S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated 3-9-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 9072 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned judge has disposed of the writ petition directing: accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-University to permit the students to appear for 1st year examination and declare their results, if not already done. If the candidates have passed the 1st year examination, they shall be allowed to undergo 2nd year course in accordance with rules. However, this order is passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it shall not be quoted as precedent in any other subsequent case. No costs. ( 2 ) THE respondent-College filed the aforementioned writ petition claiming inter alia the following reliefs:. . . . to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing Hall Tickets to the 7 students studying 1st year B. C. A. in the petitioner s college as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, violative of Article 14 and consequently compelling the respondents to permit the students viz. , 1. N. Satish Kumar, 2. V,u. Reddy, 3. V. H. Babu, 4. Abdul Altaf, 5. Fasih Ahmed Jaleel, 6. M. Vinod Kumar, 7. K;praveen to appear for the examination scheduled on 2nd, 4th, 6th of May and the 2 practical examinations to be conducted of 1st year, B. C. A. for the academic year 2000-2001 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The Osmania University has not recognised the Bachelor of Computer application (B. C. A.) Course run by the writ petitioner-College. Despite the same, the students for the academic year 2000-2001 were admitted into the said course. The college, however, filed a writ petition marked as WP No. 16075 of 2000 seeking a direction upon the respondents to put it on the counselling list of the State. Allegedly, in the said writ petition the Court directed the University to allow the College for conducting the counselling for the 1st year b. C. A. Course. The college, however, filed a writ petition marked as WP No. 16075 of 2000 seeking a direction upon the respondents to put it on the counselling list of the State. Allegedly, in the said writ petition the Court directed the University to allow the College for conducting the counselling for the 1st year b. C. A. Course. However, it is stated that as regards the College no counselling was done, but however, it, pending approval by the appropriate authority, admitted seven students. It is accepted at the Bar that some deficiencies have been noticed in november, 2000 by the Osmania University in the list of candidates approved by the convener, B. C. A. CET and no doubt neither a letter from the academic head nor a certificate from the audit authority had been produced before this Court. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant herein to permit the students to appear for the 1st year examination and declare results. It was further directed that if the candidates have passed the 1st year examination, they shall be allowed to undergo 2nd year course in accordance with rules. ( 5 ) MR. Ramakanth Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has inter alia submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the concerned students have not filed a writ petition. The learned Counsel would contend that a non-minority institution, admittedly, couldn t admit students of its own. The university or any other authority had never approved the action of the writ petitioner- respondent. ( 6 ) OUR attention has been drawn to the admission made by the college in its affidavit to the effect that admission of the students had been made in anticipation of counselling. The learned Counsel would further contend that it was not a case where sympathy alone could have a role to play in issuing the impugned directions. ( 7 ) MR. N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-College on the other hand would submit that it is not a case where students are guilty of any fraud. It is also not a case where the college has violated the provisions of any statute. ( 7 ) MR. N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-College on the other hand would submit that it is not a case where students are guilty of any fraud. It is also not a case where the college has violated the provisions of any statute. The learned counsel would contend that the object of counselling being limited, the students cannot be deprived of the benefit of counselling, although they might have been admitted illegally. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has relied upon various decisions which have been referred to in B. Vijender Reddy v. Sri Venkateswara university, 1997 (1) ALD 581 and submitted that the said decision was rendered having regard to the fact that therein the students secured admission by playing fraud on the university with the help of its staff. ( 8 ) TO provide regulation of admissions into educational institutions and to prohibit the collection of Capitation Fee in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh legislature enacted Act No. 5 of 1983 known as the Andhra Pradesh Educational institutions (Regulation of Admissions and prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983. Pursuant to the said Act, Rules were framed for holding entrance examination inter alia for B. C. A. Course. The Andhra Pradesh state Council of Higher Education has also issued guidelines for starting B. C. A. Programme (Un-Aided) in Private Degree colleges from the Academic Year 1998-99 and the Government has approved the said guidelines. The said guidelines provide for various requirements, which are to be fulfilled by the college before admission of students into the colleges. The said guidelines inter alia provide that inspections are to be made by the Expert Committee and on the basis of its recommendations alone the a. P. State Council of Higher Education is required to initiate further action in the matter. The said guidelines clearly state that admission to the said programme would be regulated by the respective universities. ( 9 ) IN a meeting held by the Admission committee of B. C. A. on 5-8-1998, the procedure for admission to B. C. A. Course had been laid down. The said guidelines clearly state that admission to the said programme would be regulated by the respective universities. ( 9 ) IN a meeting held by the Admission committee of B. C. A. on 5-8-1998, the procedure for admission to B. C. A. Course had been laid down. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of admission of students by a college imparting B. C. A. Course the students are not only required to appear at the entrance test conducted by the University, but are also subjected to counselling, having regard to the rankings obtained by them and those students, whose names take place in the list sent by the Convener of the committee, can only be admitted into a college. ( 10 ) THE learned single Judge has himself found some deficiencies in the process of making admission. The Court, however, has not gone into the question as to whether the admission had been made in accordance with rules or not, having regard to the interim direction granted by the Court to allow the students to appear at the examination and furthermore having regard to the fact that they have completed half of the duration of the entire course. ( 11 ) BY a letter dated 24-11 -2001, which was addressed to the Principal of the College, it was stated: the following Examination Application form (s) of B. C. A. pertaining to your college are kept pending/rejected in view of objection mentioned against each Hall-Ticket number: h. T. NO. Name and Year objection b. C. A. all the forms returned herewith your College B. C. A. 1st Year exam found under objection for want of the following permissions: (7 forms) 1. List of candidates approved by B. C. A. Convenor. 2. No Dues letter from the D. R. Academics. 3. Clearance letter from the Director, A. A. C. 4. List of Faculty Members. The objections may be cleared within a week from the date of issue of this letter, failing which the registration will be treated as CANCELLED. ( 12 ) IT is not in dispute that the said requirements have not been complied with. ( 13 ) IN the aforementioned situation, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the admission of students by the college was contrary to law. ( 12 ) IT is not in dispute that the said requirements have not been complied with. ( 13 ) IN the aforementioned situation, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the admission of students by the college was contrary to law. ( 14 ) THE only question, which therefore arises for consideration, is whether the learned single Judge could have issued the impugned directions only on sympathy? ( 15 ) THE law operating in this field is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court has recently delivered a judgment in Ch. Anitha and 11 others v. State of andhra Pradesh, 2001 (2) ALD 358 , wherein s. R. Nayak, J. , held: we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that if the Court were to refuse relief to the petitioners, the petitioners would be subjected to untold misery and hardship and therefore the case of the petitioners be treated with a touch of sympathy and on humanitarian grounds. When the educational authorities find the petitioners-students to be bogus students for B. Ed. Course and this court finds that finding recorded by the educational authorities that the petitioners are not genuine students is not baseless, this court on the basis of misplaced sympathy and humanitarian grounds cannot direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to complete the course and to appear for the examinations, and if the Court were to grant such relief, undoubtedly the Court would be overstepping its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution and violate sound self-imposed restraints and limitations on the power of judicial review. This view of ours is fully fortified by a catena of pronouncements of the Supreme Court in c. B. S. E. v. P. Sunil Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 377 , Andhra Pradesh Christians Medical educational Society v. Government of Andhra pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 667 , State of Tamil nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers Training institute, (1991) 3 SCC 87 : JT (1991) 2 SC 343, State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435 , Guru Nanak dev University v. Parminder KR. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 , to cite a few. Joseph Teachers Training institute, (1991) 3 SCC 87 : JT (1991) 2 SC 343, State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435 , Guru Nanak dev University v. Parminder KR. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 , to cite a few. Further, the following observation of the Supreme court in Central Board of Secondary education v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998) 3 SCC 5 , is quite apposite in the context of this case and the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners:"1. Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted, under Court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the Courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process; more so when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is repeated time and again. Having said thus much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders, for it puts the "rule of Law" to a mockery, and promotes rather the "rule of Man". ( 16 ) ONE amongst us (S. B. Sinha, CJ) in a separate but concurring judgment, in ch. Anitha (supra) noticed: 9. Sympathy alone cannot be a ground for grant of relief which would be contrary to law. This aspect of the matter has also been considered in Ashok Saha v. State of West bengal, Cal LT 1999 (2) 1, wherein it was held: 14. The said decision therefore, is also distinguishable on facts. On the other hand there are series of decisions wherein the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law that a pupil who is not entitled to appear in the examination should not be allowed to do so in violation of the statutory regulation. Reference in this connection, may be made to A. P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of A. P. reported in 1986 (2) scc 677; State of T. N. v. St. Reference in this connection, may be made to A. P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of A. P. reported in 1986 (2) scc 677; State of T. N. v. St. Joseph teacher s Training Institute reported in 1991 (3) SCC 37; State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale reported in 1992 (4) SCC 435 ; Central Board of secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati reported in 1998 (3) SCC 5 ; Central Board of Secondary Education v. Sunil, 1997 (1) CLJ 143, a Division Bench of this court was considering a matter relating to the right of a person to take admission and not with the question raised therein. In this jurisdiction also a Division Bench of this Court in Central Board of secondary Education and others v. Adarsh Kumar Sedhwarayar and others reported in 1998 (2) CHN 61 upon considering the aforementioned decision as also the decision of the Apex Court in guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder kumar Bansal and another reported in 1993 (4) SCC 401 = AIR 1993 SC 2412 as also other decisions held: it is beyond any dispute that the said park Point School was not affiliated with the appellant. The writ petitioner might have taken admission under a misconception but it is beyond any cavil of doubt that unless the statute permits appearance of students as private candidates they cannot be permitted to do so . 