Judgment :- Common issues arise in these writ petitions and therefore they re being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A very important question of general public importance arises in these cases, which, in fact, would indirectly affect the very basis of the educational system in this State as a whole as a necessary consequence. The matter relates to the date on which the eligibility criteria for the purpose of admission to the B.Ed course in the State for the year 2006-2007 is to be reckoned. The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations issued prospectus for admission to B.Ed. courses, 2006 in the State of Kerala as approved by the Government of Kerala vide G.O(Rt) No. 107/2006/H. Edn. Dated 17-1-2006. The prospectus is stated to be applicable for admission to B.Ed. Degree courses in Government/Aided/Private Self-financing Colleges in Kerala. As per the prospectus, the course in the various colleges, especially in private self-financing colleges consisted of three types of seats, namely, (a) merit seats, (b) management seats and (c) lapsed seats. Clause 5.2.1 prescribes the eligibility criteria for admission to the B.Ed. Course. As per the same, the minimum requirement for admission to B.Ed. Course was 45% marks in Bachelor's Degree (Science/Arts subjects) in aggregate (i.e. for Part I + II + III). The clause also specifically stipulated that the applicant should be qualified in all respects as on the last date of submission of the application form. In respect of the merit seats which are to be filled by the State in Government Colleges/Aided Colleges/Private Self-financing Colleges, the admission was on the basis of a rank list W.P.C.No. 15317/2006 etc prepared, based on marks obtained by the candidate in the entrance examination conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations and the qualifying examination added together in the ration 6:4. However, in respect of the management seats, especially in private self-financing colleges, the admission was to be made by the managements themselves. The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations issued a notification dated 14-2-2006 inviting applications for entrance examination for admission to B. Ed. Degree course in Government/Aided/Private Self-financing colleges in the State for 2006-'07. However, in respect of the management seats, especially in private self-financing colleges, the admission was to be made by the managements themselves. The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations issued a notification dated 14-2-2006 inviting applications for entrance examination for admission to B. Ed. Degree course in Government/Aided/Private Self-financing colleges in the State for 2006-'07. As per clause 5 of the said notification, the filled in application form along with the OMR DATA SHEET and other relevant documents to be submitted with the application form was to be sent in the printed envelop bearing the address of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations supplied along with the application form so as to reach the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations before 5 p.m. on 8-3-2006 meaning thereby that the last date for submitting applications for entrance examination as per clause 5.2.1 was 8-3-2006. But, nowhere in the prospectus or in the notification was there any indication as to what was the last date for submitting applications for admission to the management seats which were to be filled up by the managements themselves in accordance with the admission procedure to be devised by the managements themselves. The Government also did not issue any specific instructions to the managements in this regard. Since the minimum qualification prescribed for admission to the B.Ed. Degree course was a pass in the Bachelor's Degree Examination with 45% marks, going by clause 5.2.1, only those persons who passed the qualifying examination on the last date of receipt of applications were eligible for admission to the B.Ed. Course. Since the last date prescribed for submitting application to the Entrance examination was fixed as 8-3-2006, the aspirant candidates ought to have obtained the prescribed minimum qualification on or before that date. However. As on that date, the degree examinations in any of the Universities in the State of Kerala for the year 2005-'06 were not over, the direct consequence of the same was that no student who passed the degree course during the academic year 2005-2006 would be eligible for applying for admission to the B. Ed. course going by the last date fixed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations for submitting applications for the entrance examination. course going by the last date fixed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations for submitting applications for the entrance examination. However, in the course of admission to the management seats, the private self-financing colleges either fixed their own last date for submitting applications or issued notification inviting applications without specifying any last date for submitting applications as a result of which, for management seats in private self-financing colleges, candidates who passed the degree examination during 2005-'06 academic year also applied and obtained admission. However, the concerned University to which the self-financing colleges were affiliated, issued circulars to the effect that candidates seeking admission to B.Ed. course should be qualified in all respects as on the date of submission of application forms to the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations. As a result, those students who got admission to the management seats in private self-financing colleges who passed the degree examination subsequent to 8-3-2006 are to be ineligible for admission to the course. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners have come up before this Court with these writ petitions. Some of the writ petitions are filed by the Associations of unaided B.Ed. College managements and the other writ petitions are filed by students who are to be directly affected by such circulars. 