Judgment :- Admit. With consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the facts of both the above cases are identical and the issue that arises for consideration is also the same, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 2. The respective petitioners had passed their Higher Secondary Course at Kerala in March 2007 and both of them had secured an overall percentage of 59.33 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. The writ petitioner Mr.Anish Alexander was admitted in the 4th respondent college on 30.05.2007, while the other writ petitioner Mr.Subin Varghese was admitted in the 4th respondent college on 13.06.2007, under Open Category in Management quota in the first year B.E. course. They have paid the requisite Admission fee, Tuition fee, etc., and were regularly continuing their studies. While so, the 4th respondent served a copy of the proceeding of the second respondent in Lr.No.48835/J1/2007, dated 12. 2007 on the petitioners, wherein it was mentioned that the marks obtained by the petitioners in the Higher Secondary Course are insufficient and they are not eligible for admission as per the new norms. The proceedings of the second respondent dated 12. 2007 was based on the proceedings of the 3rd respondent issued in Lr.No.45/FA3/2007, dated 12.07.2007 and hence the petitioners are seeking to quash both the above said proceedings and seeks a further direction to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue and complete their studies in the B.E. course in the 4th respondent college. 3. A detailed common counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent inter alia contending as follows: The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.222 dt. 3. A detailed common counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent inter alia contending as follows: The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.222 dt. 29.06.2002 have prescribed the following Minimum Eligibility Marks for OC candidates for admission to Engineering Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu viz., COMMUNITY Higher Secondary (Academic) / Higher Secondary (Vocational)/Diploma Holders OC 60% average in the related subjects The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.280, Higher Education (J2) Department, dt.20.12.2004 had constituted a Co-ordination Committee to regulate the admissions to Engineering Colleges in the State for three years from 2005-2007; the said Committee in its second meeting held on 20.05.2005, had resolved that for admission to first year Engineering Courses, the average marks of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry can be rounded to the next higher integer number to meet the minimum eligibility criteria viz., for OC - 59.1% and above; the Secretary, TNEA vide Communication dt.03.08.2005 has stated that the Minimum average marks are to be satisfied for the academic year 2005-2006, the said Co-ordination Committee in its Meeting held on 26.06.2006 inter alia had resolved to approve the minimum average marks of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry for the first year admission to B.E. / B.Tech. viz., for OC – 59.1% and above can be rounded to the next integer number for admission to Engineering Courses for the academic year 2006-2007. Some of the Self Engineering Colleges requested to follow the Minimum Eligibility Marks as was adopted in the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the present academic year 20072008 also. The said request was placed before the Co-ordination Committee. The Coordination Committee in its Second Meeting held on 04.06.2007, had approved the Minimum Eligibility Marks for the academic year 2007-2008 as follows: COMMUNITY MINIMUM MARK OC 60% average in the related subjects (59.50% and above) The above said decision of the Co-ordination Committee was communicated to the Director of Technical Education, the second respondent herein on 12.07.2007. 4. It is further stated in the common counter affidavit that the Single Window Admissions for Engineering Courses for the academic year 2007-2008 commenced on 18.07.2007. The Single Window Admissions closed on 18.09.2007. Thereafter, the unfilled seats were remitted to the respective college for being filled by the management. The last date for admitting students was on 110. 2007. 4. It is further stated in the common counter affidavit that the Single Window Admissions for Engineering Courses for the academic year 2007-2008 commenced on 18.07.2007. The Single Window Admissions closed on 18.09.2007. Thereafter, the unfilled seats were remitted to the respective college for being filled by the management. The last date for admitting students was on 110. 2007. The petitioners are other State students and had completed their Higher Secondary Course from the State of Kerala. Hence, they come under open category and would be eligible to be admitted in B.E. course only if they had secured a Minimum of 59.50% average marks in the related subjects viz. Maths, Physics and Chemistry. However, the petitioners have secured only 59.33% of average marks in the related subjects in Higher Secondary Examination. Hence, they are ineligible to be admitted in B.E. course. The College Management ought to have taken diligent steps in informing the petitioners regarding their ineligibility to be admitted for the academic year 2007-2008 and removed their names from the list sent for D.T.Es approval. The decision of the Co-ordination Committee for the previous academic years was applicable only to the respective academic years. The averment in para 6 that on the date of the petitioners admission, the system of rounding off 59.33% as 60% was in force is specifically denied as incorrect. On the above said contentions, the third respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. The second respondent has also filed a common counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has referred to the minimum eligibility marks prescribed for the academic years 2005 to 2007 and 2007-2008 (since the details of which have been stated in the common counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, which has already been extracted above, the same is not repeated). It is further stated in para 10 & 11 of the counter affidavit as follows: “10...... Further, it is ascertained from the Letter No.RGCE/GG/2007-2008/820 dated 112. 2007 that the Principal Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering has admitted this ineligible petitioners only after the date of 8. 2007 and fully aware of the fact that the Anna University has changed the minimum eligibility criteria vide Lr.No.45/EA3/2007, dated 17. 2007. Therefore, the averments made by the petitioners that they have been admitted in the Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering on 30.5.2007 and 16. 2007 and fully aware of the fact that the Anna University has changed the minimum eligibility criteria vide Lr.No.45/EA3/2007, dated 17. 2007. Therefore, the averments made by the petitioners that they have been admitted in the Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering on 30.5.2007 and 16. 2007 are totally false and they could not have been admitted in the Rajiv Gandhi Engineering College prior to the receipt of revised minimum eligibility criteria for 2007-08. 11. I submit that I specifically deny the averment made by the petitioners, namely, (1) Mr.Subin Varghese (2) Mr.Anish Alexander that they have been admitted in the Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering on 16. 2007 and 30.5.2007 respectively due to the following reason: The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering, has stated that he has admitted the petitioners due to non-receipt of reply for his letter No.RGCE/GG/ 2008/622, Dt.8. 2007. Therefore, the petitioners could have joined only after 8. 2007 i.e., only after the receipt of Centre for Admissions, Anna University, Chennai, Lr.No.45/EA3/2007, Dt.17. 2007 by the Principal, Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering.” 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Director of Technical Education cannot accord approval for these ineligible petitioners against the decision of the Coordination Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu for conduct of Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2007. On the above said contentions, the second respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. Heard Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate (Edn.) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Mr.A.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 8. Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made the following submission; The proceedings of the second respondent is arbitrary and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and it is also contrary to the Judgment reported in (1) Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University ( AIR 1986 SC 1448 ) (2) Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR 1992 Delhi 105) (3) Poovizhi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 Madras 235) and (4) Priyadarshini N. Vs. Karnataka University ( AIR 1986 SC 1448 ) (2) Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR 1992 Delhi 105) (3) Poovizhi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 Madras 235) and (4) Priyadarshini N. Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Department (2005 (3) CTC 449) wherein it has been categorically held that for the mistake of the Management or the Authorities, students should not be made to suffer; the second respondent ought not to have changed the minimum eligibility marks in the middle of the academic year and the respondents 2 and 3 are estopped from contending that the petitioners are not eligible for admission to the first year B.E. course. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners based reliance on the following passage found at paragraph 8 of the decision reported in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448), which is as follows: “8…….The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these Engineering Colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission…..” 10. Basing reliance on the decision reported in Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR 1992 Delhi 105) the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 are estopped from contending that the petitioners are not eligible for admission to the first year B.E. course. The learned counsel elaborated the said contention by submitting that for the academic year 2007-08, the minimum eligibility marks was fixed by the Co-ordination Committee only on 04.06.2007 and the decision was communicated to the second respondent only on 12.07.2007 and thereafter, the said decision was communicated to the individual colleges only after 02.08.2007 and before that, admission of the petitioners was over. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when the petitioners were admitted to the 4th respondent college, they were under the bona fide belief that they got the requisite percentage of marks for getting admission and the subsequent change of minimum eligibility mark should not be put against the petitioners to deny them admission. According to the learned counsel, the respondents 2 and 3 are estopped from relying upon the minimum requisite qualification prescribed for 2007-08. 11. Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in Poovizhi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 Madras 235) and the decision reported in Priyadarshini. N Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Department (2005 (3) CTC 449) for the proposition that subsequent change in the minimum eligibility marks for admission to the first year B.E. course cannot be given effect to in the middle of the academic year but can be given effect to only from the subsequent academic year. The learned counsel further submitted that for no fault of the petitioners, the petitioners should not suffer and lose one academic year. He further submitted that had the petitioners been informed well in advance by the respondents 2 and 3 or the 4th respondent, the petitioners would not have ventured to seek admission with the 4th respondent college. 12. Mr.A.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent College adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and supplemented it by submitting that the 4th respondent had admitted the petitioners under the Management Quota on the above said dates even before the minimum eligibility marks for admission to the first year B.E. course was communicated by the second respondent. He further submitted that had the second respondent communicated in advance the change in the minimum eligibility criteria for admission, the 4th respondent college would not have admitted the petitioners. 13. He further submitted that had the second respondent communicated in advance the change in the minimum eligibility criteria for admission, the 4th respondent college would not have admitted the petitioners. 13. Countering the said submissions, Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate (Education) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that though the Principal of the 4th respondent college was well aware of the fact that the eligibility criteria cannot be revised by the Director of Technical Education and it can be done only by the Co-ordination Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, he had with mala fide intention addressed a letter to the second respondent in Letter No.RGCE/GG/2007-2008/622 dated 06.08.2007, requesting to revise the eligibility criteria and he had admitted the ineligible petitioners in the college taking the nonreceipt of the reply for the said letter as a shelter. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the 4th respondent had not challenged the proceedings of the second respondent dated 18.01.2008. 14. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that it is very much evident from the letter of the Principal of the 4th respondent college in Letter No.RGCE/GG/2007-2008/820, dated 112. 2007, that he had admitted the ineligible petitioners only after 06.08.2007 and that too after fully being aware of the fact that Anna University has changed the minimum eligibility criteria vide Lr.No.45/EA3/2007, dated 12.07.2007. The learned Government Advocate further contended that the 4th respondent would not have admitted the petitioners on 30.05.2007 and 13.06.2007 respectively as claimed by the 4th respondent. 15. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the plea of estoppel cannot be put against the respondents 1 and 2 as no representation whatsoever was made by these respondents to make the petitioners believe that they are eligible for admission to the first year B.E. course for the academic year 2007-08. If at all any such representation had been made, it was made only by the 4th respondent. Since the 4th respondent had admitted the petitioners who are ineligible for admission, the petitioners admission was not approved by the second and third respondents and hence the plea of estoppel has no force. The petitioners can only proceed against the 4th respondent for damages. Since admittedly the petitioners do not possess the minimum requisite eligibility marks, their admission cannot be approved or regularized. 16. The petitioners can only proceed against the 4th respondent for damages. Since admittedly the petitioners do not possess the minimum requisite eligibility marks, their admission cannot be approved or regularized. 16. Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent adopted the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and supplemented it by submitting that the date of admission of the petitioners viz., 30.05.2007 and 13.06.2007 respectively would not assume any significance, even if it is true, because of the fact that academic year 2007-08 itself commenced only on 10.09.2007 and the last date for admission was on 110. 2007 and the new eligibility criteria was fixed on 04.06.2007 and the petitioners cannot claim any vested right only on account of joining the college earlier. The learned counsel further contended that the 4th respondent ought to have taken diligent steps in informing the petitioners regarding their ineligibility to be admitted for the academic year 2007-2008 and removed their names from the list sent for D.T.E’s approval. The learned counsel further submitted that the decision of the Co-orientation Committee for the previous academic years was applicable only to the respective academic years. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioners that on the date of their admission, system of rounding off 59.33% as 60% was in force is not correct. 17. I have carefully considered the said submissions made on either side. 18. Before considering the contentions put forth on either side, it will be useful to refer to the un-controverted facts viz., The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.222, dated 29.06.2002, have prescribed 60% average in the related subject in the Higher Secondary Course as the minimum eligibility marks so far as the candidates belonging to the OC community are concerned for admission to Engineering colleges in the Sate of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.280, Higher Education (J2) Department, dated 20.12.2004, constituting a Co-ordination Committee to regulate the admissions to Engineering Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for three years from 2005 to 2007. Admittedly, the said Co-ordination Committee has fixed 59.1% and above as minimum eligibility marks for candidates belonging to OC community for admission to the first year of B.E. course for the academic year 2005-06. Admittedly, the said Co-ordination Committee has fixed 59.1% and above as minimum eligibility marks for candidates belonging to OC community for admission to the first year of B.E. course for the academic year 2005-06. The same Co-ordination Committee in its meeting held on 20.05.2005, resolved to approve the minimum average marks for first year admission to B.E. / B.Tech. course as 59.1% and above for OC candidates for the academic year 2006-07. As some of the Self Engineering Colleges made a request to follow the minimum eligibility marks as was adopted in the academic years 2005-06 and 2006-07 for the academic year 2007-08 also, the said request was considered by the Co-ordination Committee in its second meeting held on 04.06.2007 and it had approved the minimum eligibility marks for the academic year 2007-08 as 60% average in the related subjects (59.50% and above) for candidates belonging to OC community. The said decision of the Co-ordination Committee was communicated to the Director of Technical Education, the second respondent herein on 12.07.2007, in turn, the second respondent has communicated to the individual colleges the said decision on 02.08.2007. 19. The above stated un-controverted facts makes it abundantly clear that the minimum eligibility marks for admission to the first year B.E. course was 60% average in the related subjects as per G.O.Ms.No.222, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 29.06.2002. It is also clear that for each academic year decision was being taken by the Co-ordination Committee and for the academic years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Coordination Committee has fixed the minimum eligibility marks as 59.1% and above, as far as OC candidates are concerned. Similarly, for the academic year 2007-08, the minimum eligibility marks had been fixed as 59.50% and above. For the academic years 2005-06 and 2006-07, if the average marks obtained by a OC candidate was 59.1% and above, it can be rounded off to 60% but for the academic year 2007-08, if a OC candidate had obtained 59.50% and above only, it can be rounded off to 60%. Thus it can be seen that for each academic year, the Co-ordination Committee had taken a decision regarding the minimum eligibility marks for admission to first year B.E. course. Therefore, all the engineering colleges should admit students to their institution only after ascertaining the decision taken by the Co-ordination Committee. Thus it can be seen that for each academic year, the Co-ordination Committee had taken a decision regarding the minimum eligibility marks for admission to first year B.E. course. Therefore, all the engineering colleges should admit students to their institution only after ascertaining the decision taken by the Co-ordination Committee. If without ascertaining the decision of the Co-ordination Committee for the particular academic year viz., 2007-08, if any college had admitted students in violation / deviation of the minimum eligibility criteria fixed by the Co-ordination Committee, the college and the student concerned alone could be blamed. 