Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner herein either in the third respondent college, or in any other Engineering College under the free seat Category as provisionally selected by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Ref. No. 9000/ 31 / 93 dated 30-8-1993 in respect of the petitioner's registration No. 313153. 2. The petitioner, after completing Higher Secondary Course, Vocational Education, during 1990-92 appeared for the improvement examination in September, 1992, in respect of Mathematics, General Machinist Theory. It seems the petitioner wanted to score higher marks with ambition to get a seat in Engineering course and appeared for the improvement examination for the second time in March, 1993. The petitioner appeared for the entrance examination, conducted by Anna University in June 1993, in which he applied for First year- B.E. course with the marks obtained in the second improvement examination in March, 1993. The petitioner seems to have enclosed therewith the xerox copies of all the mark-sheets. It seems the petitioner was selected for first year B.E. course and intimation also sent under 'free seat' category by order dated 30-8-1993 informing him that he has been provisionally selected and admitted to the third respondent college. He was directed to report to the Principal with original documents on 10-9-1993. But the date for reporting to the Principal was changed and he was asked to report to the college on 18-10-1993. When the petitioner appeared before the Principal of the third respondent college, he was informed that he had appeared for the second improvement examination and as such he could not be given admission in the first year Engineering course. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he made representations to the Director of Technical Education and that there was no response. It is also allege that when he appeared for the first and second improvement examination, he had joined in B.Sc., (Maths) degree course at Devangar Arts College, Aruppukkottai and completed two semesters also. It is also alleged that when he received the intimation card, he got the transfer certificate from the Devangar Arts College, Aruppukkottai and that when the third respondent declined to admit him in the College, he approached Devangar Arts College, Aruppukkottai to continue B.Sc. course and that there also he denied admission. It is also alleged that when he received the intimation card, he got the transfer certificate from the Devangar Arts College, Aruppukkottai and that when the third respondent declined to admit him in the College, he approached Devangar Arts College, Aruppukkottai to continue B.Sc. course and that there also he denied admission. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that when he appeared for the second improvement examination, what the system prevailed was that the marks in the second improvement examination will be taken into consideration for admission to B.E. degree course and as such, the petitioner alleges that with fond hope to get engineering college admission, he studied well and scored good marks. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that had he known more than one improvement will not be considered, for admission to Engineering course, he would not have strained for it. It is also alleged that he has been provisionally selected for Engineering course and that because of that selection only he discontinued his studies in the B. Sc. degree course and that it is the duty of the respondents to admit him in the Engineering course, to which he has been provisionally selected. It is also alleged that during the time of appearance of the second improvement examination, the respondents 1 and 2 did not put forth any condition that in the event of writing the second improvement examination, the marks in the second improvement examination will not be taken into consideration and as such it is not open to the respondents now to deny admission to the petitioner. With these allegations, the petitioner is before this court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that it has been clearly stated that the marks in the first improvement appearance will alone be considered for rankings. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had furnished the second improvement marks in the examination during March, 1993. It is also stated that at the time of scrutiny, it was detected that he has sent the second improvement marks and as such he was issued with a memo indicating that the first improvement appearance mark statement should be sent. It is also stated that the claim of the petitioner that he sent the first improvement marks sheet is not correct. It is also stated that the claim of the petitioner that he sent the first improvement marks sheet is not correct. It is also claimed that with the available information, the application of the petitioner was processed and as such the petitioner was provisionally selected for admission. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been informed in the allotment order itself that the selection is only provisional subject to satisfying all the eligibility criteria by verifying the original documents and as such when he reported for admission, it was found out that he is not eligible for admission to first year B.E. course. It is also claimed that the petitioner knew well that first improvement marks alone could be taken for consideration and as such he received transfer certificate from the Arts College at his own risk. It is also stated that the said transfer certificate has not been enclosed and as such the fact that the petitioner obtained transfer certificate is false. It is also stated that it is the prerogative of the admitting agencies to prescribe the eligibility rules for admission and as such it cannot be contended that the marks obtained in the second improvement examination have to be taken into account. It is also stated that the petitioner has taken the second improvement examination on his own and that he cannot impose terms suitable to him on the authorities to consider his second improvement marks. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that having known that the first improvement marks alone will be considered for B.E. degree admission and that he will not be eligible for admission based on second improvement marks, the petitioner has conveniently refrained from producing the same either in his application or when directed to produce. It is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not produce sufficient documents before the Principal for checking his eligibility at the time of his admission to B.E. degree and that he has not reported to the Principal with documents called for and as such the allegations of the petitioner made in paragraphs 14 and 15 are not correct. 4. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that at the time when he appeared for the second improvement examination, there was no bar for consideration of the second improvement marks for selection to the engineering colleges, as and such it is stated that the marks obtained in the second improvement examinations ought to have been taken into consideration. The decision in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) SCC 445 : 1987 AIR(SC) 2027) is relied on for that purpose. In other words, it is contended that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he appeared for the second improvement prior to the notification of the new policy, and as such the marks obtained in the second improvement examination have to be taken into account. It is also stated that the petitioner never suppressed any fact. But at the same time, it is stated in the reply affidavit that he had sent the first improvement marks along with the application form at the first instance and that another copy was sent through courier service. It is also stated that the respondents are aware of the fact that the petitioner has taken the second improvement examination and that having selected the petitioner for admission to first year B.E. degree course, now they deny a seat to the petitioner. What has been stated in the allotment order, has been referred to in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, and it is pointed out that nowhere in the allotment order it is stipulated that the admission of the petitioner is subject to satisfying all the eligibility criteria by verifying the original documents. It is also stated that the Principal has no power to question the selection of the candidate. 5. I have considered the arguments of Mr. V. P. Venkat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and of Mrs. Saraswathi Prasad, the learned. Government Advocate, Appearing for the respondents and have gone through the materials placed before this court. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a candidate who had appeared for the second improvement examination is entitled to selection to B.E. degree course for the acadamic year 1993-94, taking the marks obtained in the second improvement examination into consideration. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a candidate who had appeared for the second improvement examination is entitled to selection to B.E. degree course for the acadamic year 1993-94, taking the marks obtained in the second improvement examination into consideration. It cannot be disputed that, in the prospectus issued, it is made clear that the first improvement marks alone will be taken into consideration for admission to B.E. degree course. A Division Bench of this court, in R. Balamurugan v. The Principal, Government Engineering College, Salem (W.P. No. 15904 of 1993 dated 10-9-1993) (to which I am a party) held as follows. "......... This Court as well as the Supreme Court of India have repeatedly held that all and every selections for admission into professional courses are to be only on the basis for merit and that having regard to the large number of eligible or qualified candidates in the field and the limited number of seats available in professional courses, the State Government or the competent authority shall have the necessary power and authority to lay down the standards, norms and criteria for making such selections from out of the large body of eligible candidates to ensure that candidates of merit alone get selected for admission. As a matter of fact it was well within the competency or authority of the State Government to stipulate that only the marks obtained in the examination in which a particular candidate be really passed the eligibility course or a qualifying examination alone would be taken into account for selection along with the marks secured in the entrance examination. But, the Government has chosen to give a special concession for making improvement of their academic performance and the said concession was made subject to certain specific conditions and terms viz. that the first improvement marks alone will be taken into account and that for the purpose of calculation of the number of appearances, the registration made by the applicant in the qualifying examination irrespective of the fact whether the candidate has written the examination shall be considered as an appearance. The provision for taking into account improvement examination itself being a concession shown subject to certain conditions; there is no right in the petitioner to contend that the concession should be extended without the conditions imposed therefor. The provision for taking into account improvement examination itself being a concession shown subject to certain conditions; there is no right in the petitioner to contend that the concession should be extended without the conditions imposed therefor. The petitioner has no legal protection or any vested right to have such a concession, dehors the conditions and consequently there is no room or scope for contending that the stipulation is arbitrary in violation of any of the fundamental of the petitioner.........."* In view of that, it cannot be contended that the petitioner is entitled to get admission into the first year B.E. degree course. 