3. In all cases, except W.P(C) No. 19627/2006, the petitioners are challenging the circulars issued by the Universities stipulating that the students who aspired to get admission to the management quota seats in private self-financing colleges also have to acquire the minimum qualifications prescribed for admission to the B.Ed. Course as on 8-3-2006. But, in W.P(C) No. 19627/2006 filed by a candidate seeking admission, the petitioner challenges clauses 5.2.1 and 8(ii) of the prospectus to the extent of not permitting students who acquired degree qualification during the academic year 2005-'06 as arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. According to the petitioners, such a condition, which makes the students who obtained degree qualification during the academic year 2005-'06 would result in the cream of the students in the State from becoming ineligible for admission to the course which amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of those students. They also contend that as a result of such a stipulation, the students who get admission to the B.Ed. They also contend that as a result of such a stipulation, the students who get admission to the B.Ed. Course would be the least meritorious students who could have obtained admission to the course which would, in turn, result in the school students in the State being taught by sub-standard teachers coming out of the B.Ed colleges pursuant to such admissions, which should not be permitted in the better interests of education in the State as a whole. They would submit that in no other course in the State is there any such situation whereby students passing the qualification during the academic year immediately prior to the academic year for which admissions to the higher course is to be made are made ineligible to apply for the higher course during that year. As a case on point to demonstrate discrimination, they would particularly point out that for admissions to other professional degree courses in Kerala like Medical, Engineering etc., courses, candidates who have written the qualifying examinations and are awaiting results are also eligible to apply for the common entrance examination. To the same effect, the petitioners would also point out that since the prospectus has been expressly made inapplicable to admissions to B.Ed course in those centres managed by the Universities directly, for candidates applying for admission to the University centres this restriction does not apply. 5. The State has filed a statement in W.P(C) No. 19627/2006, permission to adopt which as the counter affidavit in all other cases also has been sought. In the statement, the State would support the circulars issued by the Universities although the Government had not specifically issued any instructions in this regard. But, they would contend that even without any separate circular or notification, clause 5.2.1 itself would abundantly make it clear that only those candidates who possessed the minimum educational qualification as on the last date of submission of applications, which, according to them is the one prescribed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, would be eligible for admission to the B.Ed. Course even in the management seats. The State would support the prescription of the last date for submitting application as 8-3-2006 on the basis that unlike in other professional courses wherein the admission is based on the marks obtained in the entrance examination alone, in the case of admission to the B.Ed. Course even in the management seats. The State would support the prescription of the last date for submitting application as 8-3-2006 on the basis that unlike in other professional courses wherein the admission is based on the marks obtained in the entrance examination alone, in the case of admission to the B.Ed. Course, the admission is based not only on the marks obtained by the candidates in the entrance examination but also those in the qualifying examination for which a weightage has been prescribed in the ratio 6:4. Only if the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination also are available along with the entrance examination marks, the rank list of students eligible for admission could be prepared and therefore it was necessary to prescribe the cut off date as the last date for submitting applications, is the contention raised by the State in answer to the contentions of the petitioners in the writ petitions. The Universities also support the contention of the State as above. The Universities would contend that since in the University centers the curriculum and academic year is different and these University centers are prestigious institutions maintained by the Universities, admissions to which stand on a different footing as is clear from the fact that admissions to University centers have been expressly excluded from the purview of the prospectus. They would point out that the B.Ed. Course in the University centers follow the semester system unlike in the colleges and the academic year applicable to the centers are also different. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Universities. 7. Before going into the merits of the rival contentions, I had specifically asked the learned counsel for the Universities as to their powers to issue the circulars which are under challenge in these writ petitions. This question was put to the counsel for the Universities because of the specific fact that the prospectus was issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, which was approved by the Government of Kerala. This question was put to the counsel for the Universities because of the specific fact that the prospectus was issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, which was approved by the Government of Kerala. As such, the power to issue any clarifications in respect of the same would rest exclusively with the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations and the State of Kerala unless specifically authorised by the Government in that regard, as the University Acts, Statutes and Ordinances do not specifically contain any provisions authorising the Universities with any functions with regard to the prospectus for and admissions to the B.Ed. Course or any other professional course for that matter. The Universities could not have interpreted the same and issued a circular stating that even in respect of the management seats also, the last date fixed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations for submitting applications for entrance examination should be adopted as the last date for submitting applications. This is because there is no indication whatsoever either in the prospectus or in the notification issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations inviting applications to the entrance examination regarding the last date for submission of applications to the management seats to be filled up by the managements themselves in accordance with the admission procedure to be adopted by them in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions on this subject. Although, counsel for the Calicut University would submit that on account of the conditions of affiliation, there is inherent power on the Universities to issue such a circular, none of the counsel for the Universities could satisfy me as to which of the conditions of affiliation authorised the University to issue such a circular, or under what provision of law they have the power to issue such a circular issuing clarification regarding the prospectus issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations as approved by the Government of Kerala. This is all the more so because the University is the creature of a statute and the University's powers and duties are circumscribed by that statute under which the University was constituted and the statutes and ordinances issued under the University Act. None of the counsel could enlighten me as to under what Section, Statute or Ordinance they have the power to issue such a circular prescribing the specific condition not included in the prospectus. None of the counsel could enlighten me as to under what Section, Statute or Ordinance they have the power to issue such a circular prescribing the specific condition not included in the prospectus. As such, the very power of the University to issue such a circular is very much in doubt. But, I need not make a final pronouncement on that question since de hors the circular, I have to decide whether, as per the prospectus, the admissions in the management seats for B.Ed. course have also to be regulated on the basis of the last date prescribed by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for submitting applications for entrance examinations, in accordance with clause 5.2.1 and 8(ii) of the prospectus. 8. Some of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would raise a contention based on the relevant University statute which, according to them, relates to prescription of qualifications for admission to the B.Ed course. In all the Universities in Kerala, the relevant statute is to the same effect. Statute 2 of Chapter 19 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 is one of them. According to them, going by the said statute, the candidate need pass the qualifying examination for admission to the B.Ed. Degree course only before the actual admission to the B.Ed. Course and need not necessarily be as on the last date of application for admission. I am inclined to dispose of this contention before going into the other contentions in detail. 9. Statute 2 of Chapter 19 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes reads as under: "2. Degree of Bachelor of Education: (1) Candidate for the Degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) shall be required to have undergone the prescribed course of study in a college or the University for a period of one academic year after qualifying for a degree in the University or a degree of any other University accepted by the University as equivalent thereto and passed the prescribed examinations. (2) No candidate shall be admitted to the B.Ed. Degree Examination unless he has been previously admitted to a degree of the University or of any other University accepted by the University as equivalent thereto." The contention is that by virtue of clause (2) thereof, it should be construed that the qualifying examination for admission to the B.Ed. (2) No candidate shall be admitted to the B.Ed. Degree Examination unless he has been previously admitted to a degree of the University or of any other University accepted by the University as equivalent thereto." The contention is that by virtue of clause (2) thereof, it should be construed that the qualifying examination for admission to the B.Ed. Degree course need be passed only before admission is made and not as on the date of submitting application for admission. On a reading of the Statute, I do not think that any such stipulation can be read into the said statute. The said Statute only details the conditions under which the Degree of Bachelor of Education can be conferred on a student by the University . In other words, it details the requirements for conferring of the degree. The Statute only means that for conferring the Degree of Bachelor of Education, the candidate should have undergone the prescribed course of study for B.Ed. Examination in a college or the University for a period of one academic year after qualifying for a degree in the University or a degree of any other University accepted by the University as equivalent thereto and passed the prescribed B.Ed. Examinations. Sub clause (2) of the Statute only means that the candidate shall not be admitted to the B.Ed. Degree examination unless he has been previously conferred with a degree of the University or any other University accepted by the University as equivalent thereto. That cannot be construed as a stipulation that the candidate need have obtained the Bachelors Degree before admission to the B.Ed. Degree examination. In fact, if it is taken as a stipulation regarding the date on which the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination, anomalous results would emerge in so far as the candidate who had failed in the degree examination could also be admitted to the B.Ed. course since he could pass the Degree examination in the supplementary examination for the degree course before he is actually admitted to the B.Ed. Degree examination, as that is the wording used in the statute. As such, I do not find any merit in the said contention. 10. course since he could pass the Degree examination in the supplementary examination for the degree course before he is actually admitted to the B.Ed. Degree examination, as that is the wording used in the statute. As such, I do not find any merit in the said contention. 10. Now, let me examine whether clauses 5.2.1 and 8(ii) of the prospectus require that the admission to the management seats should also be regulated based on the last date for submission of applications stipulated by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations as per the notification inviting applications for entrance examination in accordance with the prospectus issued. 11. At the outset, I must mention that although the prospectus starts with the caption that the Prospectus is for Admission to B. Ed. Degree Courses in Government/Aided/Private Self-financing Colleges of Kerala for the year 2006-'07, except clauses 2.3 , 5.2.1 and perhaps clause 8, none of the other clauses in the prospectus relate to admission to management seats in private self-financing colleges. All other clauses specifically relate to submission of applications for the entrance examination and the requirements of such applications. In fact, the notification issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations stipulating the last date for submission of applications also relate exclusively to entrance examinations only. In this connection, I may extract clause 5 of the said notification dated 14-2- 2006. (This notification has not been produced by any of the parties to the writ petitions. But a copy of the same was made available to me by the Learned Government Pleader at the time of arguments) Clause 5 reads thus: "5. Last date and time for receipt of filled in Application Forms: The filled in Application Form along with the OMR DATA SHEET and other relevant documents to be submitted with the Application form is to be sent in the printed envelope bearing the address of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations supplied along with the application form so as to reach him before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 08 th March 2006 by Hand Delivery/Registered Post/Speed Post." (Emphasis as in the original) A reading of this clause would leave no room for doubt about the applicability of the said clause. No elaborate process of interpretation or construction is necessary to know that it applies exclusively to submission of applications to the entrance examination only and not to admission to any of the other seats mentioned in clause 2.3. Clause 2.3. mentions three seats, as I have already mentioned at the beginning of this judgment. For convenience, I shall extract clause 2.3. also: "2.3 Categorisation of seats: Seats available in B.Ed. Colleges are mainly classified as Merit Seats, Management seats and Lapsed seats. (a) Merit Seats: The seats that are to be filled by the state in Government Colleges/Aided colleges/Private self- financing colleges are classified as 'merit seats'. (b) 'Management seats': The seats in Aided and Private Self-financing colleges that are to be filled by the concerned Managements are classified as 'Management seats'. (c) 'Lapsed seats': Lapsed seats are those merit seats, that may be filled up by the institution itself, if and when the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE) informs that, he would not be advising any more candidates against such seats." A reading of the notification issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations would make it abundantly clear that it would be applicable only to the merit seats as defined in clause 2.3. Therefore, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the last date prescribed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations cannot have any bearing to the admission to management seats in aided and private self- financing colleges as defined in sub-clause (b) of clause 2.3 of the prospectus. 12. Now, the question arises as to the applicability of the last sentence in sub-clause (i) of clause 5.2.1 to management seats. The said sentence says that the applicant should be qualified in all respect as on the last date of submission of the application form. Juxtaposing this sentence to the requirements for admission to the management seats also, it could be said that in respect of admission to management seats, the applicants should have been qualified in all respects as on the last date of submission of the application form as per the notifications inviting applications by the concerned management of the aided and private self-financing colleges. The Supreme Court has in very many decisions like the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case [AIR 2003 Supreme Court 355], Islamic Academy of Education case [AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3724] and P.I. Inamdar's case [(2005) 6 SCC 537] has judicially recognised the right of the managements to device their own admission procedure for admission to professional courses. It has also been specifically held that all that the Government can do is to oversee such admission procedure to ensure that admissions are made strictly on the basis of merit. Private self-financing college managements involved in these cases are stated to have issued separate notifications inviting applications for admission to management seats. The petitioner involved in W.P(C) No. 19627/2006 has produced Ext. P8(a), which is the notification stated to have been published by the management of the college in which she has secured admission, in the Mathrubhoomi dated 6-4- 2006 inviting applications for B. Ed. Course. The same stipulates the last date for submitting applications as 20-4-2006. However, it is claimed that the said date has subsequently been extended. In support of this contention, the petitioner in that case has also produced subsequent notifications, namely, Exts. P8(c), P8(d) and P8(e) wherein it has been advertised that vacancies are still available in the management quota to which intending candidate could apply. The petitioners in the other cases have also produced advertisements inviting applications. But, the same do not stipulate any last date for submitting applications. According to them, they could receive applications for admission till the last date prescribed by the prospectus itself for allotment of seats to the first year course prescribed by clause 9.5 of the prospectus, which is 30-6-2006, which has subsequently been extended by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations/State Government themselves, as is clear from the fact that the admissions to merit seats have not been finalised even today. I have my own doubts as to the justifiability of accepting such a contention from the private self-financing college managements. Such an absolute discretion on the managements would certainly give the managements a handle to have back-door admissions. This I say because admissions can be only in accordance with merit and this can be decided after preparing a rank list of candidates who have applied. Such an absolute discretion on the managements would certainly give the managements a handle to have back-door admissions. This I say because admissions can be only in accordance with merit and this can be decided after preparing a rank list of candidates who have applied. For every admissions, whether it is to the merit seats or to the management seats, it is necessary to fix a last date for submitting applications, in order that a merit list can be prepared, of the candidates prior to the actual admission itself. But, it was the duty of the Government to see that such a duty is cast on the private self- financing college managements to ensure transparency in the procedure adopted by the managements for conducting admissions to the management seats in those colleges. But, unfortunately, the Government, while issuing the prospectus or otherwise, have not found it necessary to prescribe for such a stipulation for admissions to the management seats. As such, the prospectus is as vague as possible leaving it open for the managements to put their own interpretations to the date on which the candidates should have obtained the minimum qualifications for admission to the B.Ed. Course. Leaving that question apart, it is clear that the prospectus does not contain any specific last date by which applications for admissions to management seats have to be submitted. Nor have any subsequent