N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitioners seeking a direction directing the first respondent-University to approve the admissions of the petitioners taking the prescription of eligibility as notified by the third respondent AICTE under notification as per Annexure-A by advertisement No. 22/2002 issued and published in the Indian National daily newspaper the New Indian Express edition on Friday, november 1, 2002 and further seeking a direction to the first respondent to treat the requirement of eligibility as one of passing/possessing any recognised Bachelor's Decree of minimum 3 years duration in any discipline, and for the course of study of MCA, requiring a study in the subject of mathematics at 10 + 2 level without prescription of any particular percentage of marks qualifying as notified by the third respondent, AICTE under notification vide annexure A by advertisement in the news paper dated 1-11-2002 as referred above and consequently approve the admission of the petitioners further directing the respondents to give benefit of appearance in the examination that were conducted in February 2003 by announcement of their result, have presented the instant writ petition. ( 2 ) THESE two petitioners are the students of second respondent college undergoing study in the courses of MCA and MBA respectively. The first petitioner has secured percentage of 49. 4 and the second petitioner has secured 49% in the qualifying examinations. Accordingly, they have filed application in the second respondent Institute. They have been admitted and they were prosecuting their studies for one year 2002-03. The college authority-second respondent has forwarded the admission of these petitioners to the first respondent-University for approval of their admissions. Their admissions have not been approved on the ground that as per the existing regulations, the minimum requirement of 50 marks should be possessed in the qualifying examination. At this stage these petitioners felt necessitated to present this writ petition seeking appropriate direction as referred to above. ( 3 ) I heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) THIS matter had come up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 2-9-2003. This Court granted interim order directing the respondents to announce the results of the I and II semester examination of MBA and MCA for which the petitioners were permitted to appear during february and June 2003. ( 4 ) THIS matter had come up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 2-9-2003. This Court granted interim order directing the respondents to announce the results of the I and II semester examination of MBA and MCA for which the petitioners were permitted to appear during february and June 2003. But the announcement of the results will be subject to the final results of the Court. ( 5 ) WHEN these matters had come up for hearing on 16-2-2006, after hearing for quite some time, this Court has directed the Learned Counsel for the first respondent-University to verify the present status of these two petitioners as to whether they have completed the degree course or not. The Learned Counsel for the first respondent University submitted that as per the communication dated 17-2-2006 bearing No. VTU/rob/733-2005-06 sent by the Special Officer, the first petitioner has completed the course and was awarded decree in MCA. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, he has completed his MBA course but yet to pass some subjects. Further, he submitted that as on the date of taking admission of these petitioners as per existing rules, the minimum requirement is 50% of the marks. But in the instant writ petition, the petitioners admittedly lacks 50% of the marks. Therefore, the respondent-University is justified in not approving the admission of these petitioners. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the respondent-University is not justified in taking such stand on the ground that the petitioners may be treated as eligible in pursuance of the advertisement bearing No. AICTE/22/2002 published in the New Indian express news papers Bangalore on Friday November, 1, 2002 vide Annexure A which has been issued during middle of the academic year 2001. The counsel for the petitioner is quick to point out and takes me through the last date for taking admission is end of November. In the instant notification, the first advertisement is published on November, 2002. Further he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in State Of Tamilnadu and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others ( (1995) 4 Supreme Court cases 104. In the instant notification, the first advertisement is published on November, 2002. Further he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in State Of Tamilnadu and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others ( (1995) 4 Supreme Court cases 104. In para 41 (vi), the Apex Court has held thus: "however, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central Law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities act illegally. " ( 7 ) IN view of the said observation made by the Apex Court, admittedly in the instant case, for the year 2002-03 when the petitioners have been admitted, several seats are vacant. Therefore, the aicte has took the decision to reduce percentage for eligibility to admission from, 50% to 35%. Therefore, the admission of these petitioners may be regularized and appropriate direction be issued. Further he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kum. D. H. Samudhayatha Vs. Visveswaraiah Technological University (VTU) and Another ILR 2003 KAR 302, wherein this Court has followed the decisions rendered by the Apex Court reported in rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University and Another AIR 1986 SC 1448 and gurunanak Dev University Vs. Parminder KR. Bansal and Other ( (1993) 4 SCC 401 ) and held that however, the percentage which is relevant for eligibility for admission to MBA course in the optional subject is 50% whereas the petitioner has secured only 49. 83%. In the present writ petition, the first petitioner has secured 49. 4% and second petitioner secured 49% and further aspect that may be taken into consideration before this Court is that this Court has granted interim order permitting the petitioners to prosecute their studies and further ordered to permit them to appear for the examination. After passing of the interim order, they have completed their course and the first petitioner obtained degree. After passing of the interim order, they have completed their course and the first petitioner obtained degree. The University has announced the results of the first petitioner and awarded the decree and the second petitioner has completed the course but yet to pass some subjects. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that percentage reduced from 50% to 35% is applicable to the academic year of 2003-04 cannot be acceptable. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents-University to approve the admission of these petitioner. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, already the degree has been awarded and the same may be regularised. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, the University-Respondent is directed to permit the second respondent to appear in the failed subjects and announce the results. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed off. --- *** --- .