TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order passed by the respondent-University cancelling the petitioner's admission to B. Sc. Agriculture on the ground of concealment and suppression of material facts. The controversy arises in the following circumstances. ( 2 ) THE petitioner applied for admission to B. Sc. Agriculture course in respondent-University for the academic year 1993-94. The application submitted in the prescribed form claimed that the petitioner was an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of reservation made for the students falling in that category. A certificate issued by the petitioner's father and countersigned by the Tahsildar of the taluk concerned declared that the petitioner's income from agricultural pursuits was his main source of income assessed at Rs. 8,000/- p. a. The petitioner was accordingly considered for admission against the 25% vacancies reserved for agriculturists in terms of Government orders dated 7-9-1990 and 7-12-1990 issued on the subject and admitted to undergo the course against one of the seats available in the said category. Four years after the petitioner's admission, the University received a complaint from M/s. Jaykumar and m. Venkatesh r/o. Byatarayanapura, Bangalore, alleging that the petitioner had produced a fake income certificate and on that basis secured admission to undergo the course in the reserved category. A notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why his admission be not cancelled as the same had been secured by concealment of facts and production of a false agricultural income declaration. The notice pointed out that the petitioner's father was working as a General manager in the Bangalore City Co-operative Bank Limited with a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- which fact had been concealed by the petitioner in his application giving an impression as though he was a genuine agriculturist entitled to claim the benefit of reservation meant for that category of students. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice in which he reiterated that the petitioner's family was basically an agriculturist family and that the petitioner's father did hold agricultural land. It was not however disputed that the petitioner's father was a bank employee and was at the relevant time working as the Assistant General Manager of Bangalore City Co-operative bank Limited. It was urged that the petitioner had. It was not however disputed that the petitioner's father was a bank employee and was at the relevant time working as the Assistant General Manager of Bangalore City Co-operative bank Limited. It was urged that the petitioner had. performed extremely well during the time he pursued the course and had brought credit to the University by his participation in other extra curricular activities. Upon consideration of the reply, the University by its order dated 4-11-1997 directed cancellation of his admission on the ground of concealment of material facts. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the; present writ petition challenging the validity of the said order. ( 3 ) MR. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a feeble attempt to support the petitioner's admission on merits. He contended that although the petitioner's father was working as an employee of the Bank at the relevant time, yet the statement made in the application form and the certificate enclosed therewith to the effect that he was an agriculturist was not totally incorrect. The petitioner's family it was argued by the learned Counsel was basically an agriculturist family and even when the petitioner's father was working as an employee of the bank, he continued till recently to receive income from his agricultural holding in the village. It was only in the year 1996 that the land owned by the petitioner's father was pursuant to a compromise decree passed in O. S. No. 123 of 1996 given up by him in favour of the other cosharers. As on the date of the making of the application, however, the petitioner's father did hold a share in the ancestral agricultural lands which according to Mr. Patil answered the definition of the expression 'agriculturist' as used in the University of Agricultural Sciences Act and the regulations framed thereunder. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if the petitioner had not claimed benefit of the reserved category he would have in the light of his high academic merit in the qualifying examination certainly secured a seat in some other course offered by thes respondent if not the much sought after courses of B. V. Sc. and B. Sc. , agriculture. It was argued that a few candidates admitted to the said courses possessed lesser merit in comparison to the petitioner in the general merit category. But for the above submissions the rest of the contentions urged by Mr. and B. Sc. , agriculture. It was argued that a few candidates admitted to the said courses possessed lesser merit in comparison to the petitioner in the general merit category. But for the above submissions the rest of the contentions urged by Mr. Patil were along familiar terrain. It was urged that the admission having been granted more than 4 years ago and the petitioner having completed the course and done extremely well in the same, it would be highly inequitable and unfair to throw him out at this stage and to cancel the admission and deprive him of the fruit of his labour spread over such a long period. Reliance was in support placed by mr. Patil on certain decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court to which I shall make a reference presently. Before doing so, I consider it necessary to examine the merits of the first two submissions made by mr. Patil. ( 4 ) SECTION 5 of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 inter alia provides that the Government may direct that the University shall reserve in its colleges seats for women, the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes, "agriculturists or the children of agriculturists who possess the minimum qualifications prescribed in this behalf and who pass such practical tests in agriculture as the State Government may by order specify. Explanation to sub-section (2) to Section 5 defines the expression agriculturist to mean a person who, as owner or tenant holds land and whose main source of income is from personal