notifications been issued by the Government/Commissioner in that regard. In the above circumstances, I am unable to hold that the stipulation now sought to be imposed on the managements to the effect that the candidates to be admitted in the management seats also should have had obtained the minimum qualifications for admission as on 8-3-2006, namely, the last date for submitting application to the entrance examination is valid. I am inclined to take such a view especially in view of the fact that such an interpretation would only advance the quality of the students who pass out from the B.Ed. Colleges as better and more meritorious students who had passed the examination during the academic year 2005-2006 would also pass out holding B.Ed. Degree as a result of such an interpretation. Colleges as better and more meritorious students who had passed the examination during the academic year 2005-2006 would also pass out holding B.Ed. Degree as a result of such an interpretation. In respect of this, I am of opinion that for entrance examination also such a course is more desirable in the interest of the educational system in the State as a whole, reasons for which I shall discuss later in this judgment. 13. Here, it is necessary to note another aspect. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 15317 of 2006 has filed an additional affidavit dated 11-9-2006 in which it is stated that there was no restriction during the academic year 2005-'06 as regards the date of eligibility of students who have passed the qualifying examination in 2005 other than the fixation of minimum marks although the procedure for admissions was the same. It is further asserted that the students who have passed the qualifying examination in 2005 before closing the admission under the management quota were given admission. The State or the Universities could not counter these averments. As such, it is clear that similar restriction was not insisted upon at least in the management seats for admissions during the previous academic year and the State has not placed before this Court any reasons justifying a departure for the present academic year. As such, there is further discrimination between students who got admission during the last academic year and those who seek admission this year, which would support the case of the petitioners. 14. In this connection, I must also note a contention raised by the counsel for the Universities and the Learned Government Pleader in this regard. They would submit that such an interpretation would amount to having two classes of students in the State, one, in the merit seats and other in the management seats in so far as in the merit seats only candidates who obtained the minimum educational qualification as on 8-3-2006 alone would be eligible to apply and to the management seats, candidates who obtained minimum educational qualification subsequently would also be eligible to apply. In support of this contention, respondents rely on two decisions of this Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. KeralaKalamandalam, [2004 (1) KLT SN. 28 - Case No. 34] and Dr. C. Pradeepan and others v. State of Kerala and others, [2006(2) KLJ194]. In support of this contention, respondents rely on two decisions of this Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. KeralaKalamandalam, [2004 (1) KLT SN. 28 - Case No. 34] and Dr. C. Pradeepan and others v. State of Kerala and others, [2006(2) KLJ194]. Although, at first blush, this argument would seem to be attractive, on a closer look, I do not appreciate the same with the vigour in which the same is placed before me by counsel. If at all there is such a discrimination, the same is created by the Government itself. They themselves have created this dichotomy of procedure for applying to the B.Ed. Course. While stipulating 8-3-2006 as the last date on which the applicants for entrance examination should have qualified for admission to the course, they have failed to make such a stipulation in respect of admission to the management seats with any amount of certainty. I am of opinion that if the Government wanted to make the same applicable to management seats also, they should have made an express stipulation to that effect either in the prospectus or by necessary notification making it incumbent on the aided and private self-financing college managements also to stipulate a similar cut off date for becoming eligible for applying to management seats also. Having failed to do so, I am of opinion that the State and the Universities cannot now raise such a contention of discrimination as they themselves have left it open to the managements to fix their own cut off dates or no date at all for becoming eligible for admission to management seats in aided and private self-financing colleges. In this respect, I am also moved by the fact that none of the candidates who would have been entitled to raise such a contention of discrimination have challenged the same before this Court. As I said earlier, I am inclined to take such a view primarily because it would only be in the best interests of the State itself to see that more meritorious students join the B.Ed. course this year also and in future so that we would have better merited teachers to shape the future of the pupils who study in the schools in the State. By this interpretation, at least in the management seats, meritorious students who passed degree examination this year would gain admission. course this year also and in future so that we would have better merited teachers to shape the future of the pupils who study in the schools in the State. By this interpretation, at least in the management seats, meritorious students who passed degree examination this year would gain admission. Regarding the decisions relied on by the respondents, the first one, which is a Division Bench decision, only states that the University is 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 the qualifying examination and students given admission provisionally pending publication of results and its production by a specified date would lose admission for non-production. Not only is this decision not favourable to the proposition canvassed by the respondents, to some extent, it is against the same. The decision obviously shows that in that case, students were entitled to apply for the higher course pending publication of results of the qualifying examination. In the decision of Pradeepan's case, a Single Bench of this Court held that there cannot be two standards in the case of general merit and in-service candidates as far as cut off marks are concerned for admission to post graduate medical courses. This decision is also founded on discrimination. If that be so, this is also favourable to the petitioners, since, in this case, it is the respondents who have discriminated students who wrote the qualifying examination this year in the matter of admission to B.Ed. Course whereas in all other courses students who wrote the qualifying examination this year were eligible for applying for admission to higher courses this year itself. 