1. Petitioner-Institution is recognized by respondent No. 1. It is imparting instructions in the discipline of MBA. The students, who join, join after they are found successful in the common entrance test. As per the petitioner, it has a capacity to impart instructions to 60 students. It is further submitted that six students have been given admission after the list furnished by the University was duly exhausted. This is being objected to by the University. Petitioner Institution has come to this Court with a plea that it was well within its rights to admit six candidates over and above the list of candidates furnished by the respondent-University. It is submitted that as seats were lying vacant, these could be filled by the petitioner Institution without reference to the University. For this basis reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1996 SC 2652 T.M. A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnatak Particular reference is being made to paragraph (vi) of the judgment. For facility of reference this paragraph in so far as relevant is being reproduced below:- ...All that we need to add to the said clause is that the action contemplated therein shall be taken within fifteen days of the closing date for admission any seats remaining unfilled thereafter can be filled by the management of the private engineering colleges on their own and in their discretion. This direction shall not apply to medical/dental colleges� It is accordingly submitted by the petitioner that in terms of the aforementioned decision, a discretion vested in the petitioner institution and that discretion has been exercised mi no exception can be taken to it. 2. The stand of the respondent-University is that the students who have been admitted are those who never took part in the process of examination. It is submitted that after tin judgment was given by the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645, Statutes were framed by the Universities dealing with the method and manner in which the admission is to be made in the private institutions. It is submitted that it terms of these Statutes and more particularly Statute 6(c)(v), framed by the respondent University herein, only those candidates are eligible who fulfill the criteria indicated in this Statute. It is submitted that it terms of these Statutes and more particularly Statute 6(c)(v), framed by the respondent University herein, only those candidates are eligible who fulfill the criteria indicated in this Statute. For facility of reference, this Statute is being reproduced below:- For admission to M.B.A. courses a candidate to be eligible, must have pass, the qualifying degree examination in any disciplinary stream with atleast 50% of the aggregate marks (40% for Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates). Candidates who have qualified the final examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants/Cost & Works Accountants/Company Secretaries/Engineers (i.e. AMIE) shall also be eligible for admission provided they have secured atleast 50% of the aggregate marks. Selection for admission to the course shall be made through an Entrance Test, interview and Group Discussion as per programme to be notified by the concerned Department, provided further no candidate shall be eligible for Admission to MBA 1st Semester course unless he has passed the entrance test with atleast 50% marks (40% for SC/ST candidates)." 3. It is accordingly submitted by the University that unless and until a candidate has passed Entrance Test with atleast 50% marks (40% in case of SC/ST candidates), no admission can be granted by the Institution. Thus, passing of Entrance Test with 50% marks is said to be a condition which must exist and if this does not exist, then, as per the University, any admission made would be in breach of the Statute referred to above and cannot be recognized. In addition to this, reliance is being placed on paragraph 170 (4) of the judgment in Unni Krishnans case (surpa), which lays down that "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 the competent authority alongwith applications for admission to Government/University colleges of similar nature". It is accordingly submitted that any admission given would be in breach of the decision given in Unni Krishnans case. It is further submitted that the University did not recognize the admission and gave directions to cancel the candidature of these six candidates. But instead of doing so, the Institution has filed this petition. It is submitted that the cause of action if any, has arisen to the students and the petitioner Institution cannot approach this Court. 4. It is further submitted that the University did not recognize the admission and gave directions to cancel the candidature of these six candidates. But instead of doing so, the Institution has filed this petition. It is submitted that the cause of action if any, has arisen to the students and the petitioner Institution cannot approach this Court. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that but for the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case TMA Pai Foundations case on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, what is stated by the counsel for University would have held the field. The spirit behind the judgment given in Unni Krishnans case was that private institutions should not make any admission of their own. The concern was for the standard of education and also of eligible candidates so that they are given a chance to compete in the process of selection. No exception can be taken to the arguments as advanced by the counsel for the University in this regard. But as indicated above, a perusal of the observations made by the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundations case on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner and a reading of paragraph 4 (vi) of the judgment in the above case makes it apparent that this para does advance the plea put across by the petitioner institution. This paragraph deals with a situation regarding which the Statutes are silent and do not contemplate as to what is to happen if after the Entrance Test, some seats remain unfilled. It was precisely in this area, the directions were given by the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundations case. The observations made in this regard stand noticed above. Therefore, on the basis of above observations, the petitioner institution is right in its submission that it would take recourse to filling the seats at its own level. 5. The counsel for the University has, at this stage, pointed out that the observations made by the Supreme Court on which reliance is being placed by the petitioner institution would operate only if the seats have been offered and out those seats, some candidates do not join. It is submitted that only then, the institution can make a choice of its own. 6. It is submitted that only then, the institution can make a choice of its own. 6. The discretion as indicated above is there and the net result which is likely to ensue is the same and the candidates who are ultimately given admission would be those who have not taken part in the selection process. Therefore, this is an area where there existed no Statute. Therefore, what was held by the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundations case (supra) would be attracted to the facts of this case also. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents also states that even regarding this, Regulations have been framed now and in future such a situation if arises, has been provided for. 8. Leaving the matter as it is and on the basis of position noticed above, the petitioner institution is held to be well within its rights to grant admission and having done so, no exception can be taken to it. 9. There is another aspect of the matter. The students have been imparted instructions for a period of one year. The total duration of the course is two years, therefore, at this stage, it would not be apt to throw them out. What was said in this regard by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajandra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 would be attracted to the facts of this case. In the above case, the students who had passed their examination from Rajasthan were ineligible for admission to B.E. Degree course for Karnataka University. They were granted admission in certain colleges. Their admission was found to be contrary to the rules. However, directions were given by the Supreme Court to let them continue with the course of studies. The relevant observations made are as under: - The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the applicants because the Principals of these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee is 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 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.� Taking note of the observations reproduced above and the observations made in TMA Pai Foundations case, the admission granted by the petitioner institution is being maintained. The University is, however, left free to clarify the Regulation if any, framed in this regard, if not already done so that the area in which there exists a doubt regarding the area as in this case is clarified for future selections. It is also clarified that the petitioner institution in question would not make any selection of their own and in cases they are to do it, they would first refer the matter to the University. The University would also circulate instructions to various private institutions in this regard. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.