ORDER The petitioners are challenging the endorsements issued by the 3rd respondent-Principal, D.I.E.T. (District Institution of Education Training) refusing to approve the admission of petitioners 2 to 10 herein on the ground that they have not studied SSLC in English Medium nor have they taken English as either the first or the second language as per the eligibility prescribed under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma in Education Course (D.Ed.) Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules'). 2. Petitioners 2 to 10 are students who are studying in the I year Diploma in Education in the first petitioner-Institution. They have been admitted under the management quota for the academic year 2005-06 (wrongly stated in the petition as 2006-07). The intake fixed for the first petitioner-Institution for admission is 50 seats out of which 25 seats are management quota seats and the remaining 25 seats are to be forwarded by the Government from out of the Government quota. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as the State Government did not forward the list of candidates from the Government quota, the management has filled up all the seats by resorting to admission on their own. However, this is not the matter in controversy. The controversy has arisen on account of the refusal of the 3rd respondent to accord approval to petitioners 2 to 10 herein on the ground that though they are admitted for the Diploma in Education Course as candidates undergoing the D.Ed. Course in English Medium are not qualified to be admitted as they had not passed SSLC by taking English as medium of instruction or English as first or second language. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Sreedhar submits that petitioners 2 to 10 have studied in Andhra Pradesh taking Telugu as first language, Hindi as second language and English as third language. It is his submission that these students have studied English as third language right from 4th standard and possess the requisite proficiency in English language so as to be eligible to be admitted for Diploma in Education Course in English medium. It is his submission that these students have studied English as third language right from 4th standard and possess the requisite proficiency in English language so as to be eligible to be admitted for Diploma in Education Course in English medium. He submits that the requirement of eligibility as spelt out in Rule 3 of the Rules shall be construed in a purposive manner so as to advance justice in the instant case, keeping in mind the purpose that is sought to be achieved by the said Rule. Elaborating this submission, he contends that the purpose of the Rule is that the student must have proficiency in the medium of language which he is opting so that he can teach effectively the students in that language as and when he takes to the profession of teaching. This object, Counsel contends, is sufficiently achieved in the instant case as the petitioners have studied English as third language right from 4th standard. In this regard, Counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to the statement of objections filed by the State Government wherein it is contended that the object is to ensure proficiency in that particular language. He further submits that in Karnataka the option to take English as second language starts from 5th standard and therefore the petitioners have better proficiency in English language. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka and Others v Shabbiruddin Nawaz1. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Manohar who has filed the statement of objections for the State Government contends that in the wake of the specific requirement of the Rule prescribing the eligibility criteria requiring study in SSLC by taking English as medium of instruction or by opting for English as first or second language, it is not open for this Court to relax the said Rule and extend the benefit to the petitioners who do not fit into the requirement spelt out in the Rule. He further draws the attention of the Court to a decision of the Full Bench rendered in the case of Ramapriya Teachers Training Institute and Others v State of Karnataka2. 6. He further draws the attention of the Court to a decision of the Full Bench rendered in the case of Ramapriya Teachers Training Institute and Others v State of Karnataka2. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the materials on record, the only point that arises for consideration in this petition is: ''Whether the petitioners are qualified and eligible as per the Rules to get admitted to the Diploma in Education Course in English Medium?" 7. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 has framed the Rules known as the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma in Education Course (D.Ed.) Rules, 2002. Rule 3 of the said Rules lays down the eligibility criteria for admission to the Course. The last proviso of Rule 3 reads thus: "3. Eligibility.-x x x xxx xxx xxx Provided also that a candidate shall be eligible for admission to a course in particular language medium, only if he/she has studied in that medium in SSLC or its equivalent examination or has studied that language as first language in SSLC or its equivalent examination". 8. It is clear from a perusal of the proviso as extracted above that a candidate shall be eligible for admission to a Course in a particular language medium only if he or she has studied in that medium in SSLC or its equivalent examination or the candidate must have studied that language as first language in SSLC or its equivalent examination. This rule is subsequently amended by an amendment dated 20-12-2004 by which the requirement is relaxed by adding the words 'or as second language' immediately after the words 'first language' as found in the last proviso. The resultant position is that even if a student aspiring for admission to D.Ed. Course in English medium has studied English as second language in SSLC he shall be eligible and qualified to be admitted to the Course in English medium. Thus, with effect from 20-12- 2004 the requirement to that extent is relaxed. However, in the instant case the students (petitioners 2 to 10) have studied English as third language not a either first or second language in SSLC. Therefore, they do not meet the requirement spelt out in the last proviso to Rule 3. Thus, with effect from 20-12- 2004 the requirement to that extent is relaxed. However, in the instant case the students (petitioners 2 to 10) have studied English as third language not a either first or second language in SSLC. Therefore, they do not meet the requirement spelt out in the last proviso to Rule 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the nomenclature used in the Rule requiring the study of English as either first language or second language is not determinative factor for the purpose of rendering a student eligible to study the course but what is important is the proficiency of the student in that language. He submits that in the instant case the petitioners are fully proficient as they have studied English as third language right from 4th standard and have studied the same in SSLC with 100 marks allocated to that subject. 9. It is a well-established principle of interpretation of law that when the Rule is clear and unambiguous the effect has to be given to the same without introducing any ambiguity into it and then embarking upon interpretation by adopting different rules of interpretation. Understanding the purpose and object becomes necessary when there is scope for another interpretation. In the instant case, the Rule clearly enacts that the student must have studied English as either first or as second language in SSLC. The natural corollary would be that he who has not studied English as first or second language is not included in the parameters prescribed in the Rule. The question would be whether this Court can relax this rigger by the process of interpretation. I am afraid, it is not open for this Court to examine the wisdom of the Rule making authority in this regard. 10. As contended by the learned. Additional Government Advocate several aspects might have been considered by the Rule making authority while deciding to prescribe such an eligibility criteria. Whether the petitioners herein are equally proficient as that of the students who have studied English as first and second language in SSLC is a matter which this Court cannot examine. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is taken into consideration then this Court will be rewriting the requirement spelt out in the Rule which is neither desirable nor permissible in the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is taken into consideration then this Court will be rewriting the requirement spelt out in the Rule which is neither desirable nor permissible in the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench referred to hereinabove wherein at paragraph 43, the Full Bench referring to the unamended proviso 4 to Rule 3 has held that the eligibility criteria laid down under the Rule cannot be regarded as one violating the rights of the educational institutions and that the criteria prescribed was needed for excellence as well as for proficiency in the teaching course. The amendment relaxing the requirement and introducing the study of English as second language as sufficient eligibility for admission to the D.Ed. Course in English medium does not alter the situation in any manner and it does not in any manner whittle down the ratio laid down by the Full Bench as the requirement of excellence and proficiency in the medium for the purpose of admission to the teaching course continues to govern the field. Any further relaxation by including the study of English as third language is a matter for the Rule making authority and it is not for this Court to go into the same. In that view of the matter, the challenge made to the impugned endorsements cannot be sustained in law. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in Shabbiruddin Nawaz's case is not apposite to the facts of the instant case as the Court, in that case was not called upon to examine the eligibility criteria prescribed for admission as is involved in the present case. In that case, the Court was dealing with the effect of a note appended to S1. No. 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2001. In that context, it has ruled that the note appended to a Rule cannot overtake the effect of the Rule itself which prescribes the qualification leading to anomalous situation. The petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks.