( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this petition being aggrieved by order, Annexure P/1 dated 11th January 2005 issued by the respondent No. 1, University cancelling the admission granted to the petitioner in B. E. , (Bachelor of Engineering) course in the institute of respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) PETITIONER had appeared in the Class xii examination conducted by the Central board of Secondary Education from Patna. She was a student of Patna Central SCH S. Vihar. According to the petitioner, examination was conducted in March 2004. She appeared in the examination but in the main examination she was declared as failed in two subjects, namely; Chemistry and Mathematics. Accordingly, as per rules of the central Board of Secondary Education, she was permitted to take up in supplementary examination of any one of the two subjects. She appeared in the Mathematics subject and was declared as passed and marks sheet, Annexure P/2 was issued to her. According to the petitioner, as per the norms fixed by the Central Board of Secondary education, a candidate who has passed any five subjects out of total six subjects is declared as passed in Class Xll examination and accordingly petitioner has been declared as passed in Class XII examination as is evident from, letter, Annexure P/3 dated 9th december 2004 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education to the Principal of respondent No. 2/institute. ( 3 ) AFTER having passed the Class XII examination as indicated hereinabove, petitioner appeared in the counselling and was granted admission in B. E. , First year course in the respondent No. 2 institute. She deposited the requisite fee and was pursuing the studies when all of a sudden by the impugned letter, respondents have cancelled admission of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that under the Pre-Engineering and pharmacy Test Rules 2004 as contained in Annexure P. 6. The only requirement under Rule 2. 4. 1. 1, is that a candidate should have passed 10 + 2 examination from a recognized Board and petitioner having passed the aforesaid examination, it is argued that the petitioner is eligible to be admitted. Inviting my attention to the provisions of Rule 2. 4. 1. The only requirement under Rule 2. 4. 1. 1, is that a candidate should have passed 10 + 2 examination from a recognized Board and petitioner having passed the aforesaid examination, it is argued that the petitioner is eligible to be admitted. Inviting my attention to the provisions of Rule 2. 4. 1. 1, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is declared to have passed Class XII examination by the central Board of Secondary Examination, the respondents cannot cancel her admission because she has failed in the subject of Chemistry. It is the case of the petitioner that rule does not contemplate passing in each subject. The rule only contemplates that a candidate should have passed 10 + 2 examination with subjects of mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Taking me through the provisions of the rule, shri M. P. S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are incorrectly interpreting the rules, and therefore, seeks quashing of the impugned order. Respondents have refuted the aforesaid. The State Government and the university concerned have categorically stated that a candidate to be eligible for admission in the B. E. course has to pass 10 + 2 examination conducted by a recognised board by taking Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics as the main subjects and should have passed in all the three subjects. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner having failed in the subject of Chemistry cannot be deemed to have been passed Class xii, and therefore, is not eligible to seek admission in the B. E. , course. That apart, inviting my attention to the provisions of rule 2. 3. 9. 2 sub-rule (i), Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel representing the university argued that only such candidates are eligible for admission in B. E. , course who have passed Class XII main examination and not in the supplementary examination. Inter alia contending that petitioner has acquired qualification of Class XII as per rules of Central Board of Secondary Education by appearing in the supplementary examination, respondents contend that on this ground also admission of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, respondents contend that no case for interference is made out. Inter alia contending that petitioner has acquired qualification of Class XII as per rules of Central Board of Secondary Education by appearing in the supplementary examination, respondents contend that on this ground also admission of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, respondents contend that no case for interference is made out. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 5, the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi has filed a separate return and in the return filed by the said respondent also the facts are admitted. However, the said respondent has stated that as per Rule 40. 1 (iv) (b) of the examination Bey-laws, a candidate who has chosen an elective subject as an additional subject may replace one of the elective sub ject offered by the candidate and he may also replace a language provided after replacement the candidate has English and hindi as one of the languages. In the present case, it is stated that petitioner has taken music Hindustani Vocal, subject code (034)as an additional subject which was replaced to elective subject, i. e. Chemistry while preparation of her result and accordingly, she was declared to have been passed in compartmental examination after getting the adequate pass marks in the fifth subject as she appeared in the compartmental examination held in July, 2004 in the subject of mathematics (041 ). Accordingly, the petitioner has been declared as passed the Class xii examination by following the aforesaid rule. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) FROM the records, it is clear that petitioner appeared in the main examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary education in March 2004 from Patna central School S. Vihar, Patna. She was declared as failed in the subjects of Mathematics and Chemistry and she was declared eligible to appear in the supplementary examination. She appeared in the supplementary examination only in the subject of Mathematics and cleared it by getting 42 marks. Thereafter taking help of rule 40,1 (iv) (b), examination Bye-laws, she was declared as passed even though she failed in Chemistry theory paper having obtained only 11 marks. She appeared in the supplementary examination only in the subject of Mathematics and cleared it by getting 42 marks. Thereafter taking help of rule 40,1 (iv) (b), examination Bye-laws, she was declared as passed even though she failed in Chemistry theory paper having obtained only 11 marks. From the marks list issued to the petitioner, after the supplementary examination as contained in Annexure P/2, it is clear that even though petitioner has failed in Chemistry theory paper, her result has been declared as passed after applying the aforesaid rule of the Central Board of Secondary Education. ( 7 ) IT is therefore clear that petitioner has passed Class XII examination by operation of a particular rule even though she had failed in Chemistry theory paper in the examination. That apart, she has cleared the examination in the supplementary examination and not in the main examination. On the backdrop of the aforesaid admitted factual position, now reference may be made to relevant rule in question for deciding the controversy involved in this petition. ( 8 ) RULE 2. 4 of the Preengineering and pharmacy Test 2004 prescribes the requisite eligibility criteria for being eligible for seeking admission in the B. E. , course. Rule 2. 4. 1. 