ORDER B.S. Patil, J.— Petitioner is a student presently studying in the 1st semester of Bachelor of Engineering (BE) course in Information Science and Engineering in the 3rd respondent-College. He is admitted to the BE course during the academic year 2007-08. He claims to belong to scheduled caste community of 'MALO' in the State of West Bengal Petitioner has passed his plus-two examination of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education during 2007 securing in all 132 marks out of 300 in the elective subjects. The break-up of marks obtained by him is Physics 41, Maths 44, Chemistry 47. Thus, in the optional subjects, he has secured overall 44% marks. 2. The 3rd respondent college sought for approval of admission of the petitioner from the 1st respondent-University. The University issued communications dated 27.12.2007 and 07.12.2007 vide Annexures M and K respectively informing that admission of petitioner was not approved as the marks obtained by him in the optional subjects were less than prescribed. The University further stated that the petitioner-student did not fulfill the eligibility criteria in that regard, as per the Government Order in force. Challenging these two communications and seeking a direction to the University to approve his admission he has filed this writ petition. He has also sought for a declaration that as he belonged to Scheduled Caste he was entitled for reduced eligibility criteria extended to Scheduled Castes in the State of Karnataka. Further, he has sought for a declaration that the regulations of AICTB as per Annexure D would govern his admission. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R. Naik appearing for the petitioner has urged the following contentions. (a) The eligibility criteria fixed as per the AICTE norms prevail over the Regulations framed by the State Government or the University. (b) The respondent University has erred in considering the petitioner ineligible when admittedly he belonged to Schedule Caste for whom the minimum marks fixed is 40% even as per the state govt. prescription. In this regard he contends that the action of the University was illegal in not extending the benefit of relaxed eligibility in the percentage of marks applicable to the Scheduled Castes on the ground that the petitioner was from outside Karnataka. prescription. In this regard he contends that the action of the University was illegal in not extending the benefit of relaxed eligibility in the percentage of marks applicable to the Scheduled Castes on the ground that the petitioner was from outside Karnataka. Counsel submits that the claim for relaxed eligibility is different from the claim for reservation and hence insistence on a minimum of 50% in respect of candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes merely because he was a candidate hailing from outside Karnataka is illegal and untenable. (c) The rules framed by the State Government apply to selection of candidates for admission to govt. seats only and not to the Management seats. (d) His last contention is that keeping in mind the studies prosecuted by the student and the injury and hardship that he will be subjected to if he is made to discontinue the course, a lenient and equitable consideration may be adopted as is done in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others, (1990) 92 BOMLR 294 . Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: i. State of T.N. and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, JT (1995) 3 SC 136 ii. Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2423 iii. Dr Preeti Srivastava and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2894 iv. Karan Goel v. Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Anr. Bangalore W.P. 52342/2003 disposed on 29/01/04. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent University Sri Basavaprabhu S. Patil has strongly resisted the claim made by the petitioner. Taking the Court through the statement of objections filed, he has contended that the rules framed by the state govt. known as Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Govt. seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 are also applicable to Management quota seats in private professional educational institutions and hence the eligibility criterion fixed in Rule 3 requiring not less than 45% of aggregate marks in optional subjects for admission to engineering and technical courses has to be mandatorily complied with. seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 are also applicable to Management quota seats in private professional educational institutions and hence the eligibility criterion fixed in Rule 3 requiring not less than 45% of aggregate marks in optional subjects for admission to engineering and technical courses has to be mandatorily complied with. He contends that the University has made regulations vide annexure -H stipulating the same eligibility criterion of 45% marks for general category and 40% in respect of Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribe but the reduced eligibility of 40% is applicable to the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates as notified by the State in respect of various castes in Karnataka. 5. As the petitioner disputed the fact that any such regulations were properly framed by the University vide Annexure H, the respondent University produced a copy of the resolution of the Executive Council which had resolved to accept the recommendation of the academic senate fixing the eligibility for admission to B.E./B.Tech courses at 45% and 40% in the qualifying exam for general category and reserved category candidates respectively with effect from the year 2006-07. 6. Sri Basavaprabhu S. Paul has contended that the state govt. and the respondent University are competent to prescribe higher or additional qualifications with a view to improve the standard of engineering degree course. He has placed strong reliance on the Judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1861 . Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Vishveshwaraiah Technological University v. Debashree Chowdhury and Ors. AIR 2008 KAR 257. 7. Having regard to the respective contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the questions that arise for consideration in this case is, are: (i) Whether the prescription of minimum qualifying marks by the AICTE in the entry level examinations for Engineering/Technology stipulating a pass in 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects alongwith one of the following subjects-Chemistry/Biotechnology/Computer Science/Biology prevails over the prescription made by the respondent-University or for that matter by the State Government under their respective rules and regulations requiring a higher minimum marks in the qualifying examination. (ii) Whether the petitioner who has secured 44% marks and is qualified as per the entry level qualification prescribed by the AICTE vide Annexure-D is entitled for admission although the rules framed by the State/University prescribe higher minimum qualification as eligibility? (iii) Whether the rules framed by the State Government known as the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006, particularly Rule 3 providing for academic eligibility are applicable in the instant case? (iv) Whether the petitioner who is a student belonging to Scheduled Caste from West Bengal is entitled to the benefit of Regulations framed by the University relating to the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering; Technology vide OB 2.2 whereunder reduced eligibility criteria requiring 40% minimum marks in optional subject for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes is provided vide Annexure-H? Points No. 1 and 2: The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this connection is that AICTE is an Apex body and the norms fixed by it win have overriding effect over the standards and norms prescribed by the State/University. In this regard, he has placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of T.N. and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, JT (1995) 3 SC 136 . In paragraph 42, it is stated that so far as technical institutions are concerned the norms and standards and the requirements for recognition and affiliation that the Government and the University may lay down cannot be higher than or be in conflict and inconsistent with those laid down by the Council under the Central Act. It is further observed in the said paragraph that once it is accepted that the whole object of the Central Act is to determine and coordinate the standards of technical education throughout the country, to integrate its development and to maintain certain standards in such education, it will have to be held that such norms, standard and requirements, etc., will have to be uniform throughout the country. As far as uniformity, the Apex Court observes that for the purpose of coordinated and integrated development of technical education in the Country, a set of minimum standards the fulfillment of which should entitle an institution and its allies, for conferring titles, degrees and certificates could be recognised anywhere in the country. As far as uniformity, the Apex Court observes that for the purpose of coordinated and integrated development of technical education in the Country, a set of minimum standards the fulfillment of which should entitle an institution and its allies, for conferring titles, degrees and certificates could be recognised anywhere in the country. It is also found that higher than the minimum standard implies compliance with the minimum standard. Referring to the decision in Ch. Tika Ramji and Others etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1956 SC 676 it is pointed out that the argument that there was no repugnancy or inconsistency between the minimum and the higher than minimum standard was required to be rejected. 8. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has invited the attention of the Court to the later decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. S.V. Bratheep and Ors., wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider a similar question. The Apex Court also considered the effect of the observations made in Adhiyaman's case case. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Court has raised a question as to what would be the position where the minimum prescribed by the State Government is higher than the one prescribed by the AICTE? Could it be said that it was in any manner repugnant to the standard fixed by the AICTE? Answering this question, the Court has observed in paragraph 10 & 11, as under,- 10. xxx xxx. In our opinion, it does not On the other hand, if you proceed on the basis that the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination, the additional test made applicable is the Common Entrance Test by the Stale Government ff we proceed to take the standard fixed by the AICTE to be the Common Entrance Test then the prescription made by the State Government of having obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible to participate in the Common Entrance Test is in addition to the Common Entrance Test in either event, the streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. The manner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what has been prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable and that minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no other standards could be fixed even the higher, as stated by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case, ft is no doubt true as noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman's case that there may be situations when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for Engineering colleges. It is not very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards but definitely higher than the mere pass marks. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by series of decisions of this Court including Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. If higher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the matter of admission of the students in the higher education. 11. Argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is that the purpose of fixing norms by the 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's case that the State can always fix a further qualification or additional qualification to what has been prescribed by the AICTB 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 the standard of education. Therefore it is difficult to subscribe to the view that once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by the AICTE, they should be admitted even if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by the State. The scope of the relative entry in the VII Schedule to the Constitution have to be understood in the manner as stated in Dr. The scope of the relative entry in the VII Schedule to the Constitution have to be understood in the manner as stated in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case and therefore we need not further elaborate in this case or consider arguments to the contrary such as application of occupied theory, no power could be exercised under Entry 25 of List III as they would not arise for consideration.... 9. Further, in paragraph 14, the Apex Court has held as under: 14. In this view of the matter, we think these appeals deserves 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 the 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. 10. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforementioned case, it becomes clear that even though the norms for admission fixed by the AICTE is only a pass in the entry level exam, in view of the prescription of 49% minimum marks in the qualifying examination, i.e., 10+2 as eligibility criteria in the rules framed by the University which is intended to prescribe a higher minimum standard, keeping in mind the standard of excellence to be achieved by the students who are admitted to the course, it cannot be said that the prescription made by the University is invalid. Referring to the Apex Court judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishweshwaraiah Technological University v. Debashree Chouwdhury and Ors. AIR 2008 KAR 257 has held that it is open for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for the purpose of admission to the engineering colleges than what has been prescribed by the AICTE. It is held that what has been prescribed by the State was not contrary to the prescription made by the AICTE. In fact the judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1861 is referred to and relied upon to come to the said conclusion. Points No. l and 2 which are interconnected are answered accordingly. POINT NO. In fact the judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1861 is referred to and relied upon to come to the said conclusion. Points No. l and 2 which are interconnected are answered accordingly. POINT NO. 3:- The next point that requires consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for reduced eligibility of 40% marks prescribed under the State/University Regulations. So tin-as the State regulations produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition are concerned, although learned Counsel for the respondent-University submits that these regulations are applicable to the case of the petitioner, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said rules arc applicable to admission to Government Seats in professional educational institutions. In the instant case, we are concerned with admission for a management seat. In the title to the rule itself, it is made clear that it pertains to Government seats in professional institutions. The expression "Government Seats" is defined to mean certain fixed percentage of seats that are required to be filled by the CET cell on the basis of consensus between the Government and private educational institutions and notified by the Government as Government seats. The eligibility of the candidates for being admitted to the Government seats is stipulated in Rule 3 of the said Rules, whereunder it is stated that in order to be eligible for admission as against a Government seat, he must have appeared for the examination conducted by the Common Entrance Test Cell and must have passed second year Pre-University or 12th standard or equivalent examination held preceding the entrance test and must have obtained 43% of the aggregate marks in optional subjects for the purpose of seeking admission for Engineering course. However, this minimum percentage of 45 is reduced to 40 in the case of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes as specified in the Government Order for the purpose of reservation in respect of medical and dental courses. Therefore, apparently the eligibility criteria prescribed under the 2006 Rules framed by the State Government cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner herein, as he is not claiming admission under the Government seat category nor has he taken the entrance examination. Therefore, apparently the eligibility criteria prescribed under the 2006 Rules framed by the State Government cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner herein, as he is not claiming admission under the Government seat category nor has he taken the entrance examination. He has been admitted under the Management category by the Management Therefore, to this extent the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent-University cannot be accepted. 11. The respondent-University has framed regulations which are similar to the regulations framed by the State-Government Copy of the said regulations are produced at Annexure-H. Although the first page of Annexure-H mentions 'syllabus with effect from 2006-07', in page 3 of the said annexure. the regulations governing the Bachelor of Engineering/Technology with effect from 2006-07 are found. OB 2.1 & 2.2 are relevant for our purpose which are extracted hereunder: OB 2. Eligibility for admission (Government Orders issued from time to time in this regard shall prevail) OB 2.1 Admission to first year, first semester bachelor degree in engineering/technology shall be opened for the candidates who have passed the second year pre-university or 12th standard or equivalent examination recognized by the University. OB 2.2 In addition to OB 2.1, the candidate should have secured not less than 45% marks in the aggregate with physics and mathematics as compulsory subjects, alongwith one of the provisional subjects - Chemistry, Bio-Technology, Computer Science, Biology and Electronics. Provided that, the minimum marks for the purpose of eligibility shall be 40% in optional subject in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes. Provided that, the candidate shall have studied and passed English as one of the subjects. 12. OB 2.1 & 2.2 of the Regulations framed by the University governs the admission in question. As the learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that these regulations have not been property framed and there is nothing to show that these regulations were framed by the University, this Court directed the respondent-University to file an affidavit of the concerned and state in clear terms as to whether these regulations were framed and adopted. Pursuant to the said direction, additional statement of objections were filed by the respondent-University enclosing a copy of a note pertaining to the consideration of revised eligibility for admission to BE Courses for the academic year 2006-07. Pursuant to the said direction, additional statement of objections were filed by the respondent-University enclosing a copy of a note pertaining to the consideration of revised eligibility for admission to BE Courses for the academic year 2006-07. A perusal of the same discloses that the University took note of the relaxed eligibility criteria of 35% fixed by the AICTE and the difficulty faced by the institutions due to the lowering of the eligibility criteria, which had given scope for less meritorious students to get into the professional courses resulting in deterioration in results and also of the fact that many students were finding it difficult to obtain the eligibility for third semester. In view of the same and in order to improve the standard of Engineering degree course by providing admission to such of the candidates who could withstand the stress of the professional courses, it was proposed to fix the minimum eligibility as 45% in the qualifying examination for General category candidates and 40% in the qualifying examination for reserved category candidates from the academic year 2006-07. The subject was placed before the Academic Senate on 17.10.2005 for consideration. The Academic Senate resolved to recommend that the minimum eligibility for admission to B.E./B.Tech. Courses be enhanced to 45% and 40% in the qualifying examination for General category and Reserved category candidates, respectively with effect from the academic year 2006-07. Later on, the Executive Council passed the resolution to accept the resolution of the Academic Senate, and accordingly the new enhanced eligibility criteria came into force with effect from the academic year 2006-07. It is clear that even as per the university regulations the eligibility criteria for general category candidates is 45% in the qualifying examinations and 40% in so for as the reserved category candidates are concerned. Therefore it has to be stated that the petitioner in order to be eligible for admission to the Engineering courses must conform to this eligibility criteria. 