JUDGMENT By the Court.—Respondents No. 2 and 3-appellants, aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 1.7.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3465 of 2008 have preferred this appeal under Chapter 5 Rule VIII of the High Court Rules. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 applied for admission in 3rd Semester Course of Computer Science in the appellants’ College. Admission to the 3rd Semester of the aforesaid Course is granted directly to the students who have secured 60% and above marks in Bachelor of Science Examination with Mathematics as a subject. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 had secured only 56% marks, yet he sought admission in the institution despite his marks being deficient. He was admitted on an alleged payment of a donation of Rs. 2 lacs for admission. The college not only took admission of writ petitioner-respondent No. 1, who admittedly was not eligible, but even forwarded his application to the University for appearing in the examination. The University rejected his candidature and he was not allowed to appear in the examination. 3. Writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 filed writ application inter alia praying for a direction for allowing him to appear in the examination. The aforesaid prayer did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and the learned Judge rejected his prayer. However, while doing so, the learned Judge observed as follows : “In today’s time when it is difficult for the students to get admission in technical courses, it is very easy for the private colleges to lure the students who may not even possess the requisite eligibility to take admission. This observation is being made after considering the plight of the students in the country who are desperate to get admission in professional courses so that they get proper jobs. Private colleges have a responsibility not to exploit such position of the students and they are obliged to ensure that only qualified students get admission and no extra fee is charged from them. They are not to act as businessmen. They are also not to befool the students by wrongly giving them admission, even though they may not possess the requisite qualification. They are not to act as businessmen. They are also not to befool the students by wrongly giving them admission, even though they may not possess the requisite qualification. It is their duty to scrutinize the papers at the time of granting admission and not to first take fees from the students (which may include donation, besides the requisite fees) and then proceed to scrutinize the application form. In the present case, the college did not scrutinize the application form even after granting admission as they claim to have discovered the ineligibility of the petitioner only after the examination form of the petitioner was rejected by the University. The petitioner is not guilty of providing any wrong information to the respondent-college at the time of seeking admission. The petitioner had clearly declared in the admission form that he was awarded 56% marks in the B.Sc. examination. The respondent-college has not been able to show that prior to granting admission they had informed the petitioner that he should possess minimum 60% marks in the qualifying examination. It would have been a different case if the petitioner had provided wrong information to the college that he had over 60% marks in B.Sc. and it was later found that he had less than 60% marks. Here it is a case that the respondent-college has apparently cheated the petitioner by granting him admission, taking fees from him (and possibly some donation also) knowing it fully well that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification for grant of admission. Besides this, by granting admission to the petitioner in such a manner and later refusing permission to the petitioner to appear in the examination has amounted to loss of one academic year of the petitioner and the situation would not change even if the petitioner has been refunded the fees, which he had deposited after being granted admission.” 4. In the aforesaid premise, the learned Single Judge had directed the college to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lacs to the writ petitioner within a stipulated time, and it is this portion of the order which has been impugned by the appellants in the present appeal. 5. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge had not recorded a categorical finding that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the writ petitioner within a stipulated time, and it is this portion of the order which has been impugned by the appellants in the present appeal. 5. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge had not recorded a categorical finding that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was paid by the writ petitioner to the college and further, the writ petitioner himself being aware of the fact that he is not eligible for admission, his act cannot be said to be innocent and hence the learned Single Judge erred in granting compensation to him. He further submits that after the fee had been withdrawn by the writ petitioner which was admittedly refunded by the college, he chose to file the writ application, which is not a bona fide legal pursuit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Khare. The college was aware of the minimum eligibility criteria for admission in the 3rd Semester. Undisputedly, it had admitted the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 in the 3rd Semester who was not eligible. It is not the case of the appellants that the writ petitioner had produced manipulated or forged documents, or misled them in taking admission. Not only this after he was admitted, the appellant-college had knowingly forwarded his name for appearing in the examination to the University and it is at that stage, that it was detected by the University that the writ petitioner was not eligible. It is the appellants who were at an advantageous position and despite knowing the fact that the writ petitioner was not eligible, took admission and forwarded his name to the University. 7. It is well settled that in an intra Court appeal, the appellate Court interferes with the quantum of compensation awarded only when an exceptional case is made out. 8. In the facts of the case enumerated above, we are of the opinion that the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any apparent error calling for interference in the appeal. 9. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. ————