Judgment :- Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to publish the result of the petitioner without any further delay. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner under-went Secondary Grade Teacher's Training during 1985-87 in Punitha Amalorbava Annai Secondary Grade Training School, Tirukazhukundram. 3. The eligibility for admission for Teacher's Training School is a minimum of 250 out of 500 marks in S.S.L.C. Examination. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 192 marks. But since the Training School was a private Institution, he was admitted on payment of Capitation fees. It is said that he was not aware that he was not eligible for admission. After completion of the Course, and, after having written all the Examinations, he contacted the Director of Government Examination, Madras, for announcement of his result. At that time, he was informed by the Secretary, Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai-6, as per letter dated 26-9-1990, that the petitioner failed in 'Teaching of English'. According to the petitioner, he subsequently appeared for Examination in that subject, in 1991. In the meanwhile, he appeared for SSLC Examination as a private candidate in October 1989 and obtained 232 marks. It is said that he had already appeared for SSLC Examination in March 1981 and obtained 41% in English, and thus, he has passed SSLC Examination in full, scoring 273 marks. According to the petitioner, in October 1989 Examination, he did not appear for English paper, i.e, he was absent, since he had obtained 41% in English in march 1981 Examination. So, the total mark of 273, as calculated above, is more than sufficient for admission in Teacher's Training School, is the claim of the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he met the Chief Educational Officer, Chengalpattu, and he was informed that proposals have been submitted to the Director of Examinations for relaxation of Rules relating to prescription of minimum marks for admission in Teacher's Training School, but no orders have been received from the Director of Government Examinations. Thereafter he also met the Secretary to Director of Government Examinations, and he (petitioner) was informed by letter dated 16-8-1994 that records would be obtained from concerned officers for taking action in the matter, to publish the result. Thereafter he also met the Secretary to Director of Government Examinations, and he (petitioner) was informed by letter dated 16-8-1994 that records would be obtained from concerned officers for taking action in the matter, to publish the result. It is his further case that in view of his subsequent obtaining of marks eligible for getting admission to the Teacher Training School, and after his having completed two years course, in the School, there is no reason for withholding his result. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not publishing the result has put him to great hardship, which necessitated the filing of the writ petition. 5. At the time of admission, I heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) also. 6. After having heard learned counsel on both sides, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. Even though the relief sought for seems to be innocent, that is only a direction to respondents to publish the result of the Examination which the petitioner has written. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner is eligible to get admission in the Teacher's Training School. Only if the petitioner is entitled to get admission and write the examination, the question of publishing the result will arise. Whether he failed or passed the Examination is immaterial. Whether he has got a legal right to enforce against the respondents, to compel them to publish the result, is the only question. 8. Even according to the own admission of the petitioner himself in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he has secured only 192 marks out of 500, which is far below the eligible marks for getting admission. But he was sure enough to purchase a seat on payment. But that by itself will not make him eligible to write the examination. Even though he pleads that he was not aware that he was not eligible to be admitted, I do not think that averment in the affidavit could be believed for a moment. 9. The further contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that subsequent to his being admitted, and after having completed the Course, he has written S.S.L.C. Examination once again in October 1989 and has obtained 232 marks. 9. The further contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that subsequent to his being admitted, and after having completed the Course, he has written S.S.L.C. Examination once again in October 1989 and has obtained 232 marks. Adding that with the previous marks obtained by him in English, he has scored 273 marks, which is 23 marks more than the required marks for admission. We are not concerned about his subsequent qualification. We are concerned with the only question whether he was eligible to be admitted during 1985-87 when he under-went the Course. 10. It was further contended that he has been allowed to undergo the Course for more than two years and he has also written the Examination, and when he has placed all the materials before the Authorities, they cannot subsequently contend that he is not eligible. In effect, the contention is on the ground of estoppel. A similar question came for consideration before the Karnataka High Court, which is reported in 1997 ILR(Karnataka) 2253, N. Lokesh v. Bangalore University. The question that came for consideration was under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. A candidate who was not eligible to be admitted, got admitted, i.e., he was not having the basic qualification for admission. He underwent the course for some time. Later, he was discharged. Similar argument as in this case was put-forward before the Karnataka High Court, also. While considering the same, after discussing various decisions, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, it was held thus :- ". . . . It is now well settled that ground of estoppel and equity cannot be called in assistance by a candidate to maintain his admission : (i) where the admission has been obtained by the candidate by fraud or misrepresentation of material facts; and (ii) where the candidate is ineligible for admission and there is a statutory bar against admitting ineligible candidates. In such cases, pursuing the course for a few months will not create any right in favour of the student to claim immunity from cancellation of admission. . . . . ." The learned Judge further went on to say that 'this is not a case of mere procedural irregularity in admission, but a case of absence of the basic and fundamental requirement for admission'. . . . . ." The learned Judge further went on to say that 'this is not a case of mere procedural irregularity in admission, but a case of absence of the basic and fundamental requirement for admission'. In view of this decision of the Karnataka High Court, I do not think that the contention on the ground of estoppel can be sustained. 11. Let us take it for argument's sake that the argument of learned counsel for petitioner could be accepted, what will be the consequence? In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it will be a special rule of admission. The Court cannot recognise such illegalities. 12. Repelling all the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner, I dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Petition dismissed.