13. Therefore it has to be stated that the petitioner in order to be eligible for admission to the Engineering courses must conform to this eligibility criteria. 13. However, the controversy does not stop here, as the other important question that requires to be answered is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of reduced eligibility of 40% as he claims that he belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of West Bengal Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Karan Goel v. Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Anr. WP No. 52342/2003 disposed of on 29.1.2004. That was a case where the student who belonged to a reserved category in another State had secured admission in the State of Karnataka, and urged that the reduced eligibility criteria of 40% prescribed by the Medical Council Regulations was applicable to him. This Court after referring to the decisions in M.C.D. Vs. Veena and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2749 . Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others, (1990) 92 BOMLR 294 and Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1994 SCW 3305 , has held as under: In the given case, if the petitioner wants to claim the seat, out of the seats allotted by the University after holding competitive examination, then unless his caste is recognised in the State of Karnataka as belonging to backward community or category-I, he is not entitled to the benefit If he is not seeking any such reservation on the basis of caste, the question of applying the regulation framed by the University to such a candidate would not arise. That apart, the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are applicable through out the country. It overrides any regulation framed by any University or the state authority. That apart, the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are applicable through out the country. It overrides any regulation framed by any University or the state authority. The exception carved out to the general rule is, if the University or the state authority is conducting a competitive examination or if they want to make admissions based on the qualifying examination, they are at liberty to prescribe a minimum qualification higher than what is prescribed by the Medical Council of India, This prescription of minimum qualification applies to cases where students seek admission through the state agency. 14. The Court further proceeded to observe in page 25 that the M.C.I. Regulations stipulated that the minimum qualification prescribed was applicable throughout the country and if the student belongs to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes and possesses 40% minimum marks in the qualifying examination, he was eligible to be admitted to the first year M.B.B.S. Course. This Court found that the MCI Regulations did not prescribe that a person who is entitled to that benefit should also satisfy the requirement of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Community in the state where he is seeking admission. Under those circumstances, the contention of the University that because the petitioner was not treated as Backward Community person in the state of Karnataka and had not secured 50% minimum marks, he did not possess the eligibility criteria for admission to 1st year M.B.B.S. course was rejected. It was held in the facts of the said case that if the candidate belonged to backward community and was not seeking any reservation under the said quota, when the regulation of the Medical Council of India categorically stated that a person belonging to one of the said categories was qualified if he possessed 40% minimum marks for being admitted to 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course, he was entitled to seek admission. 15. The facts in the present case are different as no such stipulation is made by the Central Body in the instant case prescribing a lower minimum for the reserved category as a general prescription applicable through out the country. The reduced eligibility is prescribed by the University for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. For the purpose of extending the benefit of reservation a candidate must satisfy that he is a person belonging to reserved category as specified by the State. The reduced eligibility is prescribed by the University for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. For the purpose of extending the benefit of reservation a candidate must satisfy that he is a person belonging to reserved category as specified by the State. 16. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others, (1990) 92 BOMLR 294 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from liabilities in those areas. 17. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under: 13. Treating the determination under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be valid for all over the country would be in negation to the very purpose and scheme and language of Article 341 read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Again in paragraph 14, the Apex Court has observed as under: 14. The construction that reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe of that State is so determined to be entitled to all the privileges and rights under the Constitution in that State would be the most correct way of reading, consistent with the language, purpose and scheme of the Constitution. Otherwise, one has to bear in mind that if reservations to those who are treated as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh are also given to a boy or a girl who migrates and gets deducted in the State of Maharashtra or other States where that caste or tribe is not treated as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe then either reservation will have the effect of depriving the percentage to the member of that caste or tribe in Maharashtra who would be entitled to protection or it would denude the other non-Scheduled Castes or non-Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra to the proportion and they are entitled to. This cannot be logical or correct result designed by the Constitution. 18. This cannot be logical or correct result designed by the Constitution. 18. This view has been reiterated by subsequent decision of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Action Committee on lame of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in 1994 AIR SCW 3305. Referring to the observations made in Marri Chandra Shenkhar Rao's case, the Apex Court has reiterated the position in paragraph 14 as under: 14. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or doss for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or doss in that State which may be totally nonest in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State that person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Castes of the latter State 'for the purposes of this Constitution. (underlining is supplied). 19. In paragraph 16, the Apex Court has concurred and agreed with the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao's case in the following terms: 16. We are in respectful agreement with the above view expressed by the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid decision. All the points which were canvassed before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran were also canvassed by him in the said matter. They were negatived by the Constitution Bench. We are in respectful agreement with the above view expressed by the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid decision. All the points which were canvassed before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran were also canvassed by him in the said matter. They were negatived by the Constitution Bench. Nothing has been pointed out to persuade us to think that the view taken by the Constitution Bench requires re-consideration by a larger Bench, hi fact, we are in complete agreement with the interpretation placed on the various provisions of the Constitution, in particular Article 341 and 342 thereof in the said judgment We therefore, see no merits in this writ petition and dismiss the same. However, we make no order as to costs. 20. As held by the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Action Committees on issue of Casts Certificate to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1994 SCW 3305 merely because a given caste is specified in State 'A' as a scheduled caste it does not necessary mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State, the person belonging to the former could be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Schedule Caste of the latter State for the purposes of this Constitution. 21. It is therefore clear that only because the petitioner is a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste in West Bengal, he cannot claim the benefit of reservation or any other privileges in the State of Karnataka. For the same reason benefit of reduced eligibility criteria to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe of other States cannot be extended in the State of Karnataka. The two decisions of the Constitution Bench referred to above make it very clear that the expression for the purpose of that State' confine the benefit to the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe of the State of Karnataka as recognised and notified here. The University has made it clear by issuing Annexure-F Notification dated 15.05.2006 that in case of any doubt or ambiguity regarding eligibility, the Principals of the College were advised to refer it to the University. But, in the instant case, the Principal of the College has made the admission without getting such clarification. The University has made it clear by issuing Annexure-F Notification dated 15.05.2006 that in case of any doubt or ambiguity regarding eligibility, the Principals of the College were advised to refer it to the University. But, in the instant case, the Principal of the College has made the admission without getting such clarification. This shows that the respondent-College has acted without any deference to the prevailing Regulations. 22. The facts involved in Karan Goel's case where the MCI Regulations specifically prescribed the reduced eligibility for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe for admission to the medical courses and which were made applicable throughout the Country are different from the facts of the present case. In fact, the Admission Rules 2006 framed by the State regulating admission to Government seats make specific reference to the castes and classes specified in the relevant Government Order issued for the purpose of reservation in respect of Medical and Dental Courses for extending the benefit of reduced eligibility of 40% to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class candidates for seeking admission to Engineering Courses. It cannot be disputed that for the Government Seats the benefit is available only to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe candidates as notified in the State vide the Government Orders issued for this purpose. If that is the admitted position, there cannot be a different eligibility criteria when it comes to admission under the Management quota. Such an interpretation will be totally against the decisions of the Apex Court and the intendment behind the reservation provided. 23. Therefore, points No. 3 and 4 are answered holding that petitioner is not entitled for the reduced eligibility of 40% and that the 2006 Rules framed by the State Government though not apply to the petitioner's admission, the similar Regulations framed by the University are applicable whereunder 45% minimum marks is the eligibility criteria fixed. 24. It is very disturbing to note that the respondent-College has given admission to the student though he was not eligible. One precious year of the student is lost. This has resulted in affecting his academic career apart from subjecting him to financial loss. The respondent-College is duty bound to refund to the student all the fees collected towards his admission, tuition, examination, hostel, etc. The College shall refund the aforementioned fees and charges and return to the student the original certificates within 3 weeks from today. This has resulted in affecting his academic career apart from subjecting him to financial loss. The respondent-College is duty bound to refund to the student all the fees collected towards his admission, tuition, examination, hostel, etc. The College shall refund the aforementioned fees and charges and return to the student the original certificates within 3 weeks from today. 25. For the reasons stated above, while dismissing the writ petition, it is ordered that the petitioners shall be entitled for refund of the fees and charges collected by the College as aforementioned. 26. Petitioner is also entitled for the costs of this litigation from the respondent-College in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-.