15. The Bench further noticed: in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar and another reported in AIR 1994 SC 2148 , the law has been laid down in the following terms: thus apart from the directions as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. 10. In G. Kalyan Sundaram v. UCO Bank and another, Cal LT 1995 (2) HC 201 one of us (S. B. Sinha, C. J.) had observed that in the fact of that case even sympathy has no role to play. In Latham v. Richard Johnson and Nephew ltd. , 1911-13 AER (Reprint) 117, Farwell, l. J. observed: we must be careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. In Latham v. Richard Johnson and Nephew ltd. , 1911-13 AER (Reprint) 117, Farwell, l. J. observed: we must be careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will O the wisp to take as a guide in the search for legal principles. " 12. In the State of Tamil Nadu and others v. St. Joseph Teachers Training College, (1991) 3 SCC 87 , reported in (1991) 3 SCC page 87 the Apex Court observed that Court cannot grant relief on humanitarian ground contrary to law. ( 17 ) YET again, in Gurdeep Singh v. State of Jandk and others, 1995 Supp. (1) scc 188, the Apex Court has clearly held that humanitarian consideration alone cannot itself be a ground for granting a relief. The apex Court also held: we are afraid, unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in Courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself; engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analysis embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of Respondent 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion, is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of respondent 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion, is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of respondent 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We think in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we should quash the selection and admission of respondent 6. We do so, though, however, reluctantly. ( 18 ) THE Apex Court in Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1188 , held: a similar request was made by Shri Garg that the students who have undergone training for the one year course in these private institutions may be allowed to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that permission might not be accorded to them. We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the government. If by a fiat of the Court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 of the constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers training Institutes are meant to teach children. of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs. ( 19 ) YET again, in Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , whereupon Mr. Suryanarayana Murthy has placed reliance, the Apex Court appears to have exercised its jurisdiction under articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of india in the fact situation obtained therein. Therein the Apex Court held: 8. . . . But the question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were admitted. Therein the Apex Court held: 8. . . . But the question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of this court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective engineering colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the engineering colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the principles of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment, allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring engineering colleges the Karnataka university should take appropriate action because the managements of these engineering colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the engineering degree course. We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students. We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students. ( 20 ) IN Rajendra Prasad (supra) the apex Court ought to have considered the case of the students as they were prosecuting the course in the respective engineering colleges under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of the Apex court and their admissions should not be disturbed at a stage when they have prosecuted four years of course since their admission and if they are thrown out at that belated stage their whole future will be blighted. ( 21 ) THE writ petitioner-College however cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong from the aforementioned legal position in Rajendra prasad (supra ). If only by reason of sympathy the students are allowed to prosecute their course in an educational institution, particularly when it is accepted that it could not admit students of its own and also when its action for admission of students has never been approved, then the flood gates would open. ( 22 ) IN Shri Krishnan v. The kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, air 1976 SC 376 , admit cards were issued to the students therein and in that view of the matter the Apex Court held that they were held to be entitled for declaration of the results. Such is not the position herein. ( 23 ) IT must also be borne in mind that the Apex Court in Vnnikrishnan J. P. v. State of A. P. , AIR 1993 SC 2178 , has laid down the law clearly in the following terms: no professional college shall call for applications for admission separately or individually. All the applications for admission to all the seats available in such colleges shall be called for by the competent authority alone, among with applications for admission to Government/university Colleges of similar nature. For example, there shall be only one notification by the competent authority calling for applications for all the medical colleges in the State and one notification for all the engineering colleges in the State and so on. The application forms for admission shall be issued by the competent authority (from such offices, centres and places as it may direct ). For example, there shall be only one notification by the competent authority calling for applications for all the medical colleges in the State and one notification for all the engineering colleges in the State and so on. The application forms for admission shall be issued by the competent authority (from such offices, centres and places as it may direct ). The application form shall contain a column or a separate part wherein an applicant can indicate whether he wishes to be admitted against a payment seat and the order of reference, up to three professional colleges. ( 24 ) THE B. C. A. course is a professional course and the writ petitioner-College is a professional institution and therefore the aforementioned decision will apply on all fours to the fact of the present matter. ( 25 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. The students who have wrongly been admitted may take recourse to such remedies against the college, as they may be held entitled thereto. The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.