S. N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner hails from Himachal Pradesh. He completed his 12th standard during the year 2000 from the Himachal Pradesh Board of education. He was admitted to the first year medical course for the academic year 2000-01 in the second respondent-college. The petitioner contends that he has produced the marks card of the 12th standard examination held during the year March 2000, based on which he was admitted to the course. The petitioner attended the classes regularly and he has undergone the training. When the second respondent-college forwarded the admission papers of the petitioner for approval to the rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the first respondent herein, the admission of the petitioner was not approved. The petitioner contends, though he was admitted on the basis of the marks card that he had produced, he had taken examination for improvement of the Physics paper and the marks card of the Physics was furnished to the college after improvement. When he made efforts to find out why his admission is not approved neither the college nor the University gave him any satisfactory explanation for not approving his admission. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition for declaration that action of the" respondent in not approving the admission of the petitioner and in not communicating the information is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and for a direction to approve his admission for the academic year 2000-01. ( 2 ) THE petitioner submits, on 18-4-2002 this Court by an interim order directed the University to receive the examination fee and permit the petitioner to appear for the examination subject to the condition that he shall not claim any equity and further direction was given not to announce results. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the fee and took the examination. Subsequently, the second respondent-college by a communication dated 20-6-2002 as per Annexure-H informed the petitioner that as his admission is not approved by the University, he is discharged from the college. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ petition with an additional prayer. Subsequently, the second respondent-college by a communication dated 20-6-2002 as per Annexure-H informed the petitioner that as his admission is not approved by the University, he is discharged from the college. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ petition with an additional prayer. He challenged the validity of the said communication from the second respondent-college discharging him from the college and also sought for an additional relief that the discharge of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and in the alternative he sought for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as having been admitted for the academic year 2001-02 and allow him the benefit of training and education undergone by him and to complete the course, in which event he also sought for an additional relief of damages of Rs. 6,00,000/- for wasting one precious academic year. ( 3 ) THE second respondent-college has filed its statement of objections. It is contended that at the time of admission, the petitioner made a representation that he has passed Plus Two examination of the Board of secondary School of Education, Himachal Pradesh, held in March 2000 in second class and produced character certificate and migration certificate to support his claim. When he was asked to produce the marks card he stated that he has appeared for the improvement examination of physics held on 6-9-2000. When he did not produce the marks card the college wrote a letter to Himachal Pradesh Board to send the marks card and in reply to the same the communication was sent by the Board informing the college that he has secured more than 50% of the marks in the relevant subjects. However, the University by a letter dated 31-10- 2001 did not approve the admission of the petitioner. Again the college made a representation for reconsideration of the issue and the petitioner was also informed about the non-approval. The college has made efforts to join him to the next year 2001-02. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not available and the college could not help the petitioner. Again when the petitioner approached the college, the college offered him a seat in I year BAMS course for the academic year 2002-03. They contend, after accepting the said offer the petitioner approached this Court making false representation. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not available and the college could not help the petitioner. Again when the petitioner approached the college, the college offered him a seat in I year BAMS course for the academic year 2002-03. They contend, after accepting the said offer the petitioner approached this Court making false representation. Therefore, they submit that there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE second respondent-college has filed additional statement of objections traversing the allegations made in the amended petition. They denied having collected Rs. 2. 5 lakhs as donation and that the petitioner has spent nearly Rs. 2. 5 lakhs towards his expenses. It is again asserted that at the time of admission the college had insisted upon production of marks card, the petitioner made a representation that he has surrendered the same to the Examination Board for improvement of his marks and assured that he will produce the same immediately after receiving it. At the time of admission the documents produced disclosed that he had passed the qualifying examination in second class but he had suppressed the material fact that he had not secured 50% marks in Physics. Had the petitioner disclosed the same at the time of admission the college would not have admitted the petitioner. On the other hand, it would have allotted the same seat to some other eligible student. Therefore, they submit that in view of the misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner the college had lost one seat for the academic year 2000-2001 and the infrastructure developed by the college is wasted. The college has suffered substantial loss of fee and the petitioner is liable to compensate the said loss of fee. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended, though on the date he was admitted to the college the petitioner had not secured 50% marks in the aggregate in the subjects of Biology, Physics and Chemistry, at the time of admission he made it clear that he has taken supplementary examination for the purpose of improvement insofar as the subject Physics is concerned and therefore subsequently in the said subject he has secured 51% and therefore he has acquired the eligibility for admission to I year BAMS course. Therefore, the University is not right in not approving his admission. Therefore, the University is not right in not approving his admission. ( 6 ) PER Contra, learned Counsel for the University submits, as per the qualification prescribed for admission under the revised ordinance for bams Degree Programme the student must have passed the two years puc examination of the Pre-University Education Board or any other recognised University as equivalent therein with English as one of the languages and Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optionals with minimum 50% marks in the aggregate of relevant science subjects, and in this view of the matter, as the petitioner has not secured 50% of the marks in aggregate in the relevant science subjects on the date of admission, his admission cannot be approved. In support of his contention he also relied on a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of juspreeth Singh Bhatia v State of Karnataka and Others, wherein it has been held that the relevant point of time for the purpose of considering eligibility is the date of admission of the candidate and therefore any improvement subsequent to the date of the admission would be of no assistance to the candidate and on that basis he cannot seek approval of his admission. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the college submitted, on a misrepresentation made by the petitioner he was admitted to the college and on their part they have done their best to see that his interest is protected but it is the University which has not approved the admission. In fact, they have gone to the extent of offering a seat to the petitioner for the subsequent academic year and therefore under no circumstances they can be found fault with and no damages as claimed by the petitioner could be granted. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid rival contentions and the undisputed facts, what emerges is this: The petitioner has completed his 12th standard in the year 2000 from the Himachal Pradesh Board of Education. He has secured second class in the said examination securing 208 marks out of 400 marks. He has secured 53 marks in Biology, 43 marks in Physics and 50 marks in Chemistry. Therefore, the aggregate of all these three science subjects is less than 50% which is prescribed as the requisite qualification for admission to I year BAMS course. He has secured second class in the said examination securing 208 marks out of 400 marks. He has secured 53 marks in Biology, 43 marks in Physics and 50 marks in Chemistry. Therefore, the aggregate of all these three science subjects is less than 50% which is prescribed as the requisite qualification for admission to I year BAMS course. In fact, the last date for admission without fine was 15-9-2000 and with fine was 30-9-2000. During this interregnum he was admitted on 25-9-2000. Last date prescribed for submitting list of students for approval who are admitted to college is 15-11-2000. Accordingly, the college submitted petitioner's name also in the said list. The college did not submit along with the list the marks card and in spite of repeated request by the University the said marks card was not supplied. When the student did not furnish the marks card the college wrote a letter to the Himachal Pradesh Education board to send the marks list. It is in pursuance of the said request the marks list was sent as per Annexure-D on 8-11-2000. The said marks list shows that the petitioner has secured 51 marks in Physics, 50 marks in Chemistry and 53 marks in Biology. As such he has secured more than 50% in aggregate and that he was eligible for admission. However, the University did not approve the said admission on the ground that on the date of admission he did not possess the said qualification. ( 9 ) IT is also not in dispute that the petitioner secured 43 marks in physics, he sat for a supplementary examination for improvement of the said marks and in the said supplementary examination he has secured 51 marks. If that marks is taken into consideration the petitioner has the requisite qualification for admission to I year BAMS course. Therefore, the short point that arise for my consideration is what is the relevant point of time for the purpose of considering the eligibility of the students for admission to the I year BAMS course. If that marks is taken into consideration the petitioner has the requisite qualification for admission to I year BAMS course. Therefore, the short point that arise for my consideration is what is the relevant point of time for the purpose of considering the eligibility of the students for admission to the I year BAMS course. ( 10 ) A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Juspreeth Singh Bhatia, supra, has held as under: "the relevant point of time for