Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Petitioner is a scheduled caste student who completed B.Sc. Nursing programme in Indira Gandhi National Open University. Before joining B.Sc. Nursing course, she passed pre-degree course with science subjects as optionals (10+2) in the year 1987. She-also undergone Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery Certificate course conducted by the Kerala Nurses' and Midwifery Council in the year 1989. Duration of the above course is 18 months and is also recognized and accepted by the Indian Nursing Council. After passing the ANM certificate course petitioner joined the Kerala State Health Service as Junior Public Health Nurse in 1989 and has more than 81/2 years experience in the profession. Indira Gandhi National Open University, a Government aided institution has issued prospectus for admission to B.Sc. Nursing degree programme. The above University is conducting courses to help the economically backward persons who cannot afford studying in regular Universities to get higher education. B.Sc. Nursing course for the in-service students was started for the following objects as mentioned in the Prospectus: "The preparation and launching of B.Sc. Nursing degree programme has been agreed upon by IGNOU, at the request of Indian Nursing Council. The need for this was felt as the current pace of providing higher education to working nurses is very slow due to shortage of colleges of Nursing and paucity of seats available in each. As per the New Policy on Education, the emphasis is on the need for making higher education available within the reach of all. Launching of B.Sc. Nursing programme through Open University will meet this objective. Further it also will contribute towards the growth of Nursing profession, promote nation's idea of accelerating women's education and uplifting the weaker sections of the society while ensuring better health care services for the country. The development of this programme has been undertaken with the involvement of nursing experts and scientists and educationists from related disciplines." 2. Main objective of the programme was to provide opportunity to a large segment of in-service nurses to upgrade their knowledge and skills. Eligibility criteria was mentioned in paragraph 2.2 of the prospectus which is as follows: "2.2 Eligibility Criteria for Admission to the programme The admission is open to in-service nurses working in the hospital and community. Main objective of the programme was to provide opportunity to a large segment of in-service nurses to upgrade their knowledge and skills. Eligibility criteria was mentioned in paragraph 2.2 of the prospectus which is as follows: "2.2 Eligibility Criteria for Admission to the programme The admission is open to in-service nurses working in the hospital and community. i) Those who have passed 10+2 with three years Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery or any other nursing course of 6-9 months duration lieu of midwifery with minimum of two years of experience in the profession; or ii) Those who have passed 10th class (Matriculation) or its equivalent with three years Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery or any nursing course of 6-9 months duration in lieu of midwifery with minimum of five years of experience in profession. Only those candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria fixed by the University will be considered for admission." Since the petitioner had 10+2 educational qualification with certificate in nursing course of 18 months duration and more than eight years of experience and was an in-service candidate, she applied for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing programme. After going through the necessary documents, petitioners were admitted to the above course. Paragraph 2.2 of the prospectus states that only those candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria fixed by the University will be considered for admission and they were considered and petitioner was given admission in 1995. She had undergone the course in the Centres and the agreed fee for the programme was also remitted. 3. She studied and completed both theory and practical of the first year course as well as second year course and remitted fee, for the third year and completed the course. Her practical examination was over. She attended 90% of the theory classes and cent percent of the practical classes. She attended the final year practical and viva voce in 1998. But, when she went to write the theory examination on 7.12.1998 after receiving hall ticket etc. petitioner was not allowed to write the examination and she was informed that since she was not eligible for admission to the B.Sc. programme in the year 1995 she cannot write the examination. 4. According to the respondent University since petitioner has not passed all the required qualification, they are not entitled to write the examination. petitioner was not allowed to write the examination and she was informed that since she was not eligible for admission to the B.Sc. programme in the year 1995 she cannot write the examination. 