M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD petitioner's learned Advocate and learned Government advocate. ( 2 ) THIS is a case in which the petitioner's learned Advocate has raised a very strong grievance with regard to the state of affairs that was in existence around 31-7-1995. The petitioner is a well established institution and we are concerned with the admission to the B. Pharma Course conducted by the petitioners. They were eligible to admit 90 students for the current academic year. But, having regard to the fact that this is a course for which there is not all that much of demand, only 71 applications were received by the petitioner's institution. What had happened was, that the Government in keeping with the rules framed by them for the purpose of centralising the admissions had issued the necessary notices in the press in relation to the common entrance test, which is as early as on 11-5-1995. The petitioner has produced the copy of this prominent announcement in the press at Annexure-A to the petition. They have clearly indicated the courses in respect of which the Common Entrance Test Cell would conduct the admissions and have excluded the B. Pharmaa Course. There is no dispute with regard to this aspect of the matter. Petitioner's learned Advocate states that, in this background, the irresistible conclusion was that since the number of students who normally opt for this course are limited and there is not real need to have to evaluate from among the students that the Government had decided not to include this course as far as the Common entrance Test Cell procedures were concerned. He states that, right upto the end of July which is two and half months after the issuance of the notification no announcement was issued that any such test were being conducted for the B. Pharmaa Course and therefore, in normal course the petitioner has scrutinised the applications received by them and admitted as many as 71 students which is well below the permissible intake. The learned advocate has also produced before me the curriculum that has been published by the Karnataka University which indicates that the term as far as this Court is concerned commenced from 31-7-1995 and that the colleges are required to send the names of the students within ten days from the date. The learned advocate has also produced before me the curriculum that has been published by the Karnataka University which indicates that the term as far as this Court is concerned commenced from 31-7-1995 and that the colleges are required to send the names of the students within ten days from the date. He therefore submits that, this action on the part of the petitioner was absolutely bona fide and in good faith and cannot be found fault with. ( 3 ) SURPRISINGLY, on 1-8-1995 the petitioners received at elegram from the Director of Medical Education instructing them not to admit the students and when the petitioners responded by pointing out that they have already admitted the students, they were informed by another telegram that these admissions would not be approved of. It was under these circumstances that the petitioners had to move this Court for obtaining appropriate orders. By virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, the 71 students has continued with the course in question. The petitioner's learned Advocate submits that, in this background this Court ought to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to regularise the admissions of the 71 students in question. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Advocate has raised apreliminary objection with regard to payment of separate Court fee contending that, even though the institution has filed a single petition which can be maintainable that the beneficiaries are separate and therefore separate Court fees have to be paid. Petitioner's learned Advocate has vehemently objected because, he points out that in this case even if not in others, the cause of action is singular. He seeks to state that it was the action of the petitioner-institution that has been found fault with and it is therefore the institution which has challenged the decision of the director and that therefore, the question of treating this as being a representative petition on behalf of the students is not justified. In answer to this, the learned Government Advocate has once again reiterated the submission that the ultimate beneficiaries are the students, that it is not the institution which is the aggrieved party if the admissions are cancelled and that they have to pay the individual Court fees and therefore, merely because the cause of action has been amalgamated and represented by the institution, that the complexion of the matter cannot be altered. This Court has consistently taken the view that the ultimate test to be applied is as to who are the aggrieved parties? But more importantly as to who would be the ultimate beneficiary of the orders or directions which the Court issues. In keeping with the answer to these questions in all these cases, even if the students are represented by the institution and a single petition is maintained separate Court fees have been directed to be paid. Consequently, petitioners shall tender the deficit Court fees to the office of this Court within four weeks from today, whereupon this petition which is treated as a single writ petition shall be renumbered and treated as a group of 71 petitions. The office shall follow the procedure of numbering it as writ Petition No. 30921-A of 1995 followed by AA, AB, AC, etc. ( 5 ) AS regards the main issue, the submissions that have been put forward by the petitioner's learned Advocate are faultless and will necessarily have to be upheld. Regarding promulgation of the rules whereby the Government has reserved to itself the power of centralisation and conducting the requisite scrutiny, as it is necessary that the Government indicates its decision in respect of the courses in question within the prescribed time particularly for the notice of the institutions and the students concerned. If this is not done, then the petitioner's contention that the Government had probably decided not to include this particular course, within that procedure, is the only justifiable and irresistible conclusion. Under these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be faulted for having admitted the students in question particularly since the term was to commence from 31-7-1995. Learned Advocate is also right when he points out that the petitioners have not admitted a single student for the course after 31-7-1995 and furthermore, that they have not exceeded the permissible intake. Under these circumstances, the respondent 2 was not justified in having communicated the decision that the admissions would not be approved of. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Advocate has submitted that if for any reason the B. Pharmaa had not been included in the advertisement that the petitioners could not have taken advantage of it. Under these circumstances, the respondent 2 was not justified in having communicated the decision that the admissions would not be approved of. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Advocate has submitted that if for any reason the B. Pharmaa had not been included in the advertisement that the petitioners could not have taken advantage of it. He submits that, once the rules have been framed, that the institution was fully aware of the fact that the only authority to scrutinise and finalise the admission process was the Common Entrance Test Cell and that if for any reason this has not been indicated in the advertisement, then the petitioners ought to have referred the matter for clarification to the Department. I see no obligation of that type that can be cast on the petitioners because prerogative of conducting test which is prescribed in the rules in something that has to be exercised by the Government Department and if it is not done, then the petitioners would be justified in assuming that they do not propose to exercise those rights. More importantly, there is a very valid reason, as far as the present course is concerned which the petitioners learned Advocate has point out, namely, that the admissions made were much less than the available capacity and that therefore, there was really no need for any complicated scrutiny process that have to be made or taken up for admissions to this course and in view of that, the objections canvassed on behalf of the parties cannot be upheld. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid situation, petitioners are entitled to succeed. Petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed in special facts and circumstances of this case to regularise the admissions of the 71 students provided they are otherwise found to be eligible and for this purpose, the petitioners shall submit to the second respondent a list indicating the various qualifications and other requisite particulars in relation to these 71 students. Unless there is some serious breach such as one of requisite qualification etc. , the second respondent shall not refuse to regularise the admissions on any other frivolous or untenable grounds. The learned government Advocate points out that, there are well-defined rules which prescribe the eligibility criteria and respondent 2 shall act in accordance thereof. Unless there is some serious breach such as one of requisite qualification etc. , the second respondent shall not refuse to regularise the admissions on any other frivolous or untenable grounds. The learned government Advocate points out that, there are well-defined rules which prescribe the eligibility criteria and respondent 2 shall act in accordance thereof. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting with this petition, it would be necessary to convey to the respondents-State Government one recommendation. This Court has repeatedly found that the magnitude and volume of labour that is involved in the conduct of the Common Entrance Test Cell which in State like karnataka involved the centralised scrutiny, interviews, allocation etc. , of virtually lakhs of students is so enormous that the department concerned who are now really equipped for this purpose and have to undertake the jobs, are now virtually struggling and in the process, that the entire time-frame goes out of control and furthermore, that the admissions cannot be completed within the prescribed time. Under these circumstances, on a careful consideration of the matter, the court recommends that these functions should be invested with the University. These bodies are fully equipped with the machinery for dealing with thousands of students, scrutinising cases in academic matters, conducting admissions etc. , and therefore, if necessary the State Government should apply to the appropriate Court for modification of the directions in order to ensure that the academic bodies undertake this function. It is hoped that the State Government will act on these directions so that the difficulties that have been cropping up and worsening over the last few years will be completely taken care of before the next academic year. The present case is another classic instance where the error if any has occurred obviously because of gross overloading of the Department and various Government facilities and therefore it is high time that some alternative measure be provided for. The learned Government Advocate to convey these recommendations to the State Government. The petitions accordingly succeed and stand disposed of with these directions. No order as to cost. --- *** --- .