taking into consideration the eligibility is date of admission of the candidate and that even if the candidate has passed the qualifying examination by taking supplementary examination, the same would be sufficient to declare him eligible". In the aforesaid judgment the admission was made after the results of the supplementary examination was announced. In that context it has been held that the question to be considered is on the date of the admission whether he has secured necessary marks either in the original examination or supplementary examination. But in the instant case, the petitioner was admitted on 25-9-2000. Even if the last date fixed for admission with fine is taken into consideration it is 30-9-2000. The petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for admission to the I year BAMS course on that date. He acquired the eligibility only on 18-11-2000 having secured 51 marks in supplementary examination. Therefore it is clear, on the date of admission to BAMS course or on the last date fixed for admission, the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for admission to 1 year BAMS course. Acquisition of requisite qualification subsequent to the last date fixed for admission would not render an admission made contrary to the rules and regulations, valid for the purpose of approving such admissions. If such things are permitted it would nullify the entire scheme of admissions, examinations and course of study meticulously prepared by the academic bodies and would add to chaos and confusion, which is already prevailing in the field of education. Therefore, possessing of requisite qualification on the date of admission or the last date fixed for admission to a course is a sine qua non for approving admission for that particular academic year. Under these circumstances, the University was justified in not approving the admission of the petitioner for the academic year 2000-2001. Therefore, possessing of requisite qualification on the date of admission or the last date fixed for admission to a course is a sine qua non for approving admission for that particular academic year. Under these circumstances, the University was justified in not approving the admission of the petitioner for the academic year 2000-2001. ( 11 ) INSOFAR as the stand of the college is concerned that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts to the college and secured admission and therefore he is not entitled to any damages is concerned, I do not find any substance in the said contention. In the additional statement which is filed, the college has categorically stated that if the petitioner had disclosed that he has not secured 50% marks in Physics he would not have been admitted to the college. It is not the question of the petitioner disclosing the marks which he has obtained, the college should insist on the production of the marks list of the qualifying examination and find out for themselves whether the petitioner had requisite minimum qualification as per the relevant regulations which fully bind them. An admission to a professional college cannot be made on the basis of oral assurance and oral representations. The very fact they concede that the petitioner represented to them that he has surrendered the marks card to the Examination Board for improvement of his marks is sufficient to put them on notice that only a person who has not secured the minimum marks would seek for improvement. Therefore, it is not a case of misrepresentation by the petitioner. He has spoken the true facts. Without properly verifying and looking into the marks card, for the sake of capitation fee the college had given admission. Under these circumstances, this conduct of the college in admitting the student is clearly in violation of the regulations governing these admissions. However, as they have taken a reasonable stand that they would accommodate the student for the academic year 2001-2002, thereby they have mitigated the damages suffered by the petitioner. I do not propose to award any damages sought for by the petitioner against the college. However, as they have taken a reasonable stand that they would accommodate the student for the academic year 2001-2002, thereby they have mitigated the damages suffered by the petitioner. I do not propose to award any damages sought for by the petitioner against the college. However, it is made clear as the petitioner has paid the fee for the academic year 2000-2001 and now that the admission will be given for the academic year 2001- 2002 the college shall not be entitled to any fee for this academic year. Further, as undertaken by them in the statement of objections the college shall send the statement of admission of the petitioner for the academic year 2001-2002 forthwith so that the said admission is approved by the University and the petitioner would complete his course in the said college. In the light of the above observations, I pass the following order. ( 12 ) THE second respondent-college is directed to forward the statement of admission of the petitioner to the University for the academic year 2001-2002 forthwith. On receipt of such statement of admission, the first respondent-University shall approve the petitioner's admission for the academic year 2001-2002. ( 13 ) THE second respondent-college shall not collect fees from the petitioner for the academic year 2001-2002 and permit the petitioner to complete his course without any impediment. ( 14 ) IN view of the fact that the declaration sought for by the petitioner for approving his admission for the academic year 2000-2001 is not granted; the examination which he has taken by virtue of the interim order would be of no assistance and there is no obligation cast upon the University to announce the result of such examination. ( 15 ) NO costs. --- *** --- .