4. According to the respondent University since petitioner has not passed all the required qualification, they are not entitled to write the examination. It is hot disputed that petitioner is a scheduled caste student and has completed three year course after remitting the required fee and wrote the practical examination, viva voce etc. According to the petitioner even though she was very poor she was compelled to spend more. than Rs. 20,000/- as" programme fee besides expenses for stay, travel to Trivandrum etc. It is also not disputed that after going through the papers submitted by the petitioner, the University admitted the petitioner. She was allowed to write the examination and continued her studies for three years she wrote first year and second year examinations and completed the three year course and attended practical studies. What is to be done is only to write final year theory examination. Question is whether after completing the course and undergoing all the yearly examinations, she can be told by the University that she is not entitled to write the final year examination; 5. In Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376) the Supreme Court held that after admission of the student verifying the documents submitted, University has no right to send out the student stating that original decision of the University was wrong. In this case, petitioner who was a scheduled caste student has passed plus two examination and 18 months' ANM course conducted by Kerala Nurses and Midwifery Council recognised by the Nursing Council and had more than eight year experience. Considering the objects of the University and considering the prospectus, it cannot be stated that the above qualification of the petitioner is not sufficient. Here petitioner was admitted and completed the course and therefore, I am of the view that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above is applicable and prohibiting the petitioner from writing the final year examination after completing the course and after spending lot of money is illegal. 6. Here petitioner was admitted and completed the course and therefore, I am of the view that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above is applicable and prohibiting the petitioner from writing the final year examination after completing the course and after spending lot of money is illegal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the University cited a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Rosamma George v.-State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLJ 150), In that case, a student who passed only 7th standard, on a misrepresentation was allowed to write KGTE examination where the minimum qualification was SSLC. When that was found out the examination was cancelled. Petitioner therein had only passed 7th standard. However, in this case, there is no super session of facts. Details of qualification of the petitioner was made known to the University-even before admission. The University found that qualifications were sufficient and admitted her with open eyes and she completed the course in three years and wrote first year and second year examinations. She also completed the practicals, attended viva voce and hall ticket was issued for final year examination. At that time only the University has taken up the question of eligibility. A reading of the prospectus in any way cannot clearly show that petitioners were-not competent as there is some ambiguity even if the interpretation now put forward by the University that the provision in the prospectus for 6 to 9 months' duration in lieu of midwifery is applicable only for those candidates with diploma in general nursing without midwifery course. Petitioner had more than eight years experience, studied plus two and got ANM certificate of 18 months' duration recognized by the Nursing Council. A plain reading of the eligibility criteria can show that the interpretation given by the student and accepted by the University at the time of admission is also possible. The interpretation given by the Standing Counsel even if possible there is no suppression or fraud played by the petitioners and petitioners cannot be blamed for the same. Knowing the entire facts of the case the University considered the matter and gave her admission and she had undergone the full course for three years. In the absence of any suppression of materials by the petitioner, refusal of the University in allowing them to write the examination is incorrect. Knowing the entire facts of the case the University considered the matter and gave her admission and she had undergone the full course for three years. In the absence of any suppression of materials by the petitioner, refusal of the University in allowing them to write the examination is incorrect. The decision reported in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati and another ((1998) 3 SCC 5) also will not support the respondent. When ineligible students were admitted as per the Court order, the Supreme Court held that they should not be allowed to write the examination. Reference was also made to the decision reported in Admission Committee, C.I.I.1995 and another v. an and Kumar and another ((1998) 8 SCC 333). In this case, there is no suppression of facts and after perusing the application form and after satisfaction of eligibility conditions, University itself gave admission and not by court order to admit the petitioner on provisional basis. 7. In this connection, I also refer to the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana and others (AIR 1979 SCC 765) - See paragraphs 41 to 45; and (ii) Miss Arti Sapru v. State of J & K and others (AIR 1981 SC 1009). 8. On the facts of this case, since the petitioner was admitted after perusing the documents and a reading of the prospectus regarding eligibility interpretation in favour of the petitioner is possible and the petitioner studied and completed the course, action of the University in refusing her to write the examination cannot be accepted, I direct the University to re-admit the petitioner to the course and allow her to write the examination in the next chance. The Original Petition is allowed to the above extent.