Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph: 1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 32795/2003. The appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, viz., Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, and the Directed Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. The first respondent herein is the third respondent in the writ petition, viz., Kerala KalaMandalan. The second respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner has completed three year decree course in B.A. (performing Arts) from Kerala Kala Mandalam from July 2000 to March 2003. The final year examination of the B.A. decree course is yet to take place. In the meanwhile she applied for admission to M.A. (Theatre) course in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. She was provisionally admitted to M.A. (Theatre) Course subject to the condition that she will produce the marklist and provisional/original degree certificate of the qualifying examination on of before 30.9.2003. Since the qualifying examination has not been conducted the petitioner could not produce the mark list or provisional/original degree certificate of the qualifying examination on or before 30.9.2003. Hence the Director, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit issued Ext.P6 memo dated 1.10.2003 informing the petitioner that her name had been removed from the admission rolls with effect from 1.10.2003. The reason stated in Ext.P6 for removing the petitioner’s name from the admission rolls is that she did not produce the certificates in proof of having passed the Bachelor’s Degree before 30.9.2003. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 writ petition was filed praying for quashing Ext.P6 and for direction to respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition to permit the petitioner to continue her studies for M.A. (Theatre) Degree Course 2003-05 and also to write the first semester examination of the said course. There was also a prayer for a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to conduct B.A. (Performing Arts) Degree examination and publish the result as directed in Ext.P3 judgment. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 27.10.2003 quashing Ext.P6 and directing the University to give sufficient time to the petitioner to obtain the decree certificate after writing the examination being conducted by the Kala Mandalam pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment. The learned Single Judge directed the Kala Mandalam to complete the examination. Publish the result and issue marklist within two months from the date of the judgment. The learned Single Judge directed the Kala Mandalam to complete the examination. Publish the result and issue marklist within two months from the date of the judgment. The learned Single Judge also directed the university to allow the petitioner to write the first year M.A. Examination on a provisional basis. Aggrieved by the directions contained in the judgment dated 27.10.2003 the University has filed the present appeal. 3. Sri. George Poonthottam, learned standing counsel for the first respondent Kala Mandalam submits that the final year B.A. (Performing Arts) examination is scheduled to commence only on the first week of December 2003. Sri. Krishnakumar Mangot, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the first semester examination of the M.A. (Theatre) course is to commerce on 17th November 2003. Thus if the direction of the learned Single Judge to permit the writ petitioner to provisionally appear in the first semester examination of the M.A. (Theatre) course is implemented an anomalous situation will arise that even before appearing in the qualifying examination of B.A. (Performing Arts) the candidate will appear in first semester examination of the M.A. (Theatre) Course such a situation cannot be permitted in law. 4. As in the case of other students the writ petitioner was also allowed to apply for admission to M.A. (Theatre) course pending publication of the results of the qualifying examination. She was given provisional admission to the post Graduate course only subject to a condition that she will produce the marklist and provisional/original degree certificate of the qualifying examination on or before 30.9.2003. While taking admission the writ petitioner had given Annexure B declaration dated 23.6.2003 in the following terms; “I. Anitha. U.S., D/O.K. Unnikrishnan, reading at T.C. 14/602, Puthukunnath, 148, Pranavam Nagar, Mannuthi (PO), Thrissur, hereby declare that I will produce the marklists and provisional/original decree certificate of the qualifying examination on or before 30.09.2003. While taking admission the writ petitioner had given Annexure B declaration dated 23.6.2003 in the following terms; “I. Anitha. U.S., D/O.K. Unnikrishnan, reading at T.C. 14/602, Puthukunnath, 148, Pranavam Nagar, Mannuthi (PO), Thrissur, hereby declare that I will produce the marklists and provisional/original decree certificate of the qualifying examination on or before 30.09.2003. I also understand that the University has the right to cancel my admission to the M.A. Theatre course in the event of my failure in acquiring the required qualification or non production of the marklists and provisional/original degree certificate on the specified date and have no objection in doing so.” Since the admission of the writ petitioner was subject to the condition that she should produce marklist and provisional/original degree certificate of the qualifying examination on or before 30.9.2003 and since the writ petitioner had given a declaration as stated above, the University was well within its rights to issue Ext.P6 memo to the writ petitioner. The action of the University in removing the name of the writ petitioner from the admission rolls with effect from 1.10.2003 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or unjust. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner was in no way responsible for the delay in conducting the qualifying examination and that the first respondent Kala Mandalam alone was responsible for such delay. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petitioner had done everything possible on her part even by filling O.P. Nos. 1573/2002 and 1267/2003. In spite of Exts.P1 and P3 judgments in those writ petitions if the examination has not been conducted so far, the writ petitioner cannot be blamed and she cannot be made to suffer, contends the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. It is true that the writ petitioner was not responsible for the delay in conducting the qualifying examination. At the same time the appellants can conduct courses and give admissions only in accordance with the Rule. The appellants are not bound to admit any students to Post Graduate Course or to allow them to appear in examinations of the Post Graduate course even before the candidates pass in the qualifying examination. It is by way of concession that the students are allowed to apply for admission pending publication of the results of the qualifying examination. The appellants are not bound to admit any students to Post Graduate Course or to allow them to appear in examinations of the Post Graduate course even before the candidates pass in the qualifying examination. It is by way of concession that the students are allowed to apply for admission pending publication of the results of the qualifying examination. Taking into account the normally possible delay in obtaining the marklist and degree certificate of the qualifying examination, the candidates like the writ petitioner were given time upto 30.9.2003 to produce the marklist and degree certificate of the qualifying examination and the candidates were provisionally admitted to the course. Such indulgence shown by the University cannot held against it, when the University tries to enforce the Rules of the University. If the candidates fail to comply with the conditions subject to which admission was granted, such admissions are liable to be cancelled. AT any rate, there is no justification for allowing a student to appear in the examination of the Post Graduate Course even before appearing in the qualifying examination. We are aware of the hardship and disappointment of the writ petitioner who is a very talented girl. At the same time we should also bear in mind the need for strict adherence to the Rules by the University. In the name of Sympathy the Court cannot create confusion and chaos by giving directions to the university to overlook its own Rules and norms relating to admission and conduct of examination. 6. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the action of the University in removing the name of the writ petitioner from the admission rolls with effect from 1.10.2003. If the qualifying examination had already been conducted and if the results are going to be published immediately, we might have taken a different view. But when it is clear that the qualifying examination is not going to be held before the first semester examination of the M.A. (Theatre) Course, we cannot direct the University to show any further indulgence to the writ petitioner. 7. We understand and appreciate the grievance of the writ petitioner against those who are responsible for the delay in conducting the B.A. (Performing Arts) examination in time. Whether such delay is due to any justifiable reasons is a matter to be considered by the appropriate forum or authority while considering such a grievance. 7. We understand and appreciate the grievance of the writ petitioner against those who are responsible for the delay in conducting the B.A. (Performing Arts) examination in time. Whether such delay is due to any justifiable reasons is a matter to be considered by the appropriate forum or authority while considering such a grievance. We do not propose to express any opinion on that aspect. 8. In the above circumstances the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition (C) No. 32795/2003 stands dismissed.