JUDGMENT : S.P. Srivastava, J. The Petitioners on the basis of the admissions granted to them in the first year post-graduate course of study in the subject of 'Social work' for obtaining the masters degree in social works (M.S.W.) from the, Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition filed on 11th August, 1993 requiring the Respondents, the Kashi Vidyapith and its Vice Chancellor for permitting them to appear in the M.S.W. master of social works (Examination) 1st year which was scheduled to start from 3rd September, 1993 and to declare their result subsequently. Vide an interim order passed by this Court dated 2.9.1993, the Respondent No. 3 was directed to provisionally permit the Petitioners entirely on their own risk to appear in the forthcoming practical and theory examination 1993, the result of which was not to be declared till further orders by this Court and was to remain subject to the decision of the writ petition. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Petitioners were permitted to appear in the theory and practical examinations but their results were not declared. 3. Kashi Vidyapith at Varanasi is a University governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The provisions contained in Section 7 of the aforesaid Act deal with the powers and duties of the University. Apart from various duties specified therein, a duty stands cast upon the University to provide for instructions in such branches of learning as the University may think fit and make provision for research and for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. The stipulations contained in Section 7 aforesaid also require the University to Institute degree, diploma and other academic distinctions and to hold examinations for and to grant and confer degrees, diploma and other academic distinctions to and on persons who have persued course of study in the University, a constituent or affiliated college, or an associated college, and to hold examination for and to grant the degree of the Bachelor of Arts or Commerce or Master of Arts or Commerce to persons residing within the area of the University who have carried on private studies under conditions laid down in the Statute and the Ordinances. 3. 3. The provisions contained in Section 48 of the State University Act stipulate that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statute, the examination committee shall direct the arrangements for the conduct of the examinations. The first Statutes of Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi provide that the admission to the post-graduate course of studies in the subject of social work will be granted on the basis of a competitive examination. It is also provided that for admission in M.S.W. 1st year course, the candidate must have secured 45% marks in the under-graduate examination. It is further provided that the total number of seats available for post-graduate course M.S.W. 1st year shall stand reserved for general category, women category, Scheduled Castes category. Scheduled Tribes category and backwards category students. The Statutes further provide that the admission to the aforesaid course will be granted on the basis of a competitive examination which will be organised by the examination department of Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi consisting of two papers. It is also provided that the merit list on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates seeking admission to 1st year post-graduate course of studies in the subject of social work will be prepared strictly on the merit and the admission granted will be in accordance with the reservations as provided for in the Statutes. 4. The aforesaid Statutes also provide that permission to appear at the M.S.W. 1st year examination or IInd year examination will be granted only to those students who have to their credit attendance not less than 75% both in the teaching as well as practical part of the subject. 5. I have heard Sri A.S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel representing the Respondents and have carefully perused the record. 6. The Petitioners have alleged that they had appeared at the entrance examination to post-graduate M.S.W. 1st year course in September, 1992. It appears that on merits adjudged on the basis of their performance at the entrance examination, the Petitioners did not qualify for the grant of admission in the 1st year post-graduate M.S.W. course. The Petitioners' claim is that notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, they were entitled to admission in the postgraduate 1st year M.S.W. course as they were dependents of the employees of the University. The Petitioners' claim is that notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, they were entitled to admission in the postgraduate 1st year M.S.W. course as they were dependents of the employees of the University. in this connection, the Petitioners placed reliance upon a list of 16 students who are shown to be the dependents of the employees of the University which list according to the Petitioners was approved for the purposes of granting admission to the post-graduate course in question on 28.5.1993. The Petitioners further claim that subsequent to the aforesaid approval, they were permitted to deposit the fee, etc., which they did on 31.5.1993. Their further claim is that with the deposit of the fee by them which was accepted by the University, their admissions in the post-graduate 1st year course of study in the subject of social work stood secured and the Respondents could not prevent them from appearing at the final examination of the 1st year course which was scheduled to start from 3rd September, 1993. The assertion is that a new Vice Chancellor had taken over charge in the 1st week of July, 1993 and all of a sudden without any rhyme or reason and without passing any order in writing, the Petitioners were abruptly restrained from continuing their studies in M.S.W. classes and further prohibited from attending classes and appearing at the M.S.W. examination scheduled to start from 3rd September, 1993. This according to the Petitioners happened on 29.8.1993. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents, it has been clearly asserted that the Petitioners were not at all eligible for being admitted in the 1st year post-graduate course of studies in the subject of social work. It is also asserted that no permission had been granted by the Head of Department of Social Works to the Petitioners for depositing any fee and the said deposit was an unauthorised one and in any case, could not confer any right on the Petitioners. It is also asserted by the Respondents that the Petitioners are neither bona fide dependents of the employees of the University nor they could be deemed to be governed by the definition of the dependent of the employees of Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi. It is also asserted by the Respondents that the Petitioners are neither bona fide dependents of the employees of the University nor they could be deemed to be governed by the definition of the dependent of the employees of Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi. However, it has further been stated that 2% of the total number of seats for post-graduate course of study in the subject of social work had been reserved for the dependents of the employees of the Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi but that quota stood already filled up on the basis of the merit list. The Respondents further dispute the genuineness of the list relied upon by the Petitioners asserting that no such list was ever prepared or approved by the Vice Chancellor and the said list was forged and fictitious. It is further asserted that on 27.8.1993, the Registrar of the University had given notices to the Petitioners informing that their admission was wholly Illegal and inspite of the notices having been served, the Petitioners did not submit any reply and ultimately the University, finding the admission of the Petitioners to be illegal and without jurisdiction had decided not to permit the Petitioners to appear in the examination in question. The Respondents further asserted that the Petitioners were never allowed to attend M.S.W. classes and could not be deemed to be bona fide students as claimed. It is also pointed out that the Petitioners did not have to their credit 75% attendance and have no right to appear at the examination in question. 8. It must be emphasised that in order to achieve the true ideal and aim of the University as contemplated under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, an action of the University which is in violation of statutory norms laid down either in the Act or Statutes framed (.hereunder cannot be permitted to be violated by the University itself. Further, a degree in any speciality is considered to be the highest qualification in the normal run. Further, a degree in any speciality is considered to be the highest qualification in the normal run. It is, therefore, very much necessary that such a degree should be conferred only on those deserving students who having studied the subject in the manner provided for in the Statutes and the Ordinances and persued the prescribed course of study for the minimum period as mandated, have taken the appropriate examination at the end of such studies and deserve the degree on the basis of their performance. 9. It appears from the perusal of the relevant Statutes that the course of studies prescribed for obtaining the post-graduate degree in the subject of social work (M.S.W.) is spread over a period of two years and after completion of the course of studies during the 1st year, its final examination is held and on the completion of the course of studies in the IInd year, again a final examination is held. It is further apparent that the course of studies for the 1st year include teaching and practicals. For the purposes of determining the division in which a particular candidate is placed in the M.S.W. examination, the total marks secured in the 1st year final examination and the IInd year final examination are added together. The minimum attendance prescribed is 75% in both theory and practical part. 10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, a student who claims to have been admitted to the 1st year course of studies for a post-graduate degree in the subject of social works (M.S.W.) on 31.5.1993 cannot by any stretch of Imagination be held entitled to be permitted to appear at the final examination on 3rd September, 1993 as the total period elapsing between the date of admission and the date of examination excluding the holidays comes to about 83 days only. A course of study which under the Statute is required to be spread over a period of one year cannot be permitted to be squeezed or reduced to a lesser period, by any administrative action contrary to the provision having statutory force and its explicit legislative intent insisting upon persuing of a course of study spread over a particular period. The University or its authorities have no Jurisdiction whatsoever to by-pass or ignore the mandate of the statutory provisions contained in the State Universities Act or the Statutes and the Ordinances framed thereunder. The University or its authorities have no Jurisdiction whatsoever to by-pass or ignore the mandate of the statutory provisions contained in the State Universities Act or the Statutes and the Ordinances framed thereunder. It may further be emphasised that admission granted against the rules or statutory provisions contained in the State Universities Act or the Statutes and the Ordinances framed thereunder cannot operate as an estoppel against the University which is bound under the law to strictly observe and follow the mandate of law flowing from the relevant provisions having statutory force. Moreover, the mere deposit of fee by a candidate should not be held to mean that he has been admitted in accordance with law. The candidate has to satisfy the minimum requisite conditions which have to be compiled with before he becomes eligible for appearing at the final examination either for an under-graduate course or a post-graduate course of studies as provided for in the relevant Statutes and the Ordinances. 11. The Respondents and for that matter any University established under the provisions of the State Universities Act and the Ordinances are bound to ensure that the standard of education is not jeopardised on account of any such action on their part which has the effect of preventing a student from persuing the prescribed course of studies before he is permitted to appear at a final examination either for an under-graduate degree or a post-graduate degree or has the effect of permitting a student who has not persued the prescribed course of studies to appear at any such examination. It has been brought to my notice that the Universities are indulging in the unhealthy practice of granting admissions to students and permit them to appear at the final examination for an under-graduate or a post-graduate degree even though the period elapsing between the grant of admission and the date of examination is too short for completing the prescribed course of study as provided for in the Statutes and the Ordinance. Such an action deserves condemnation as it has the obvious effect of lowering down the standard of education and reducing the final examination to a farce. Such an action deserves condemnation as it has the obvious effect of lowering down the standard of education and reducing the final examination to a farce. It may be emphasised that a student who has not completed the prescribed course of studies spread over a period specified in the Statutes or the Ordinances should not be permitted to appear at the final examination as he cannot be deemed to be eligible for that if the legislative policy is that before appearing at the final examination, the candidate must persue the prescribed course of studies spread over for a certain period. It is not permissible for the University to squeeze that period entirely ignoring the legislative intent and purpose for spreading over of a particular course of studies for a particular period. 12. It further appears that the sole basis of the claim of the Petitioners for getting admissions in the course in question is the alleged reservation which is said to have been made available to the dependents of the employees of the Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi. The Respondents have not come up with any such case that the 2% reservation for the dependents of the employees of the University was made under the Statutes by any amendment. The basis for such reservation is an administrative order. in this connection, suffice it to say that when the relevant Statutes did not provide for any such reservation and in fact while prescribing the reservations and providing for different quotas for different categories of candidates, the category of students claiming to be the dependents of the employees of the University had been deliberately omitted and not provided for in the Statutes, it was not open to the University to provide for any such category against the provisions of the Act and the Statutes framed thereunder. The Petitioners, therefore, cannot be deemed to have any right for being admitted to the course in question not only at the late stage but also as having failed to secure admission on the basis of the merit they could not be granted admission on the ground that they were dependents of the University employees when there was no such provision for extending any such benefit under the relevant Statutes. 13. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has further urged that under the orders of this Court, the Petitioners had been permitted to appear at the examination in question and, therefore, they are entitled to get their results declared in this connection, it may be noticed that while permitting the Petitioners to appear at the examination provisionally, this Court had made it absolutely clear that the Petitioners would be appearing at the examination provisionally at their own risk and their results shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. 14. This Court in its decision in the case of Alok Kumar Bhardwaj v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 2035, had clarified that an estoppel is a principle of equity which can be Invoked for preserving the benefit undeservedly obtained through mistake specially when the benefit is one which the Petitioner knew and could have known with ordinary deligence that he was not entitled to it. In the present case, the Petitioners must be deemed to be aware of the relevant statutory provisions referred to hereinabove, therefore, it is obvious that the principle of promissory estoppel cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioners. in another decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Ganga Prasad Yadav v. Allahabad Agricultural Institute and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1097 , it had been pointed out that it will not be proper to continue the student to persue his studies merely on the ground that he had studied for over a year. This Court had drawn support for the above conclusions from the observations made by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1993 SC 2638 , wherein it had been indicated that consideration of Judicial policy dictates that a tendency where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained has the effect of Jeopardising the purity of the selection process itself and embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs can be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the court. The Apex Court had emphasised that such Instances reduce the Jurisdiction and discretion of courts into private benevolence. 15. The Apex Court had emphasised that such Instances reduce the Jurisdiction and discretion of courts into private benevolence. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances as brought on record and the conclusions indicated hereinabove, I am clearly of the view that the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as claimed. 16. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed requiring the Respondents to abide by the directions and observations made hereinabove in the matters relating to the grant of admissions to the under-graduate or post-graduate courses of studies and grant of permissions to appear at their final examinations at the end of the yearly course of study as prescribed. Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent to Secretary, Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh for information and necessary action.