cultivation of the land and includes any person whose principal means of livelihood is from manual labour on agricultural land. A bare reading of Section 5 and in particular the explanation thereto leaves no manner of doubt that in order that a person may claim to be an agriculturist, what is important to demonstrate is that he as owner or tenant, holds land and that his main source of income is from personal cultivation of any such land. Any person whose principal means of livelihood is from manual labour on agricultural lands is also for purposes of Section 5 (2) an agriculturist although he may not himself own any agricultural land or cultivate the same as a tenant. Any person whose principal means of livelihood is from manual labour on agricultural lands is also for purposes of Section 5 (2) an agriculturist although he may not himself own any agricultural land or cultivate the same as a tenant. The critical requirement therefore is that the main source of income of the person claiming to be an agriculturist must be from land owned or tenanted by him and such income must flow from the personal cultivation of such lands. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, even assuming that the lands claimed by the petitioner's father to be in his ownership were at the relevant point of time in his personal cultivation, although there is nothing before me to conclusively prove that fact, yet the claim made by him did not satisfy the second vital requirement namely that main source of his income should have been from agriculture. Even according to the certificate produced by the petitioner, the annual income of the petitioner's father from agricultural pursuits was no more than Rs. 8,000/- as against which the carry home salary of the petitioner as the Assistant General manager of the Bank was five times more being nearly Rs. 40,000/ -. It could not therefore be said that the main source of income of the petitioner's father was from agriculture so as to satisfy the requirement of section 5 (2) and entitle the petitioner to stake his claim in the reserved category for agriculturists. That apart, the petitioner had made a deliberate attempt to conceal the true facts in the application form submitted by him. Para 9 of the said application form apart from requiring disclosure of income from actual cultivation of the land, required the applicants to disclose the gross salary from 1-4-1992 to 31-4-1993 to be supported with a salary certificate giving the details of the pay, DA, hra, CCA, Special Pay if any. It also required the applicant to disclose the business income per annum of income from any other source. It is noteworthy that against all these 3 columns in para 9 of the application, the petitioner had shown the income to be nil thereby giving an impression as though the petitioner's father had no other income whatsoever from any source other than from agriculture and that his total income from all sources did not go beyond Rs. It is noteworthy that against all these 3 columns in para 9 of the application, the petitioner had shown the income to be nil thereby giving an impression as though the petitioner's father had no other income whatsoever from any source other than from agriculture and that his total income from all sources did not go beyond Rs. 8,000/- p. a. These statements were factually incorrect for the petitioner's father was not only holding a responsible position in the bank but was receiving substantial income by way of his salary which was many times more than the income allegedly being drawn by him from the agricultural lands. The underlying purpose behind the deception was obvious. The petitioner intended to secure admission in a category which he would not have been entitled to seek but for the suppression of the material facts. The contention that the petitioner belonged to an agriculturist family because some agricultural land was owned by the family jointly with the other members of the family does not in the least mitigate the petitioner's misdemeanor. What is important is not whether some land was owned by the family or whether the ancestors of the petitioner were agriculturists as contended on his behalf. What was important was whether the petitioner truly answered the description of an agriculturist as given by Section 5 (2) and the explanation thereof. This the petitioner admittedly failed to do and therefore was disentitled from seeking admission in the reserved category. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the first limb of the petitioner's case and holding that the admission claimed and secured by him in the reserved category meant for agriculturists was legally invalid and stood vitiated by the concealment and suppression of facts by the petitioner. ( 6 ) THERE is no merit in my opinion even in the alternative submission made by Mr. Patil that the petitioner would have been entitled to secure admission in a course other than B. V. Sc. and B. Sc. agriculture on the basis of his merit in the general category. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has not produced enough material to support that submission, even assuming that the petitioner could have secured admission in any other course the same is wholly besides the point. From a perusal of the application form, it is apparent that the petitioner had opted only for B. V. Sc. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has not produced enough material to support that submission, even assuming that the petitioner could have secured admission in any other course the same is wholly besides the point. From a perusal of the application form, it is apparent that the petitioner had opted only for B. V. Sc. and B. Sc. Agricultural courses. He had not expressed his willingness to be considered or placed in the waiting list for any other course. It is therefore futile to argue that if not B. Sc. Agriculture, the petitioner may have been admitted to some other course. That apart the fact that he may have been so admitted does not in the least justify his conduct in having secured admission by mis-representation in the much sought after B. Sc. Agricultural course. A fraudulent suppression or concealment of facts cannot be condoned only because the petitioner may have had other options had he not succeeded in his design of securing an undeserved admission. The validity of any such admission shall have to be decided on its own merits and by reference to the material relevant for the same. The availability of other options, avenues and possibilities does not have much of a relevance in any such situation. It is therefore difficult to sustain the admission of the petitioner on the ground that even apart from the admission secured by him, he may have had some other option also open to him. The second limb of the petitioner's case must also in these circumstances fail. ( 7 ) THAT brings me to the third and the only other facet of the problem namely whether the cancellation of the petitioner's admission at this point of time would be just and equitable. It is indeed not for the first time that such a question has arisen before the Court. Judicial pronouncements cited at the bar by Counsel for the parties only show the persistence and the rapid frequency with which such issues arise for consideration every now and then. It is indeed not for the first time that such a question has arisen before the Court. Judicial pronouncements cited at the bar by Counsel for the parties only show the persistence and the rapid frequency with which such issues arise for consideration every now and then. In most of such cases even when the courts come to the conclusion that the admission of the candidates was vitiated by some illegality, irregularity or fraud, the next and the more sensitive issue that confronts them is whether to nullify such admissions and throw the beneficiaries thereof out of the institutions or to take a sympathetic, realistic and an equitable view of the matter to do complete justice between the parties. The question invariably raises a sensitive human issue which the Courts are required to examine by adopting a humane approach rather than a pedantic, hyper technical or wooden attitude. The philosophy underlying any such approach is that any exercise specially one which is in its very nature meant to be judicial, the courts must while upholding the majesty of law, ensure that the essence of justice is not defeated by technicalities and neglect of the ground realities. The Courts are required to be pragmatic rather than vindictive in their attitude. What is important to consider is whether show of mercy or a concession to the erring party is likely to breed indiscipline or endanger the survival of the system or embolden those waiting in the wings to commit frauds in the hope of getting away with the same with impunity. The extent of damage, the Courts direction may cause to the individual on the one hand and the system on the other may also have to be kept in view while deciding whether the benevolence which the candidate seeks at the hands of the Court is likely to masquerade as a failure on the part of the system to check and prevent such incidents in future. Suffice it to say that while dealing with issues like the one arising for consideration here, no hard and fast rule or cut and dried formula is either prescribed or may be workable. Each situation may have to be viewed independently in the context of the peculiar facts attendant upon the same. That is precisely how decisions that were pressed into service before me also proceed. Each situation may have to be viewed independently in the context of the peculiar facts attendant upon the same. That is precisely how decisions that were pressed into service before me also proceed. In Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v sanjay Gulati, the Supreme Court allowed irregular admissions meant to continue with a bare warning that the Court may at some future stage decide to cancel admissions secured illegally lest the erring authorities or those benefitting from the same are emboldened to indulge in violation of the norms on the plea that the Court will leave the admissions intact if they are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. Similarly in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v Karnatak University , the students admitted to the degree course were found to be ineligible yet they were allowed to continue keeping in view the fact that they had put in nearly 4 years since the date they were admitted. The Court felt that if the students are thrown out after such a long period that would totally spoil their future, although the predominant reason which persuaded the Court in taking that view was the fact that the fault in granting admissions to the ineligibles lay more on the institutions than on the students. To the same effect is the view taken by the Supreme Court in a. Sudha v University of Mysore and in Sanatan Gauda v Berhampur university and Others. Reference may also be made at this stage to Dr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others in which the Apex Court looking to the hardship that the students were bound to suffer directed waiver of the requirement of completion of the internship as a condition precedent for admission to the course. The court in that case did not approve of the Government permitting candidates to sit for examination before they had acquired the requisite qualification. Keeping in view however the merit of the students, the requirement of completing the internship as a condition precedent was waived with a direction that no one shall be admitted to the examination in future without complying with the requirement of the relevant regulations. ( 8 ) IN K. Harish and Others v University of Agricultural Sciences, G. K. V. K. Campus, Bangalore, to which reference was made by Mr. ( 8 ) IN K. Harish and Others v University of Agricultural Sciences, G. K. V. K. Campus, Bangalore, to which reference was made by Mr. Nanjundareddy, Counsel for the University, the University had cancelled the admission granted to the petitioners who had secured the same on the basis of fake marks cards produced by them. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in A. P. Christian Medical Educational society v Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, Guru nanak Dev University v Perminder and Gurdeep v State of Jammu and kashmir, it was argued that the petitioners having secured admission by playing fraud upon the University were not entitled to claim equitable estoppel for their continuance. Sadashiva, J. , however, held that while it is the duty of the Court to enforce the rule of law in public interest, it is the fundamental duty of all to maintain, preserve, protect and enforce the Rule of Law for common benefit. Majesty of law it was held could not be sacrificed in the guise of human approach. Obedience to Rule of Law is the fundamental duty of all persons. Any person who violates the law, especially when such violation was deliberate, shall pay the penalty. Having said so the Court carried out a process of scrutiny of the cases of the candidates with a view to finding out whether they possessed the minimum eligibility prescribed for being admitted to the course. On the basis of the said scrutiny, the Court came to the conclusion that some of those who had produced fake marks cards were eligible to seek admission even on the basis of their actual performance in the qualifying examinations. While dismissing the writ petitions of others the Court allowed such of the candidates as had scored the minimum qualifying marks to complete the course. One of those whose admission was not interfered with by the Court was a candidate who had completed the course. Similarly those who had already reached the final year of the course even when their admission was found to have been vitiated by fraud and production of fake marks cards was left untouched on equitable grounds. An appeal filed against the said decision by the aggrieved candidates was dismissed and is reported in P. N. Bhadra v registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. An appeal filed against the said decision by the aggrieved candidates was dismissed and is reported in P. N. Bhadra v registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. ( 9 ) IN N. G. Venugopala v University of Agricultural Sciences, an almost identical situation had arisen on account of the concealment by the admitted candidate of his father's income by way of salary. The candidate had in that case as in the present, secured admission by claiming himself to be an agriculturist. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur, supra and Inder Parkash v Deputy Commissioner, Delhi and Others, Raveendran, J. , held that even if there was any irregularity on the part of the petitioner in giving the particulars of income of his parents, it would be improper to deny him the benefit of his studies at the end of the 4th year course. The said decision was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 250 of 1990 which was dismissed in limine. ( 10 ) COMING then to the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has completed the course. He had already undergone the course for nearly 4 years when the show-cause notice was issued by the university. Cancellation of his admission at this stage and denial of benefit of the labour that he has put in will serve no purpose except imposing upon him a punishment for his misdemeanour to act as a deterrent for those who may like to repeat the act in future. The question however is whether such a punitive measure would be in the interest of justice and equity at this distant point of time when he has already completed the cotrise all along nursing the impression that his admission was despite the irregularity in the same accepted by the university as valid. In the course of these years, even the State must have spent a considerable amount on imparting the requisite training to him. The seat against which he had been improperly admitted would also not be available for being filled up at this stage. All these circumstances taken cumulatively do in my opinion make out a case for taking a lenient and equitable view in the matter so as to allow the petitioner to passout of the course, irregularity of the admission and his improper conduct notwithstanding. All these circumstances taken cumulatively do in my opinion make out a case for taking a lenient and equitable view in the matter so as to allow the petitioner to passout of the course, irregularity of the admission and his improper conduct notwithstanding. Denial of such a relief to the petitioner could in my opinion add one more frustrated young man in the ever increasing number of that kind in this country. Instead of being a useful limb, he may become a burdensome liability for the system frustrated with life and forsaken by hope. Superadded to all this is the fact that the system adopted by the University was also partially responsible for the commission of the irregularity in admission. The certificate prescribed was only required to be countersigned by the Tahsildar concerned which was far from being an effective verification of the claim made by the person concerned. Not only that the application form which was produced in original before me was incomplete and had left the affidavit enclosed at the end unfilled and totally blank. If the University authorities had been more vigilant in prescribing and verifying the documents produced in support of claims made by the candidates for reserved category benefits, it may have well been possible to detect the attempt in time if not prevent the same at the threshold. These incidents must therefore act as eye openers for the University from which it must learn to improve its system to prevent their recurrence in future. It is indeed with considerable reluctance that the Courts grant equitable relief in such situations and while I do so, I am no exception to that feeling of reluctance and even regret. ( 11 ) IN the result, I allow this writ petition and quash the order impugned, but reserve liberty for the University to take up the matter with the State Government at an appropriate level for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Tahsildar who countersigned the income certificate produced by the petitioner without proper verification of the facts. It shall also be at liberty to seek action against the father of the petitioner who deliberately misrepresented the facts in the certificate and thereby was ex facie guilty of conduct unbecoming of a responsible officer serving in a public institution like Bangalore City Co-operative bank Limited. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no orders as to costs. It shall also be at liberty to seek action against the father of the petitioner who deliberately misrepresented the facts in the certificate and thereby was ex facie guilty of conduct unbecoming of a responsible officer serving in a public institution like Bangalore City Co-operative bank Limited. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no orders as to costs. --- *** --- .