JUDGMENT S. R. Bannurmath, J. Though the matter is posted for preliminary hearing, the scope of enquiry in this petition is limited, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.02.2006 allowing the writ petition, the present appeal is filed by the respondent-University. The brief facts necessary for consideration in this appeal are that: The writ petitioners, two students had approached this Court challenging the non approval of their admission by the University on the ground of not possessing the required minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination. It is to be noted that for admission of MCA and MBA course the qualifying marks prescribed by the University was 50%. Though the 1st petitioner had obtained 49.4% and the 2nd petitioner had obtained 49% they had been admitted by the college and were prosecuting their studies. On receipt of the particulars of the admission the appellant -University did not approve their names on the aforesaid ground and hence the petitioners approached this Court in the present writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the University to approve the admission of the petitioners taking the prescription of eligibility as notified by the AICTE vide its notification dated 01.11.2002. 3. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, by an interim order; this Court permitted the students to continue with their studies and take the examinations. By the time the writ petition came to be disposed of. The 1st petitioner had successfully completed the entire course and in fact it is not in dispute that the University had granted the Degree. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned he had appeared for the examination and he had failed in some subjects. 4. The learned Single Judge when took up the matter for final disposal relying upon the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamilnad and another vs Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104 has held that the State can prescribe different qualification than what is prescribed by the AICTE. As such interfering with the disapproval of the University issued mandamus to it. As such interfering with the disapproval of the University issued mandamus to it. So far the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the learned Single Judge permit him to appear for the subject and direction was issued to the Appellant-University to announce the result. 5. So far as the 1st petitioner is concerned as already the Degree had been confirmed by the University, the learned Single Judge thought it fit not to issue any further writ or direction on the ground that by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the student had completed the course and had come out successfully with the completion of the Degree course. 6. On hearing the learned Counsel on both sides it is to be noted that the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Adhiyaman’s case has been considered by the larger Bench later in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. S. V. Bratheep (minor) and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 513 and held that the State Government can prescribe certain percentage of marks in related subjects higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination prescribed by AICTE as eligibility criteria. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration the repugnancy factor of Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the matter of admission and held as follows: “10 Argument advanced on behalf of the respondent is that the purpose of fixing norms by AICTE is to ensure uniformity with extended access of educational opportunity and such norms should not be tinkered, with by the State in any manner. We are afraid, this argument ignores the view taken by this Court in several decisions including Dr. Preeti Srivastava case [ (1999) 7 SCC 120 ] that the State can always fix a further qualification or additional qualification to what has been prescribed by AICTE and that proposition is indisputable. The mere fact that there are vacancies in the colleges would not be a matter which would go into the question of fixing he standard of education. Therefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTE they should be admitted ever if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by the State. Therefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTE they should be admitted ever if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by the State. The scope of the Constitution has to be understood in the manner as stated in Dr. Preeti Srivastava case [ (1999) 7 SCC 120 ] and therefore, we need not further elaborate in this case or consider arguments to the contrary such as on application of occupied theory no power could be exercised under Entry 25 of List III as they would not arise for consideration. xx xx xx 13. In this view of the matter we think these appeals deserve to be allowed in part and the order of the High Court stands modified to the extent of stating that it is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what had been prescribed by AICTE and what has been prescribed by the State and considered by us is not contrary to the same but is only complementary or supplementary to it.” 7. In view of the clear declaration of the Apex Court in this regard, in our view, the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing writ mandamus impugned herein. 8. However the problem does not stop at this stage. It is repeatedly noted that the admission, permission to take examination at various stages is practically controlled by the court. The students are made to take examination and thereafter one fine morning the whole career may come to an end because of the reversal of the orders. Such practice in fact has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian and others vs. C.B.S.E. and others reported in AIR 2007 SC 458 as follows: “13. Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in various Judgments to the effect that interim orders of the nature passed in the present case are detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of course, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is subversive of academic discipline. Ultimately the Apex Court has observed thus: “22. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. As a matter of course, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is subversive of academic discipline. Ultimately the Apex Court has observed thus: “22. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertaking the School non-challantly continued the violations.” 9. In our view it is high time to take note of these things and act accordingly. 10. In the present case since the University has declared the result of the 1st petitioner though as per the interim order granted by this Court and has even granted Degree certificate, at this length of time, in our view, it would not be appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to interfere with the final direction. Similar is the case of the 2nd petitioner also except that he has to clear some subjects. Hence in the peculiar circumstances of the case though we agree with the appellant’s contention as noted above and held that it is permissible for the State to prescribe higher qualifying course than what is prescribed by the AICTE, we do not want to interfere with the final order of the learned Single Judge. It is made clear that this order shall not be a precedent hereafter as this order has been passed in the peculiar circumstance of the case. Writ Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.