Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Respondent No. 2 has been duly served. None appears. Set exparte. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure P-6) whereby she has been declared ineligible for admission to Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics having compartment in the Lower Class Examination. 4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a student of Part-IV of B.Sc. Food Science and technology (Honours) at Khalsa College, Amritsar. The petitioner applied for admission to Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics in response to the Brochure/Prospectus issued by respondent No.1- University. The petitioner was selected and admitted to the course on 02.07.2009. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that she had compartment in "Introduction to Computer" in B.Sc. Part-IV examination. The petitioner applied for re-appear. Reappear examination was to be held in September, 2009. The petitioner also applied for reevaluation Respondent No. 2, however, admitted the petitioner on the basis of Mark-sheet in which the petitioner was shown to be placed compartment category. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that after her admission, the College not only charged the fee, but also issued Identity Card and the petitioner attended her classes regularly. The petitioner appeared in the supplementary examination to clear the compartment paper and successfully qualified the same for which the result was declared on 10.11.2009 as is evident from Annexure P-5. Respondent No. 2 forwarded the form of the petitioner for appearance in the final examination of the Diploma Course to respondent No. 1 University. Vide the impugned order Annexure P-4, she has been declared ineligible by respondent No. 1. 5. Respondent No. 1 in its short reply has taken the plea that the petitioner was ineligible under the statutory Ordinance framed by the University for admission to the aforesaid Diploma Course. The relevant Ordinance relied upon by the respondents reads as under :- " 1. The persons who have passed B.Sc. (Home Science) and B.Sc. (Clinical Nutrition) as vocational subject of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar or any examination recognized by this University as equivalent thereto shall be eligible to join the course." 6. The relevant Ordinance relied upon by the respondents reads as under :- " 1. The persons who have passed B.Sc. (Home Science) and B.Sc. (Clinical Nutrition) as vocational subject of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar or any examination recognized by this University as equivalent thereto shall be eligible to join the course." 6. Apart from the above, the respondent has also relied upon decision of the Syndicate of respondent No. 1-University dated 16.07.2004 at Agenda Item No. 23 which reads as under :- "23. To approve the recommendations of the Committee for not giving admission to the students having compartment. After discussion, it was decided to approve the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor to consider the U.G.C. Letter stipulating that students having compartment shall not be given admission to the Graduate/Postgraduate Courses. This policy shall be applicable from the academic session 2005-06." Recommendations of the Committee have also been reproduced in the aforesaid decision which are as follows :- "After deliberations, it was unanimously resolved that the letter of UGC for not allowing admission to students in Bachelor degree courses who have compartment in +2 examinations and subsequently in Master degree courses who have compartment in undergraduate degree courses be accepted and implemented from the academic session 2005-2006 and this information be conveyed to all the Departments and Colleges of the University well in advance." 7. It is, accordingly, argued by Mr.Amrit Paul, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that the petitioner being ineligible at the time of admission, her candidature has been rightly cancelled. 8. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner never concealed any fact. In the application form as also the Mark-sheet of B.Sc. i.e. qualifying examination, it was clearly mentioned about the compartment and despite that the petitioner was admitted to the course in question by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has almost completed the course and, at this belated stage, she cannot be declared ineligible particularly when the petitioner has already cleared the compartment. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, however, strenuously opposed by the respondent No. 1. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was ineligible at the time of admission to the course. Qualifying the compartment after admission does not, in any manner, make the petitioner eligible. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, however, strenuously opposed by the respondent No. 1. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was ineligible at the time of admission to the course. Qualifying the compartment after admission does not, in any manner, make the petitioner eligible. A similar issue has been considered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. v. Gis Jose & Ors, 2009 (1) RSJ, 438, wherein the following observations have been made :- "It was contended by Shri B.V. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the student that the Vice Chancellor had allowed her to continue with the course. However, there is nothing on record to support this fact. Further, such permission was clearly incorrect if at all given. In the subsequent meeting of the Academic Council, the student was not permitted to continue with the course. All these factors were completely ignored by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. Therefore, at least after the Academic Council had rejected the students request, she could not have been allowed to continue. This did not happen and the college allowed her to take the further examinations for III and IV semesters also. We totally disapprove of all this." 11. Eligibility of a candidate is primarily governed and regulated by University Ordinances which are statutory in nature. Petitioner was granted admission in contravention to the statutory Ordinance. Not only the Ordinance, even the UGC guidelines duly adopted by the respondent University prohibit admission to course in case of compartment as is evident from the resolution of Syndicate. No relaxation can be given to the petitioner merely because admission was granted to her inadvertently or may be in connivance of some official of College. No right or equity is created in favour of petitioner. However, respondent No. 2 College is liable to refund fee to the petitioner whatever is paid by her. 12. In view of the aforesaid position, there no merit in the present writ petition. Dismissed. No costs.