6. With regard to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the petitioner wrote the second improvement examination, there was no condition that the marks obtained in the second improvement examination will not be taken into consideration and as such the condition cannot be imposed for the academic year 1993-94, I fail to understand such an argument. It is open to the respondents to fix the eligibility criteria for admission for any course and it has to be done only when applications are called for, for the particular academic year. Simply because when the petitioner appeared for the second improvement examination there is no such condition that the marks in the second improvement marks cannot be taken into consideration for admission to B.E. degree course, the petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, that the marks obtained by him in the second improvement examination have to be taken into consideration. In my view, there is a fallacy in the said argument. No student can be prevented from appearing for the improvement examinations any number of times. But the question be whether he is qualified to selection for the B.E. course in a particular year 1993-94, in this case. When the eligibility criteria for admission is fixed in the other way, that is the first improvement marks alone will be taken into consideration, I do not think that the petitioner can claim that the marks in the second improvement examination have to be taken into consideration, since he had been allowed to write the second improvement examination. The choice to write the second improvement examination is petitioner's. The criteria to fix eligibility for admission to courses is for the respondents. The choice to write the second improvement examination is petitioner's. The criteria to fix eligibility for admission to courses is for the respondents. I do not think that the petitioner can link his choice to write the second improvement examination and of the respondents to fix the eligibility criteria for admission to engineering course. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana 1987 (2) SCC 445 : 1987 AIR(SC) 2027) is not applicable to the facts of this case. That was a case, wherein, the petitioners therein joined a certificate course of a private institution in physical Education in Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati on the basis of the recognition granted by the State of Haryana. During the pursuance of the course by the petitioners, the course was recognised by the State Government. That was the subject in issue before the Supreme Court. Directing the State Government to recognize the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others, in that case, the Supreme Court has held as follows (at page 446) : "..........Of course, if any person has joined the certificate course after January 9, , 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail ...."* So also, on the facts of the case on hand, it is to be seen, that it is not the case that the respondents have permitted candidates to appear for the second improvement examinations. It is the choice of the candidates, like that of the petitioner herein, to appear for the second improvement examination. As I have already stated, fixing the eligibility criteria for admission to a particular course is entirely different and as such, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision will not be applied to the facts of the case on hand. As I have already stated, it is laid down by the Division Bench of this court in R. Balamurugan v. The Principal, Government Engineering College, Salem (W.P. No. 15904 of 1993 dated 10-9-1993) (to which I am a party) that only the first improvement examination has to be taken into account. As I have already stated, it is laid down by the Division Bench of this court in R. Balamurugan v. The Principal, Government Engineering College, Salem (W.P. No. 15904 of 1993 dated 10-9-1993) (to which I am a party) that only the first improvement examination has to be taken into account. In view of that, I do not think that any case is made out on behalf of the petitioner herein, calling for the interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is made clear in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has not given full particulars in the application form. It is also stated that allotment order has been passed on the basis of the information given by the petitioner and only at the time of verification of documents it has been found, that the petitioner has not given the marks obtained in the first improvement examination. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, that a seat has to be allotted to him and he should be admitted in the first year B.E. Degree Course. When the respondents have no opportunity to verify the documents, and when in the absence of records an allotment has been made, which is only provisional, I do not think that the petitioner can complain about the rejection of the seat allotted to him, stating that the allotment had been made on the basis of the marks obtained in the second improvement examination, when actually he is not entitled to get an allotment order, according to the Rules for admission to B.E. degree courses for the academic year 1993-94. In Gurdeep Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, in which where an admission to a professional course has been obtained in an illegal way, the Supreme Court has held that such wrongs could not be retained by the sympathy of the Court. In that case, the Supreme Court has held as follows; (at page 2641). "What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent No. 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an Impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in courts of law. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an Impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself, engineer cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analyses embolden, errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achiev (sic) (achieved) by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of respondent No. 6 in the Sports category was, on the material placed before is thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general Merit category....."* In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, mentioned above, I am of the view that the petition has to fail. 8. For the reasons stated above, I find that there are no merits in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.