Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 10.2.2009 issued by the first respondent to the third respondent vide Annexure-E. 1. The Petitioner on being declared pass in the Pre-University examination, secured 39.75% in the aggregate of marks in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and though fell short of 0.25% marks for admission to the course in B.Sc., Nursing, was sponsored by the 2nd respondent Department of Social Welfare, and secured an admission in the 3rd respondent college for the academic year 2008-09, which when not approved by the letter dated 10.2.2009, Annexure-‘E’ of the 1st respondent, has presented this Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Petitioner belongs to schedule Caste and contends that in similar circumstances, a candidate having fallen short of 0.12% marks in the aggregate in the Degree Examination, and the admission to MCA course, cancelled, in Rajeev M. –Vs- The Registrar, Visvesvaraya Technological University, in W.P.NO.51369/04 dated 15.9.2006, a learned single judge, following the reported opinions of this court as well as the Apex Court, having a bearing on the questions for determination, set-aside the cancellation of the admission and permitted the completion of the course. Learned counsel would place reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore University –Vs- Ms. Natasha Indi, in W.A.No.2520/02, D.D.21.2.2008, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, making an exception to the general principle, by permitting admission of a candidate falling short of 0.05%marks, on having completed the course by virtue of the interim order. 3. Sri. K. Krishna, Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent University contends that no equity lies in favour of the petition, who fell short of 0.25% marks in the aggregate of the relevant subjects, for admission to the course in B.Sc. Nursing, and that the illegality in the admission of the petitioner to the said course by the 3rd Respondent College is writ large. The absence of a power to show indulgence by reducing the eligibility norm of 40% to 39.75%, it is contended the petitioner has no right to seek admission to the said course. Nursing, and that the illegality in the admission of the petitioner to the said course by the 3rd Respondent College is writ large. The absence of a power to show indulgence by reducing the eligibility norm of 40% to 39.75%, it is contended the petitioner has no right to seek admission to the said course. In addition it is contended that the fixing of eligibility norm for admission is salutory and subserves public interest moreso when the candidate would have to serve sickly patients, and assist in the Medical Profession. It is lastly contended that in Rajeev’s case, a learned single judge, observed that the authorities admitted an otherwise ineligible candidate, either upon a mistaken notion or on a bonafide misconstruction of a provision, coupled with the candidate having secured interim order to prosecute 2/3 of the course. According to the learned counsel it being the fault of the candidate in seeking admission to the course, knowing fully well that she did not obtain the required percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, no equity lies in her favour. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, and the opinion of this court, in my opinion, no equity lies in favour of the petitioner. The decisions relied upon do not further the case of the petitioner. I say so because, the factum of obtaining 39.75% of marks in aggregate in the relevant subjects, was a knowledge specially known to the petitioner, who applied for and obtained an admission in the 3rd Respondent College, who too knowing that the petitioner was ineligible, did admit her to the said course in B.Sc. Nursing. The 3rd Respondent though served with the notice of this petition has remained absent and is unrepresented. So also the 2nd Respondent Department of social welfare too with the knowledge that the petition was ineligible, for admission to the said course sponsored her candidature. Thus it is not a case of bonafide mistake in admitting the petitioner to the said course. The eligibility norm prescribed by the 1st Respondent, for admission to the said course, is not flexible, empowering the 1st Respondent University to exercise a discretion in the matter. Admission norm being rigid and known to the petitioner, cannot be heard to say that equity lies in her favour. The eligibility norm prescribed by the 1st Respondent, for admission to the said course, is not flexible, empowering the 1st Respondent University to exercise a discretion in the matter. Admission norm being rigid and known to the petitioner, cannot be heard to say that equity lies in her favour. At the same time this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the eligibility norm prescribed by the University. In fact the Apex Court in a catena of decisions deprecated High Courts’ extending private benevolence or misplaced sympathy to overcome the shortfall in the eligibility norm for admission to courses in educational institutions, thus subverting academic discipline. It is only the Apex Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution can grant the relief sought for, in the circumstances. In fact this courts power under Article 226 of the Constitution, to grant the relief sought for as a one time measure, without making it a precedent too must be done only in the rarest of rare cases. 5. Leniency if shown to the petitioner, it goes without saying must be offered to all such candidates who are similarly placed as otherwise it would amount to invidious discrimination amongst the said class of students, as opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The interim order dated 19.6.2009, reads thus: “Petitioner is permitted to pay the requisite examination fee subject to the result of this Writ Petition. The petitioner shall not plead equity.” The interim order too does not come to the aid of the petitioner in extending equity in the matter of admission. 7. The opinion of the learned Single Judge in Rajeev’s Case is inapplicable to the facts of this case. I say so because, the facts in that case were the authorities had admitted the student to MCA Course, after conducting an entrance examination in which he had fared well, though ineligible for admission, was on a mistaken notion or on a bonafide misconstruction of a provision and allowed the candidate to prosecute the studies, coupled with the protection offered by the court, in the form of an interim order enabling the candidate to complete 2/3 of the course period. The other reported opinion referred to by the learned judge, in the course of opinion, have no bearing on the facts of this case, since the premise therein was bonafide mistake committed by the University and college in admitting the ineligible student and as there was no fault on the part of the student. 8. The 3rd respondent-Nursing college fully aware of the fact that the petitioner did not have the eligibility for admission, it is not known for what consideration her application was accepted and admitted to the said course. The 2nd respondent-Dept. of Social Welfare also having full knowledge of the fact that the petitioner did not have the required eligibility is said to have sponsored her case for admission to the said course. In other words, the 2nd respondent was more than willing to pay the fees for and on behalf of the petitioner because she belongs to the Scheduled Caste. This is a classic case of frittering away monies meant for upliftment of downtrodden. It looks to me that the 3rd respondent-college was only interested in collecting the fee from the petitioner a sponsored candidate by the State Government. In the recent years, experience discloses that the modus operandi of educational institutions is to admit ineligible candidates to courses, and when admission is not approved by the University, enable the candidate to file writ petition, seek interim orders, and then claim equities. This conduct is deplorable and abhorring. This calls for an enquiry at the hands of the responsible officers of the Dept. of Social Welfare, as well as the university and the State Government. 9. Though Sri. Shivarudra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would have to loose two academic years and thereafter once again take her examination in pre-university course, meaning yet another two years, I am not impressed by that submission. If the petitioner has to go through yet another examination at the pre-university level in order to secure marks eligible for admission to a course in B.Sc. (Nursing), I am afraid she will have to do so, as there can be no short cut. In the result, the writ petition being without merit is rejected.