1 contemplates that a candidate to be eligible for admission in the B. E. , course should have passed the examination indicated therein with Mathematics, Physics and chemistry as main subjects. The examinations contemplated are 10 + 2 examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M. P. , Bhopal or any other recognised board, etc. ( 9 ) SHRI Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to interpret the aforesaid rule to mean that a candidate is only required to pass the Class XII examination whereas according to the State government, a candidate has to pass Class xii examination with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry as the main subjects and should have also passed individually in each of the aforesaid three subjects. Rule 2. 4. 1. 1 in Hindi available on record is reproduced hereinabove. (Vernacular matter omitted.) ( 10 ) A perusal of the aforesaid rule indicates that a candidate is required to pass from any recognised Board as detailed therein the Class XII (10+2) examination with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry as the main subjects. Rule 2. 4. 1. 1 in Hindi available on record is reproduced hereinabove. (Vernacular matter omitted.) ( 10 ) A perusal of the aforesaid rule indicates that a candidate is required to pass from any recognised Board as detailed therein the Class XII (10+2) examination with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry as the main subjects. Even though there is no specific mention in the rule that a candidate should pass in each of the subjects separately. Implication of the rule is that a candidate should have passed Class XII examination with Mathematics, Physics and chemistry as the main subjects. Passing class XII examination with the aforesaid three subjects as the main subjects would necessarily mean passing individually each of the subject. This could be the only meaning of the rule because any other meaning would lead to a peculiar situation. For example, if a specific rule applicable in a particular Board or University provides that a candidate even though securing less than the pass marks in the subjects of Physics, chemistry and Mathematics may still be declared as passed as per the provisions of rules applicable in that Board or University, a candidate may be declared as passed Class xii examination and on the ground that the candidate has passed Class XII examination, admissions could be granted to students even though he or she failed in all or any of the main subjects. This could never be the intention of the rule makers. When the rule contemplates that a candidate should have passed Class XII examination with Mathematics, Physics and chemistry and as the main subjects. It would also mean that a candidate should have passed Class XII examination and passing individually in each of the aforesaid three subjects is also necessary to be eligible for admission. ( 11 ) A candidate falling in one of the aforesaid subjects cannot be granted admission on the basis of interpretation advanced by shri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. ( 12 ) PETITIONER in the present case has failed in the subject of Chemistry theory and having failed in the subject of Chemistry, it cannot be said that petitioner has passed class XII examination with Mathematics, physics and Chemistry as the main subjects. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. ( 12 ) PETITIONER in the present case has failed in the subject of Chemistry theory and having failed in the subject of Chemistry, it cannot be said that petitioner has passed class XII examination with Mathematics, physics and Chemistry as the main subjects. Petitioner has failed in the subject of chemistry and that being so, the respondents have refused to grant admission to her as she has not passed Class XII with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as the main subjects. ( 13 ) APART from the aforesaid provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2. 3. 9. 2 also prescribes a condition that a candidate should pass in the main examination and a student passing in the supplementary examination is not eligible for admission. Admittedly, in the present case, petitioner has failed in the subject of Chemistry and Mathematics in the main examination and she was declared passed after appearing in the supplementary examination in the subject of Mathematics. That being so, petitioner is not eligible for admission even under this rule. During the course of hearing, Shri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasise that this rule has become redundant and persons having passed Class XII examination in the supplementary examination have been granted admission. The said question need not be considered in this petition as the petitioner is ineligible for admission to the course in question on the basis of interpretation of Rule 2. 4. 1. 1 as held hereinabove. ( 14 ) IT was finally submitted by Shri raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been granted admission in the year 2004 and she has completed one year course and has appeared in the First Year of B. E. , course, and therefore, petitioner seeks sympathetic consideration in the matter. ( 15 ) QUESTION of sympathetic consideration in such cases has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Regional officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran (2003) 7 SCC 719 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3720 ) and in paragraph 6 of th aforesaid Judgment it has been so observed as under :" Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions. A few decisions on the point may be perused. In C. B. S. E. v. P. Sunil Kumar. A few decisions on the point may be perused. In C. B. S. E. v. P. Sunil Kumar. (19981 5 SCC 377 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2235 1 the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the examination of the Central Board of Secondary education were not affiliated to the board hence the students were not entitled to appear in the examination. They were. however, allowed to appear in the examination under the interim orders granted by the court in contravention of the rules and regulations of the Board. The High Court considering the matter sympathetically had not interfered, but this Court observed thus (SCC p. 381. para 41"but to permit students of an unaffillated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the court and then to compel the Board to Issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students. "another decision reported in Guru Nanak dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 : ( AIR 1993 SC 2412 ) a three-Judge Bench decision, we relied upon in the case of Sunil Kumar ( AIR 1998 SC 2235 ) (supra ). A passage from the above noted decision was also quoted therein which reads as follows :"we are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, illconceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates "yet another decision referred to is reported in A. P. Christians Medical Education society v. Govt. of A. P. , (1986) 2 SCC 667 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ), again a three judge Bench decision. It was observed in this case (para 10) :"we cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. of A. P. , (1986) 2 SCC 667 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ), again a three judge Bench decision. It was observed in this case (para 10) :"we cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 16 ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid legal principle as enunciated by the Supreme court and having held that petitioner ineligible for admission on the basis of the rules governing admissions, I find no case is made out for granting any relief to the petitioner. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, I find no ground to interfere in the matter and the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .