ORDER Though all these petitions had come up for consideration on interim applications, with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for final hearing and are disposed of as follows. 2. Petitioners herein are all students of first year diploma in General Nursing who have taken admission in the respective Nursing Schools and are prosecuting their studies. Petitioners in W.P. No. 19694 of 2005 and W.P. No. 19779 of 2005 have sought for quashing the impugned communications dated 5th July, 2005 and 2nd August, 2005 respectively issued by the Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board. Further they have sought for a declaration to declare that, Rule 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma Course in General Nursing, Midwiferly/Psychiatry in Nursing Rules, 2003 is arbitrary, and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and to declare that, petitioners are eligible for admission to the Diploma in Nursing course conducted by respondents. Further, they have prayed to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to complete the Diploma in Nursing course to which they were admitted in the Nursing Schools for the academic year 2004-2005; and further to declare that, the rejection of the examination application of the petitioners by the Board to appear for the first year Diploma in Nursing Course Examinations for the academic year 2004-05 is illegal and contrary to the regulations of the Indian Nursing Council and the Ordinance of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Petitioner in W.P. No. 19741 of 2005 has prayed to direct the Director of Medical Education and Chairman, Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board to approve the admission of petitioner in the fourth respondent-School for admission to Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course for the academic year 2004-05. Petitioner in W.P. No. 18000 of 2005 has prayed to declare that, the petitioner is eligible for admission to the Diploma in Nursing course conducted by the respondent-Board. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the. Petitioner in W.P. No. 18000 of 2005 has prayed to declare that, the petitioner is eligible for admission to the Diploma in Nursing course conducted by the respondent-Board. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the. respondent to allow the petitioner to complete the Diploma in Nursing course to which he was admitted in the PMS School of Nursing, Bangalore for the academic year 2004-05 and to declare that, the non-approval of the admission of the petitioner to the Diploma in Nursing course by the respondents is illegal, and contrary to the Regulations of the Indian Nursing Council and the Ordinance of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Petitioner in W.P. No. 18002 of 2005 has sought for quashing the impugned communication dated 22nd June, 2005 issued by the Board. Further, he has sought for a declaration to declare that, petitioner is eligible for admission to the Diploma in Nursing course conducted by respondents. Further, he has prayed to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the Diploma in Nursing course to which he was admitted in the School of Nursing for the academic year 2004-05; and further to declare that, the rejection of the examination application of the petitioner by the Board to appear for the first year Diploma in Nursing Course Examinations for the academic year 2004-05 is illegal and contrary to the regulations of the Indian Nursing Council and the Ordinance of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that, they have been admitted to the first year Diploma in General Nursing Course for the academic year 2004-05 in the respective Schools and they are prosecuting their studies by attending their classes. When the list of admission was forwarded to the Karnataka State Nursing Council, in respect of petitioners herein, the admission of some of the petitioners was approved by oversight and accordingly, petitioners have volunteered to pay the necessary examination fee. When the list of admission was forwarded to the Karnataka State Nursing Council, in respect of petitioners herein, the admission of some of the petitioners was approved by oversight and accordingly, petitioners have volunteered to pay the necessary examination fee. When the respective Nursing Schools forwarded the same to the Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board, the Board has not accepted the examination fee from the said petitioners and not permitted them to take up the examination and also did not issue the hall tickets on the ground that, all these petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are under age and have not completed 17 years of age as on the cut-off date, i.e., as on 31st August of every academic year and that they are born after 1st September, 1987. Since these petitioners were not issued hall tickets and not permitted to appear in the examination, petitioners herein were constrained to redress their grievance by presenting the instant writ petitions seeking appropriate directions, as stated above. The petitioners have also assailed the correctness of Rule 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Diploma Course in General Nursing, Midwiferly/Psychiatry in Nursing Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called as 'Nursing Rules, 2003' for short) and to declare the said Rule as arbitrary, and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and other reliefs as stated supra. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners vehemently submitted that, the Board was not right in rejecting the application of the petitioners on the ground that, they are under age and fixing the cut-off date as 31st August of every year for completion of 17 years, by the Competent Authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable on the ground that, there is no such age restriction in respect of other professional courses. To substantiate the said submission, he has produced a copy of the Schedule to University Notification dated 4th August, 1997 and 10th June, 1999 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bangalore, i.e., the Ordinance for the Bachelor of Nursing Course (Basic) wherein clause 1(d) of item No, I-Eligibility for Admission, Stipulates that, the student should have completed 17 years of age at the time of admission or will complete this age on or before 31st December of the year of admission. Further, he submitted that, in the instant case, it is stipulated that, the students who are born between 1st September, 1969 and 1st September, 1987 are eligible to taken up the Diploma in Nursing course. But, in respect of these petitioners, there is shortage of age varying from around 19 days to 31;2 months for reaching the age of 17 years, i.e., petitioners herein are born on 17th December, 1987, 20th September, 1987, 11th December, 1987, 25th October, 1987 and 23rd November, 1987 respectively. The petitioners being students have fulfilled all the other eligibility criteria as per the Rules and Regulations of the Diploma Course in General Nursing, Midwifery/Psychiatry in Nursing Rules, 2003 etc., and only after being found eligible, they have been admitted to the respective schools of Nursing and their admission approved by the Board. Now, for no fault of them, the authorities have taken the view that, these petitioners have not completed 17 years of age as on the cut-off date i.e., 31st August of the year of admission. It is the serious grievance of the petitioners that, the said stand taken by the authorities is not justifiable for the reason that, the relevant Rule prescribing the date and month of the year of admission, i.e., fixing 31st August of the year of admission is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustifiable. Further, he submitted that, the Competent Authority, having regard to the huge demand for Nursing course in the present scenario, ought to have taken a just and reasonable decision and encouraged them by approving the admission of these petitioners. He further submitted that, fixing the eligibility of age as completion of 17 years may be struck down, admission of these petitioners may be directed to be approved by the Competent Authorities, results may be directed to be announced and these petitioners may be permitted to complete their Nursing Course. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and submitted at the threshold that, the writ petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be dismissed in limine, for the reason that, it is the minimum requirement for the petitioners being students to verify the eligibility conditions as per the existing regulations before taking admission for any course. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and submitted at the threshold that, the writ petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be dismissed in limine, for the reason that, it is the minimum requirement for the petitioners being students to verify the eligibility conditions as per the existing regulations before taking admission for any course. Petitioners knowing fully well, the age restrictions have volunteered themselves for admission and now have approached this Court seeking social justice contending that, there is only shortage of 19 days to 3½ months to reach the age of 17 years. The said pleading of the petitioners is not permissible for the reason that, the age of 17 years is fixed after discussion and research by the academicians having regard to the students' capability, duration of the respective academic year, as per the relevant rules and regulations of the General Nursing Course and only thereafter, the cut-off date has been fixed as 31st August of the year of admission. In the instant case, admittedly these petitioners have not completed 17 years of age and if these petitioners are allowed to continue, then, it would definitely open a flood gate for other students who have not completed 17 years of age to seek for similar relief. Hence, they are not eligible to take up the General Nursing Course. Once, they are found ineligible by the Competent Authorities, at the time of scrutiny, in strict compliance of the respective academic curriculum, the authorities have taken the decision to disapprove the admission of these petitioners and rightly not permitted the petitioners to appear for the examination. Therefore, no error or illegality as such has been committed by respondents in disapproving the admission of these petitioners. Therefore, they submitted that, the instant writ petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be dismissed having regard to the fact that, eligibility criteria of 17 years of age is fixed as per the norms and guidelines of the Board and hence, interference by this Court is not justifiable. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. After careful evaluation of the material available on record, and after perusal of the relevant rules, it emerges on the face of the material available on record and the relevant rules that, it is undisputed that, petitioners herein have not completed 17 years of age as per the existing Rules at the time of taking up the Diploma in General Nursing Course. Petitioners must first establish that, they are eligible and have completed 17 years of age and fulfilled the basic eligibility criteria for seeking admission to Diploma in Nursing course. When petitioners herein were not eligible to take up the Diploma in Nursing Course, their examination fees have not been accepted and hall tickets have also not been issued by the Competent Authority in respect of the examination scheduled to commence from the month of August 2005. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein have come up. before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. After hearing both the parties, this Court has granted conditional interim order, permitting the petitioners to appear for the ensuing Annual Examination of Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery Examinations which was scheduled to commence from the month of August 2005 and onwards for the academic year 2004-05, subject to the conditions that: (i) petitioners shall not plead equity at the time of arguments; (ii) permission accorded does not give any right in favour of the parties to this proceeding; (iii) permission accorded to subject to final orders of this Court; and (iv) results of the petitioners are not to be announced without the leave of this Court. In pursuance of the said conditional interim order granted by this Court, petitioners have appeared for the aforesaid examination and the result is not yet announced. It is significant to note, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for petitioners that, as per the Ordinance issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bangalore in respect of Bachelor of Nursing Courses (Basic), at Sl. No. 1(d) of item 1 Eligibility for Admission, it is stated that, a candidate seeking admission should have completed 17 years of age at the time of admission or will complete this age on or before 31st December of the year of admission. No. 1(d) of item 1 Eligibility for Admission, it is stated that, a candidate seeking admission should have completed 17 years of age at the time of admission or will complete this age on or before 31st December of the year of admission. But, it can be seen that, the said Bachelor of Nursing Course (Basic) is a degree course whereas, in the instant case, it relates to Diploma in Nursing Course and hence, the same cannot be compared. Further, it is significant to note that, neither the Government nor the respective authorities have produced any regulations/rules that are made applicable to students admitted under the Management quota, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for petitioners. Further, it can also be seen that, as per the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma Course in General Nursing, Midwifery/Psychiatry in Nursing Rules, 2003, published by the State of Karnataka in the Gazette dated 3rd July, 2003, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, it is specifically mentioned that, the said Nursing Rules, 2003 shall apply to the selection of candidates for admission against Government seats to the Diploma course in General Nursing and Midwifery/Psychiatry in Nursing. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents has also not produced any circular or instruction or memo issued by State Government to show that, the said Nursing Rules, 2003 are also applicable to the students admitted under Management quota. It is pertinent to note that, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners also has not produced any such rules/regulations to show that, these rules are not binding on the candidates admitted under the Management quota and that, there are different Rules from the present one in respect of students under Management quota. Therefore, there is no substance in the specific ground urged by learned Counsel for petitioners. In the instant case, these rules are framed after taking opinion/views from the experts in the field, considering the reports from the academicians and taking into consideration the duration of the academic year for Diploma in General Nursing, which starts from 1st September to 31st August every year. The Nursing Council, before framing the Rules would have gone into all these aspects and thereafter fixed the age limit as 17 years having regard to the maturity level and grasping level of the students who take up Nursing course. The Nursing Council, before framing the Rules would have gone into all these aspects and thereafter fixed the age limit as 17 years having regard to the maturity level and grasping level of the students who take up Nursing course. Therefore, interference by this Court is not justifiable in view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by Apex Court and this Court in series of matters. It is settled position that, the Courts must be very reluctant to interfere in academic matters particularly so far as eligibility criteria is concerned. 7. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as stated supra, and particularly taking into consideration the age factor in the instant case, in my view, it would be just and reasonable to direct the Competent Authority to reconsider the matter in respect of eligibility with regard to age of these petitioners, as an exceptional case, however, making it crystal-clear that, the same shall not set precedent for the next academic year and onwards, having regard to these petitioners, being admitted in the respective schools, admission of some of the petitioners being approved by Nursing Council by oversight, prosecuted their respective studies for one academic year and appeared for examination by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, and results are withheld. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the petitioners' case, taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, as stated supra, I am of the considered view that, this matter requires reconsideration by the Competent Authority. 9. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the petitioners' case, taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, as stated supra, I am of the considered view that, this matter requires reconsideration by the Competent Authority. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) Petitioners herein are permitted to give a detailed consolidated representation within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) The Karnataka State Nursing Council, Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board and the State Government are directed to receive the representation to be submitted by petitioners herein and reconsider the matter as an exceptional one, by not setting a precedent to the next academic year and onwards, only so far as petitioners are concerned, in respect of relaxation of age and take appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of representations from petitioners herein; (iii) Further, the Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board is directed to announce the results of these petitioners, which would be subject to the decision to be taken by the Karnataka State Nursing Council and the State Government; (iv) Respondents are directed to permit these petitioners to prosecute their studies for the next academic year, which would also be subject to the result of the final decision to be taken by respondents-the Karnataka State Nursing Council and the State Government, as referred above; (v) Further it is made crystal-clear that, any decision taken by the authorities, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, shall not set a precedent to the next academic year and onwards and similarly· situated students cannot claim it as a matter of right; (vi) Further it is needless to clarify that, there is no impediment for the Competent Authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respective Nursing-Schools, if they have violated any Rules of admission. 10. With these observations, the writ petitions filed by petitioners stand disposed of.