Judgment :- The petitioners in W.P.Nos. 12320, 12321, 34, 40, 52, 53, 54, 350, 351, 492, 1604, 1605, 1607, 1608,1609, 1660, 12174 to 12180, 2521, 675 to 677, 1527, 1529, 1530 and 1650 of 2008 are un-aided Educational Institutions offering B.E. Degree course. During the academic year 2007-2008, these Colleges admitted students as against the management quota as well as against the lapsed seats. Some students who secured more marks in the improvement examination conducted by the Higher Secondary Board of other States were admitted on the basis of the improvement marks. When the lists of admitted candidates were sent by the Colleges to the first respondent for verification and for getting necessary approval, the first respondent rejected the admission of those students who were admitted on the basis of the marks secured in the improvement examination conducted by the Boards in the other States. Challenging the same, the petitioners-Colleges have come forward with the above writ petitions. .2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.13180, 7333, 12144, 12526, 12452 and 12453 of 2008, who are such students, who got admission in various colleges on the basis of the improvement marks, have filed these writ petitions challenging the rejection of their admission by the first respondent. 3. Since common grounds have been raised in all these writ petitions, all were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 4. The main ground raised in all these writ petitions is that when the admissions were made for the academic year 2007-2008, it was not made clear by the first respondent that the improvement marks secured by the students from Boards of other States would not be considered. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the prospectus issued by the first respondent for admission for the academic year 20072008 through single window system, it was not specifically stated that the improvement marks secured by the students from Boards of other States would not be taken into account and because of the same, the Colleges were under the impression that the improvement marks secured by the candidates from Boards of other States would be taken into account. The learned counsel would also submit that a circular was issued by the first respondent only on 30.11.2007 informing the colleges that the admission of students should not be made on the basis of the improvement marks. The learned counsel would also submit that a circular was issued by the first respondent only on 30.11.2007 informing the colleges that the admission of students should not be made on the basis of the improvement marks. But, by the time when the communication was sent to the colleges, the admission had already been completed, the students were undergoing courses and as matter of fact, some students had already undertaken the practical examinations also and for written examinations hall-tickets had also been issued. After all these happenings, the first respondent issued orders rejecting the admissions of these students, who were admitted on the basis of improvement marks secured from Boards of other States belatedly. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the rejection of the admissions of such students is not correct and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside. .5. The learned Special Government Pleader would refute the said contentions. He would submit that insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the scheme of improvement examination for plus two students was done away with long before and when the same was challenged, a Division Bench of this Court in the case Priyadarshini.N. Vs The Secretary to the Government, Educational Department reported in (2005) 3 CTC 449 held that the marks secured in the improvement examination held for the year 2005-2006 alone would be taken into consideration for the purpose of admission to Professional Colleges and in future, there would not be any such consideration of improvement marks. Relying on the said judgment, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the Colleges knew very well that the improvement marks secured by the students should not be taken into account for admission. He would further submit that if the students who have secured improvement marks from Boards of other States are admitted, it would amount to discrimination of students, who were not admitted on the basis of the improvement marks secured in the State of Tamil Nadu, during 2005-2006 or before. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of these writ petitions. However, on instructions, he would submit that for the current year, since those students have appeared for semester examinations, taking lenient view, the Government is not very keen to non-suit the students as it will disturb their education prospects. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of these writ petitions. However, on instructions, he would submit that for the current year, since those students have appeared for semester examinations, taking lenient view, the Government is not very keen to non-suit the students as it will disturb their education prospects. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. Of course, it is true that as held in the case of Priyadarshini.N. VS Secretary to Government, Education Department, cited supra, since there is no improvement examination held in the State of Tamil Nadu, the students of this State do not have the benefit of going for improvement examination to improve their marks to get entry into the professional colleges. But the students who have studied in the other States like Kerala, where the improvement examination is in vogue, based on the improvement marks secured by them, have got admission. In my considered opinion, there is every force in the argument put forth by the Special Government Pleader, that the colleges cannot plead ignorance of the position that insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the improvement marks shall not be taken into account for the purpose of admission to professional colleges. So, the action of the colleges in admitting the students on the basis of the improvement marks cannot be appreciated at all. At the same time, the action of the first respondent in not issuing necessary circular in time also cannot be appreciated. .8. Yet another fact is that the prospectus issued by the first respondent for the academic year 2007-2008, is not free from any dubious interpretation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the prospectus issued by the first respondent for the academic year 2008-2009, wherein it has been very specifically stated that the improvement marks secured by the candidates from the Boards of other States shall not be considered. Such a clause is found missing in the prospectus issued for the academic year 2007-2008. Probably, on going through the prospectus, the students were under the impression that the improvement marks secured by them in the improvement examinations held in other states would be considered and that is how they got admission during 2007-2008 on the basis of the improvement marks. Probably, on going through the prospectus, the students were under the impression that the improvement marks secured by them in the improvement examinations held in other states would be considered and that is how they got admission during 2007-2008 on the basis of the improvement marks. Had it been mentioned specifically in the prospectus for the year 2007-2008, the students would have refrained themselves from getting admission into the professional courses, instead, they would have joined some other courses on the basis of their eligibility. The Circular by the first respondent, admittedly, was issued only on 30.11.2007 (i.e) long after the admissions were completed by the colleges. If the students are sent out of the colleges at this length of time on the ground that the admissions made based on the improvement marks obtained from Boards of other States is not acceptable to the first respondent, then, it would only ruin the future of the students. Having regard to this, taking a lenient view, the Government has also come up with a statement that the Government is not keen to unseat the students. 9. Considering all the above, in my view, in the interest of the students and to meet the ends of justice, insofar as the academic year 2007-2008 is concerned, all admissions made on the basis of the improvement marks secured from Boards of other States, should be approved by the first respondent. But it is clarified that the Colleges shall not admit any student on the basis of the improvement marks secured from Boards of other States either during the academic year 2008-2009 or in future. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the colleges in all these writ petitions would submit that during the academic year 2008-2009, since it was made more specifically clear in the prospectus itself that the improvement marks secured by the students from Boards of other States would not be considered, the colleges have not admitted any student this year on the basis of the improvement marks. The said statement is recorded. 11. The said statement is recorded. 11. In view of all the above, without going into the other merits of the case, considering more particularly the welfare of the students, I am inclined to pass the following Order: i) All these writ petitions are allowed; ii) The admission of the students made during the academic year 2007-2008 on the basis of improvement marks secured in the improvement examinations conducted by Boards of other States are directed to be approved by the first respondent; iii) It is made clear that the Self-Financing Colleges shall not hereinafter admit any student on the basis of the improvement marks from any State Board; iv) The second respondent is directed to publish the results of the examinations attended by these students as per the interim orders passed in these writ petitions; v) It is made clear that this order shall not be quoted as a precedent in future for any purpose. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.