15. Although the above findings would be sufficient to dispose of these writ petitions, I am inclined to go into the question as to and subsequent notification that the applicants should have been qualified in all respects as on a date prior to the declaration of results of degree examinations in the State for the academic year 2005-2006 is either valid or desirable in the best interests of the educational system in this State and also as to whether the same is bad for being arbitrary and discriminatory.. 16. 16. The consequences of such a stipulation cannot be in doubt, which is that the students who passed the degree examination after completing the academic year for degree course in 2005-2006 from the Universities in Kerala would be completely excluded from eligibility to apply for B.Ed. Course this year. The candidates who would be available in the State, therefore, would be only those students who did not get admissions to any course anywhere in Kerala or elsewhere during the academic year 2005-2006. Needless to say, they would be the least meritorious students available in the State for the B.Ed. Course. This I say because nobody can expect that any student who has any chance of getting admission to any higher course would sit idle at home doing nothing in the hope of getting B.Ed. admission next year. Further, as the old saying goes, "an idle mind is the devil's workshop." The result would be that the crop of teachers emerging from the B.Ed. Colleges in Kerala after completing the course in the academic year 2006-2007 would be the least efficient among teachers who would have been available in the State otherwise. Those would be teachers who would be available to teach the students of our schools in Kerala in future. The result would be that our future citizens would be tutored by a crop of teachers who are least competent for the purpose. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that such a situation would be to the detriment of our very educational system and the future of our State; nay, the Nation as a whole. If that situation continues for years to come also, adopting the same procedure, the situation would be further compounded in so far as we would be getting only sub-standard teachers in the future as the better students would have opted for other fields during the year of passing degree itself. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Country and the educational system in the State that the Government re-considers this issue at least for the years to come. 17. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Country and the educational system in the State that the Government re-considers this issue at least for the years to come. 17. Learned counsel in W.P(C) No. 19825/06 brings my attention to the preamble to the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, which reads thus: "Preamble:- WHEREAS it is considered necessary to establish a new teaching and affiliating University in the State to provide for the urgent development of higher education in the areas comprised in the Kottayam, Ernakulam and Idukki revenue districts, the Kuttanad taluk of the Alleppey revenue district and the Kozhencherry, Mallappally, Thiruvalla and Rani taluks of the Pathanamthitta revenue district of the State." He would contend that if the object of the University Act is to provide for the urgent development of higher education, then it should be ensured that the products of such higher education is of a quality commensurate with such object. This can be ensured only if the higher education is provided to the best among the candidates available in the State. Certainly, if the cream of the students available on a particular year is to be excluded from applying for higher education, then, certainly, such a clause as the one under consideration would militate against the very preamble of the Act itself as the quality of the students who come out after obtaining the higher education would not at all be that of the best available in the country in view of the restriction regarding the eligibility criteria for submitting applications for admission. 18. I am certainly aware that, as submitted by the learned counsel for the Universities and learned Government Pleader, there would certainly be some difficulty for the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations in preparing the rank list if the date of acquiring qualification is fixed as a date subsequent to the date of application, as the rank list has to be prepared based not only on the basis of the marks obtained in the entrance examinations but also adding a weightage on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations also. Unless at the time of getting the results of the entrance examinations, the marks of the qualifying examinations of the candidates are also available, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations would not be in a position to prepare the rank list combining the two. Unless at the time of getting the results of the entrance examinations, the marks of the qualifying examinations of the candidates are also available, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations would not be in a position to prepare the rank list combining the two. It would certainly be of some difficulty to get the marks of the candidates subsequent to the submissions of applications for entrance examinations. But, according to me, in the interest of the Nation, such a difficulty should not deter the Government from seeing that a better crop of students join the B.Ed. Course. I do not think that it would be that difficult to device a method by which the candidates could submit their marks for the qualifying examinations on a date subsequent to the date of application but before the valuation of the entrance examination answer papers so as to enable the Commissioner to prepare the rank list based on both the marks. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 19627 of 2006 has produced before me a prospectus issued for Tamilnadu Engineering Admissions for the year 2003, where also the admission is based on the marks obtained by the candidate both in the qualifying examination and the entrance examination put together. In that case, the last date for submitting applications was 4-6-2003. The candidates applying for admission were to satisfy the eligibility rules as on 1-7-2003. If the procedure adopted by the Tamilnadu Government in such case can work successfully, there is no reason why the respondents herein also cannot adopt similar or other better procedure for admission to ensure that students who pass the qualifying examination during the particular year also are able to apply for admission. The fact that such a procedure would be inconvenient or would require more effort on the part of the officers of the State is no reason to adopt a discriminatory norm since it is the duty of the State to uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens of the State. 19. In this connection, I am also impressed by the contention raised by the petitioners that exclusion of such a condition in respect of the candidates who seek admission to the University centres would amount to discrimination. 19. In this connection, I am also impressed by the contention raised by the petitioners that exclusion of such a condition in respect of the candidates who seek admission to the University centres would amount to discrimination. The defence of the counsel for the Universities in this regard that the course of study in the University centres and the duration of the academic year for the same are different and therefore those University centres stand on a different footing does not appear to be credible. This I say because the submission of the counsel for the Universities that the academic year for University centres are different is not correct. The University ordinances promulgated by the Universities in Kerala does prescribe the duration of the academic year. I shall specifically refer to the Kerala University First Ordinances 1978. Similar ordinances are applicable to other Universities also. Chapter II, Ordinance 1 of the said Ordinances reads thus: "1. Academic Year:- The Academic year for all Colleges affiliated to the University and Educational Institutions and Departments maintained by the University begins on the 1st of June each year and ends on the 31st of May next year." Going by the above Ordinance, the Universities do not make a distinction regarding the academic year in respect of the University centres in so far as no separate academic year is seen prescribed in respect of the University centres. On the other hand, the above Ordinance would show that the same is applicable to University centres also. Simply because the University centres follow the semester system does not make the situation any different. In fact, in the Calicut University First Ordinances, 1978, in Chapter II sub-clause 2(2), there is a specific provision with regard to the semester course also, which reads thus: "(2) For the semester course, there shall be four semesters of 5 months duration plus one month vacation at the end of each semester. In the case of the semester system, the academic year shall begin on the first day of June or the nextworking day if the first of June happens to be a holiday. In the case of the semester system, the academic year shall begin on the first day of June or the nextworking day if the first of June happens to be a holiday. The academic year shall end on the 31st March or the previous working day if the 31st March happens to be a holiday." I am also at a loss to understand as to how simply because theUniversity centres follow the semester system, the situation is any the different as far as the admission procedure is concerned. Whether it is in the University centres or in other colleges, the object in prescribing eligibility conditions for admission is to ensure that the best students available gets admission so that there would be better qualified teachers coming out of the colleges who can teach the pupils in the school level in the State. Further, B.Ed. Degree obtained from the University Centres and from other colleges are considered equal in all respects for further studies and employment. The learned Government Pleader sought to draw a distinction in this regard stating that the B.Ed. Centres run by the Universities are not treated as affiliated colleges and since they come under the Department of education of the Universities and the schedule of admission of these centres are decided by the Universities, they differ from that of the affiliated colleges. I am of opinion that as a defence for allegation of discrimination, this does not qualify. Whether it is in the University centre controlled by the University or the affiliated colleges, the examination is conducted by the Universities themselves and therefore there shall not also be discrimination regarding norms of admission, when the degree awarded by both are treated at par for all academic purposes. In that view, there is absolutely no basis for taking a different yardstick in respect of other colleges in the State in contra-distinction to University centers. Therefore, the fact that in the University centers students who passed degree courses the same year would be eligible for admission to B.Ed. Course and in other colleges they are not, would certainly amount to discrimination. 20. In fact, by the stipulation under consideration, the Government and Universities are penalising the students for no fault of theirs, but surely for lapse on the part of the Government and Universities to complete courses and declare results in time. Course and in other colleges they are not, would certainly amount to discrimination. 20. In fact, by the stipulation under consideration, the Government and Universities are penalising the students for no fault of theirs, but surely for lapse on the part of the Government and Universities to complete courses and declare results in time. It is the duty of the Universities to conduct examinations and declare results thereof sufficiently early in an year so that students who aspire for higher studies can join courses based on their qualification that year itself. If there is unavoidable delay in doing so, it is the duty of the Government to schedule admissions to higher courses in such a way that students who pass out the qualifying examination can also apply for the higher course. According to me, this is the bounden duty of a State, which is committed to the well-being of the educational system of the State, especially in the field of teaching, since it is those teachers who come out of the professional colleges who are to shape the future citizens in this Country, and the future of this Country thereby. This can be ensured only if the teachers who emerge from the professional colleges are the best available in the Country. 