date. The matter was referred to a committee: It recommended in his favour. Then the matter was placed before the Vice Chancellor who passed a specific order in favour of the petitioner. It was, therefore, a clear case where the petitioner did not mislead the authorities and on the other hand, before granting admission the authorities had applied their mind and considered the petitioner's delayed application deserve to be received and in that view it is clearly distinguishable, 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then cited the decision in Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University ( AIR 1986 SC 1448 ). In that case, the particular course from the Rajasthan State was not recognised and the petitioner had passed the said course and applied for admission to the B.E. degree course in another University. The petitioner was admitted and it was later sought to be contended that the petitioner was ineligible for being admitted to the degree course. By that time, four years had passed by. The petitioner was admitted and it was later sought to be contended that the petitioner was ineligible for being admitted to the degree course. By that time, four years had passed by. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the authorities should not be permitted to raise an issue at that distance of time. 11. Petitioner then relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University ( AIR 1990 SC 1075 ). In that case, the petitioner was a post graduate and he was admitted to the L.L.B. course. He had completed two years and when he was in the third year, an objection was raised that the petitioner had not obtained the 40 percent marks in the graduate course required for admission to the L.L.B. course. The Supreme Court pointed out that the minimum of 40 percent is only applicable to graduates who were seeking admission to L.L.B course and is not applicable to post graduates such as the petitioner before them and that when this was discovered, two years out of three years had passed by and, therefore, it was not a fit case for not permitting him to take the examination in the third year. 12. Petitioner then relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Narmada v. Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1988 AP 2 ). In that case, the petitioner was under aged and sat for the Entrance Examination which precedes the selection for the MBBS course. Petitioner mentioned in her application form clearly, as mentioned by the learned Judge in Para.20 of his judgment, that according to her SSLC certificate the age would be less than what is required, but according to the correct age, she would be qualified. In fact, she had applied for correction. The learned Judge found that her application must be deemed to have been accepted after considering the facts frankly mentioned by her in her application. She had never misled the authorities. 13. The last decision relied upon by the petitioner is in Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College ( AIR 1989 Ori. 173 ). In that case, it was found that the contention of the authorities that a particular minimum was prescribed for admission cannot be accepted inasmuch as relevant regulations never prescribed any such minimum. 14. 13. The last decision relied upon by the petitioner is in Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College ( AIR 1989 Ori. 173 ). In that case, it was found that the contention of the authorities that a particular minimum was prescribed for admission cannot be accepted inasmuch as relevant regulations never prescribed any such minimum. 14. In our view, all the above cases are clearly distinguishable. We have mentioned the point arising in each of these cases and mentioned the points of distinction. 15. In the present case before us, the position is that the petitioner has herself misled the college authorities by mentioning that she secured 383 marks out of 450 marks in the optional subjects whereas she secured only 180 marks out of 450. In all the cases, either the petitioner did not commit any mistake or the regulations governing the situation did not permit the University to go back on the admission or even though there was a mistake on the part of the University considerable time had elapsed by the time the mistake was discovered and the admission was sought to be cancelled. All the above cases, in our view, are distinguishable. Here, the petitioner herself committed a mistake in misleading the college authorities. The mistake was discovered within two days and she was not permitted to attend the class. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to rely on the prospectus to show that the prospectus mentioned that applications unaccompanied by the required documents will be rejected and that it is also stated that incomplete applications will not be considered at all nor acknowledged. The attempt of the petitioner is that the said statements in the prospectus do not permit cancellation of any seat subsequently even one the ground of mistake. We are unable to agree. There is no statement in the prospectus that once a candidate is admitted, the same cannot be cancelled even for good reason. That the petitioner secured only 180 marks out of 450 and that she would not other wise come in the merit list of admission is not disputed by the petitioner. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. That the petitioner secured only 180 marks out of 450 and that she would not other wise come in the merit list of admission is not disputed by the petitioner. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from making any representation to the College or University authorities and this will not also preclude the authorities from considering the case of the petitioner for admission.