20. It is pertinent to point out that no where it is stated in the affidavit of the petitioners that any representation was made by the respondents 1 and 2 or respondent 3 either directly or indirectly to make the petitioners believe that the minimum eligibility marks for admission to first year engineering course for the academic year 2007-08 was 59.1% and above. If any such representation had been made, it could have been made only by the 4th respondent and such a representation could not be construed to be a representation made on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Having known well that for each academic year minimum eligibility criteria was to be fixed by the Co-ordination Committee, the 4th respondent ought not to have admitted the petitioners on the basis of the minimum eligibility marks fixed for the previous academic years. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1,2 and 3, the academic year for 2007-08, commenced on 10.09.2007 and the last date for admission was on 110. 2007 and the minimum eligibility criteria was fixed on 04.06.2007 and the same was communicated by the second respondent to individual colleges on 02.08.2007. It is pertinent to point out that the 4th respondent had addressed a letter, as pointed out above, to the second respondent on 06.08.2007, requesting to revise the minimum eligibility criteria and taking the non-receipt of the reply for the said letter, the second respondent cannot take shelter and admit the petitioners. Thus it is clear that the petitioners could have been admitted only after 06.08.2007 and not before that as claimed by the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent. Thus it is clear that the petitioners could have been admitted only after 06.08.2007 and not before that as claimed by the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents 1 to 3 are estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. 21. In the decision reported in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448), in the very same paragraph 8, before making the observation which is sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Honble Apex Court has observed as follows: “8.....But the question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of this Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective Engineering Colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted.....” The above said passage makes it clear that taking advantage of the interim orders passed by the Court, the students in that case continued their studies pending proceedings before the Court almost for four years and only taking that into consideration, the Honble Apex Court permitted the students to continue their studies. But the case on hand is different. Here, even in the middle of the first academic year itself, the ineligibility of the petitioners have been brought to their notice by the second respondent and as such the said decision does not further the cause of the petitioners. 22. Similarly the facts of the case reported in Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR 1992 Delhi 105) are totally different from the facts of this case. 22. Similarly the facts of the case reported in Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR 1992 Delhi 105) are totally different from the facts of this case. In that decision, taking into consideration that the student had not suppressed any information from the University and as the student had submitted the requisite admission form along with the requisite certificate and as directed by the authorities the students had deposited the admission fee and allowed to attend the classes, it was held that it was not open to the University to undo what had already been done and that too, to the great prejudice of the students concerned. Here, as pointed out above, till the list which contains the names of the petitioners was sent to the respondents 2 and 3, the respondents 2 and 3 were not aware of the ineligibility of the petitioners for admission. But when the ineligibility of the petitioners was brought to their notice the respondents 2 and 3 have immediately expressed their inability to approve their admission and respondents 2 and 3 have not done any act to induce the petitioners to believe they are eligible for admission. Hence the above decision does not apply to the facts of this case. 23. Similarly the decisions reported in Poovizhi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 Madras 235) and Priyadarshini. N Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Department (2005 (3) CTC 449) has absolutely no relevance to the facts of this case. In this case, the minimum eligibility criteria has been fixed even at the beginning of the academic year and even before the admission started and as such the ratio laid down in the above two decisions do not apply to the facts of this case. 24. It is unfortunate that though the Principal of the 4th respondent college was well aware of the revision of minimum eligibility criteria and that too well in advance i.e. prior to admitting the petitioners herein in the 4th respondent college, the petitioners have been admitted to the 4th respondent college. This court can only sympathise with the petitioners and the ineligibility of the petitioners cannot be condoned and their ineligible admission cannot be directed to be approved by the respondents 1 to 3. For the above said reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. This court can only sympathise with the petitioners and the ineligibility of the petitioners cannot be condoned and their ineligible admission cannot be directed to be approved by the respondents 1 to 3. For the above said reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No doubt it is true that because of the conduct of the management of the 4th respondent college in admitting the petitioners, who admittedly do not have the minimum eligibility marks, the petitioners have lost one year of their academic career but that cannot be a reason for granting the relief sought for in the writ petitions. However, it is open to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy against the Management of the 4th respondent college in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed.