M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) JOINED the bachelor of dental surgery (b. d. s.) course and whose admissions have not been approved of by the university on the ground that the respondent-college was permitted in the academic year 1992-93 to admit only 40 students as against which they have admitted 49. ( 2 ) THE university authorities therefore refused to approve the a dmissions of the remaining 9 students on the ground that the college has exceeded the permissible intake. The petitioners have thereupon approached this court because in effect the refusal to approve the admissions would have the result of cancellation of their admissions and having regard to the fact that they have already paid the fees and joined the course, they contended that they should not be penalised for whatever errors or breaches the college management might have committed. There is also an interesting additional aspect to this case which demonstrates an entirely different facet to the problem. Petitioners' learned Advocate has contended that the college submitted a list of 49 students to the university for approval and that the list had set down the names of the students in the alphabetical order. Consequently, the students at serial nos. 1 to 40 were approved of and the subsequent 9 were refused approval and the learned Advocate submits that the fundamental error that arose was that if one were to synchronize the sequence of admissions made by the college then it would be found that the students at serial nos. 40 to 49 who are the petitioners in these group of petitions are not the last 9 students to have been admitted. His argument proceeded on the footing that if the solitary ground for refusal of recognition of the admission is that the intake has been exceeded, that the fault lies in respect of admissions in excess of 40 students and that therefore, it is the last 9 admissions which would have to go and not the students who are at present disqualified who are infact higher in the Order of sequence. This is the factual aspect of the matter, but the learned Advocate has submitted that as a resull of this faulty assessment, even if some 9 students are required to be disqualified that the wrong 9 students have been penalised and that therefore, the admissions of these petitioners should be directed to be regularised as they are not the ones who deserve to have been disapproved of. ( 3 ) THE defence pleaded by the college authorities is anex tremely ingenious one insofar as they have come out with the plea that in the previous academic year for a variety of reasons including road accidents, 9 students left the college and they contend that because of these circumstance, they were justified in admitting 9 more students in the subsequent academic year. The further defence is that the state government had issued a clarification in the year 1990 wherein it was pointed out that if a certain number of students have left the institution then it would be permissible to carry over this number to the following year and admit that many students in excess. To quote the exact phraseology of the gentleman who issued this circular on behalf of the state government, he has stated that this according to him is a logical conclusion of a situation whereby the overall number of students remains unchanged and therefore according to him there would be no excessive drain or strain on the college facilities. I need to mention here, that the learned Advocate who represents the university and the central government counsel have opposed any such procedure being sanctioned because they have pointed out to me the relevant provisions of the various statutes whereunder it is not permissible to exceed the intake of an institution from year to year. It would be an absurdity to permit this sort of wrong logic which to my mind is thoroughly perverse and illogical, that if for any reason in a particular academic year there is any reduction in the number of students then this could be off-set in the following year by a breach of regulations. It would make a thorough mockery of the fixation of the intake limits and there is no ground whatsoever under which this could be justified. It would make a thorough mockery of the fixation of the intake limits and there is no ground whatsoever under which this could be justified. Learned Advocate who appears on behalf of the college has sought to point out that the state government does have a say with regard to the aspect of initial fixation of intake in respect of colleges. He submits that if this power vests in the government then it is open to the government to direct that there could be an alteration in respect of intake capacity. The fallacy in the arguments is that the power of the government in conjunction with the university to fix the intake is not being disputed but that power requires that if because of a change of the various facilities available in a institute it is permissible to either increase or decrease the intake that too after a due assessment, a change can be made in the figures by duly sanctioning it. This is entirely different from a situation where a subordinate officer of the state government indiscriminately issues a circular stating thereunder that irrespective of the provisions that apply and the intake that has been already fixed, that the Rule itself can be breached. This in sum and substance is what the circular mentions. This is not the first time that this court has come across circulars of this type. These circulars have no authority of law and it would be impossible for this court to hold that they are issued with honest motives. It would be highly desirable for the state government to ensure that no such irresponsible circulars are issued in future because it is very clear that documents of this type are prepared in Order to provide a cover-up for the various illegalities that are going on in the educational field. I have no doubt in my mind that documents of this type are issued in collaboration and in conjunction and collusion with those persons who are responsible for the various breaches. The circular in question therefore cannot absolve the college management as far as the present action is concerned. The university authorities and the learned central government Advocate are fully justified in pointing out that this is a clear cut case of breach of the regulations and that there can be no defence of whatsoever nature. The circular in question therefore cannot absolve the college management as far as the present action is concerned. The university authorities and the learned central government Advocate are fully justified in pointing out that this is a clear cut case of breach of the regulations and that there can be no defence of whatsoever nature. ( 4 ) THE only aspect of the case that appeals to me is that respective of the situation, which is undoubtedly the handiwork of the college management that the wrong set of students should not be penalised. The second aspect of the matter is that when the petition was filed by the students this court thought it reasonable that the present petitioners should be allowed to continue with their course of study and that they be allowed to take various examinations. This was obviously because one cannot under any circumstances punish or victimise the students who are unfortunately at the receiving end when instances of this type take place. I do not see any fault whatsoever on their part either and it was for that reason that this court through interim orders has permitted them to continue. It is by an extension of the same consideration that would require this court to direct the authorities that so far as this batch of petitioners are concerned their admissions would have to be regularised, the underlying reason being that this is a case in which certain factual errors have taken place and the law in no way sanctions a situation whereby even for if permission had to be refused that the wrong set of boys and girls, should be punished for what has happened. Again as indicated by me, in Order to impose a punishment or a disqualification one would have to proceed on the footing that the present respondents have been charged with some breaches. The intake of a college is known to the management and it is the management which is required to regulate it in these circumstances, and not the students who have sought the admission and cannot be said to have committed any fault. As indicated by me earlier, when the list was sent to the university the names were sent in alphabetical Order which has resulted in the basic mistake. Undoubtedly, it may be permissible to find out who the last 9 students that were admitted are. As indicated by me earlier, when the list was sent to the university the names were sent in alphabetical Order which has resulted in the basic mistake. Undoubtedly, it may be permissible to find out who the last 9 students that were admitted are. I need to take cognizance of the fact that as far as they are concerned the university has regularised their admissions and accepted them. They have now completed 3 years of study and it is too late at this point of time as also highly unjust to send them out or take action against them for no fault of theirs. There is no doubt so far as the factual aspect is concerned that these cases are in an utter state of confusion, but in the process of clearing the cob-webs we cannot sanction a situation whereby some students be removed or their being made scapegoats. It is for a variety of these reasons that the court has directed that the admissions of these 9 students/9 petitioners be regularised. I need to clarify that two of them have left and therefore the direction would apply only to the remaining 7. ( 5 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter which is of predominant importance. This state which boasts of some of the finest universities and educational institutions in the country and which has an excellent cultural heritage, has today been relegated to a position of having the largest number of unauthorised educational institutions in the country. This position has occurred only because of institution such as the one in the present case having come up. There appears to have been no sanctity for the observance of law for several years in this field and it is now pointed out to me that by virtue of the provisions of the Karnataka education ACT and several other steps that efforts have been made to check the situation. There appears to have been no sanctity for the observance of law for several years in this field and it is now pointed out to me that by virtue of the provisions of the Karnataka education ACT and several other steps that efforts have been made to check the situation. This court has had occasion to point out earlier that in everyone of the cases where unauthorised institutions have made illegal or unauthorised admissions, that it is the students who are projected before the court at a late point of time, and it is contended that on humanitarian grounds and having regard to the number of years already spent by them in the course, the amount of money spent by them and the difficulties that are encountered by them and their parents if concessions are not made in their favour and if the illegalities are not overlooked, that they will be finished. Therefore, the authorities and the courts have had to bend over backwards to help the poor students. In the process, the culprits have been escaping unscathed. It is my view that when corrective steps were not ordered had requisite directions been issued to punish all those persons who have made abnormally large amounts of money through rackets in education, immediately a full stop would have been put to all these illegal activities. It is still not too late for the authorities concerned to take action along this direction. However since this is one specific instance that has come-up before the court it is essential to issue a direction that the college management shall refund to the university by way of a demand draft the entire amount of tuition fees that were collected from the 9 students who according to them have left the institution and in whose place they have admitted the present 9 petitioners. This is the very least that can be done in these circumstances but to my mind it is very necessary to ensure return of this amount which can only be categorised as unjust enrichment and therefore it is very necessary that these amounts be refunded to the university within a period of 12 weeks from today. This shall be condition precedent for the university authorities to regularise the admissions of the petitioners in question. This shall be condition precedent for the university authorities to regularise the admissions of the petitioners in question. It is further clarified that if the college authorities do not comply with these requisition within the prescribed time, it shall be open to the petitioners to approach this court for appropriate directions because in that case, even this court will have no option except to haul up the college management for action under the contempt of courts act. This last direction is being issued in Order to prevent any further malpractices such as making the present petitioners pay the amounts in question. ( 6 ) PETITIONS accordingly succeed. Rule is made absolute to this extent. No Order as to costs. It is directed that those of the results that have been withheld shall be declared by the authorities within a period of 8 weeks from today. --- *** --- .