21. I am of opinion that the contention that the impugned stipulation would amount to discrimination between aspiring students of B.Ed. Course and other professional courses would not also be a far fetched one since for other professional courses, students who have appeared for the qualifying examination during 2005-'06 are also eligible to apply. The distinction attempted to be drawn on the basis that in the case of other professional courses the admission is on the basis of entrance examination alone whereas for B.Ed. Course the admission is based on the marks of qualifying examination as well, does not appeal to me, especially in view of the disastrous consequences of the same on the future of our educational system, which I have already adverted to. This is all the more so since it is not all that difficult to device a procedure whereby the candidates would be able to submit their qualifying examination marks also subsequent to the date of application but before the date of entrance examination results so as to enable preparation of rank list, as I havealready mentioned. 22. This is all the more so since it is not all that difficult to device a procedure whereby the candidates would be able to submit their qualifying examination marks also subsequent to the date of application but before the date of entrance examination results so as to enable preparation of rank list, as I havealready mentioned. 22. The result of the above discussion is that discrimination is clearly spelt out in the matter of prescribing a condition that only students who obtained degree prior to 8-3-2006 alone would be eligible for admission to B.Ed course in Kerala for the academic year 2006-2007. But, for that reason, I am not inclined to set aside the selection already made for this year for two reasons. Firstly, no aggrieved student has come forward to challenge the said condition in respect of the admission to merit seats in the State. Secondly, if I am to interfere with the admissions made now, it would cause absolute chaos in the admission procedure which is presently going on in so far as if the admissions are now set aside, the State would be obliged to conduct a fresh entrance examination after giving opportunity to students who obtained University degrees in the State subsequent to 8-3-2006 also. Therefore I confine my decision only to admissions to be made in future, taking into account the practical difficulties. 23. I also perceive a failure on the part of the Government to fix specific stipulations with regard to the admission procedure to be adopted by the managements of the aided and private self-financing colleges in Kerala for admissions to management seats in their colleges. It is true that the Supreme Court has held that the private self-financing colleges can certainly device their own admission procedure for admission to their colleges, subject, of course, to the power of the State to see that such procedure would ensure admission strictly in accordance with merit. But, for the purpose of ensuring that the admission is made strictly in accordance with merit, the State should lay down eligibility conditions for admissions which as accepted by the Supreme Court of India, has to be in accordance with the stipulations made by the Government or the bodies controlling educational system such as All India Council for Teacher Education. But, for the purpose of ensuring that the admission is made strictly in accordance with merit, the State should lay down eligibility conditions for admissions which as accepted by the Supreme Court of India, has to be in accordance with the stipulations made by the Government or the bodies controlling educational system such as All India Council for Teacher Education. One area where the Government should issue specific instructions in this regard is the date on which the eligibility criteria has to be satisfied. The discussion in this judgment would make it abundantly clear that the State has sadly failed to fix such a date in the case of admission to the management seats, in the prospectus issued by them although they had incorporated clause 5.2.1 therein. Therefore, the State should take care at least in future to see that all the eligibility conditions for admission to the course even in respect of the management seats are clearly spelt out in the prospectus without any vagueness as in the present case so as to ensure transparency in the matter of admissions made by the managements of aided and private self-financing colleges in the State. 24. Of course, if the procedure adopted for the year by the management lacks transparency, it is for the State to take appropriate action as directed by the Supreme Court in the recent decision regarding the interim arrangement to be followed for this year for admissions to professional courses, in the Kerala State, in Civil Appeal No. 3735/2006 and connected cases in the judgment pronounced on 25-8-2006. I leave it to the Government to decide on this question if they choose to do so taking into account all aspects of the matter including the practical aspect. However, I make it clear that the admissions made to the management seats cannot be annulled on the ground that the same is not made on the basis that the admitted candidates did not acquire the minimum educational qualifications as on 8-3-2006 as directed in the circulars which have been impugned in these writ petitions, which I have held as inconsequential for deciding the question, as the question has to be decided on the basis of the prospectus itself, which does not contain any such specific stipulation in so far as the management seats are concerned. 25. 25. I summarise my findings as follows: (a) I hold that the admissions made to the management seats for B.Ed. Course for the year 2006-2007 cannot be annulled on the ground that the admitted candidates did not acquire the minimum educational qualification as on 8-3-2006 as stipulated by the Universities. (b) Clauses 5.2.1 and 8(ii) of the prospectus for admission to B.Ed. Courses in Government/Aided/Private Self-financing colleges in Kerala to the extent it has the effect of disqualifying students who acquired degree qualification during the academic year 2005-'06 is arbitrary and discriminatory. However, because of the practical difficulties in implementing this decision for this year in respect of merit seats, I direct that the same shall apply only to admissions in future. (c) In future, while preparing prospectus for admissions, the Government shall take care to see that the eligibility conditions for applying to management seats are also specifically and unambiguously laid down as in the case of merit seats. (d) The Government shall take care to see that the admission procedure adopted by the Aided/Private Self-financing colleges in the State ensures transparency by issuing notifications inviting applications for admissions to management seats clearly indicating the eligibility criteria for admissions by fixing a last date for submission of applications as well, so that there shall be uniformity in the matter of fixation of last date for submission of applications in respect of both merit seats and management seats. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.