Judgment : COMMON ORDER:- 1. This batch of Writ Petitions raises common questions of fact and law. They are, therefore, heard and being disposed of together. 2. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5925, 5276, 4919, 5911, 6304 and 6516 of 2010 are B.Tech students, who were admitted during the academic year 2009-10 under Category-B seats by the respective private colleges, impleaded as respondents in these Writ Petitions (for convenience they are referred to as “the Colleges”). Their admissions are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Un-Aided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2006 (for short “the B.Tech Admission Rules”), as amended by G.O.Ms.No.175, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 19-8-2008. 3. The petitioners in rest of the Writ Petitions are MBA students, who were also admitted during the academic year 2009-10 under Category-B seats by “the Colleges”. Their admissions are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Admissions into MBA/MCA Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test Rules, 2006 (for short “the MBA Admission Rules”). 4. Under both the Rules, 20% of the seats allotted to private colleges are allowed to be filled up with NRI candidates, through Management quota. However, if vacant seats exist, they may be filled up with any candidate securing not less than the prescribed aggregate marks. It is not in dispute that in respect of admissions governing both the courses, the prescribed minimum marks for admission are 50% aggregate or 50% in group subjects in the qualifying examinations. It is an admitted fact that except in the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3907 of 2010, the petitioners in other cases do not satisfy the said requirement of having minimum aggregate of 50% marks or 50% in group subjects. (There is a dispute on this aspect in Writ Petition No.3907 of 2010, which will be adverted to later). Notwithstanding the above fact, the Colleges have admitted the petitioners in their respective courses of either B.Tech or MBA. When the A.P. State Council of Higher Education-respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”, for convenience) refused to approve the admissions of the petitioners on the ground that they are not having the minimum marks in the qualifying examinations, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petitions. 5. When the A.P. State Council of Higher Education-respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”, for convenience) refused to approve the admissions of the petitioners on the ground that they are not having the minimum marks in the qualifying examinations, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petitions. 5. At the hearing, Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, submitted that the petitioners are not at fault as they are not aware of the minimum marks required to be possessed for the purpose of their admission into the professional courses; and that the Colleges are to blame for admitting the petitioners without disclosing the said fact. The learned counsel placed reliance on the admissions made by the respondent in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that during the years 2006-07 the State Government has exempted the students, similarly placed to the petitioners, from possessing minimum qualifying marks on levy of penalty of Rs.13,000/- per student and that the petitioners are entitled to a similar treatment. The learned counsel also relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Reemaan College of Education Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (5) ALT 338 and contended that the petitioners are entitled to a similar relief as was granted in the said case. 6. Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3907 of 2010 submitted that under the MBA Admission Rules a candidate requires to have either 50% of aggregate marks or 50% marks in group subjects in the qualifying examination; that the petitioner in the said Writ Petition holds 52% marks in group subjects; and that, therefore, he is eligible to be admitted in the MBA course. 7. Opposing the above contentions, Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the State Government, which is empowered to frame Regulations, made the Regulations referred to above governing admissions; and that, therefore, these regulations are required to be scrupulously adhered to by the Colleges. He further submitted that, admittedly, none of the petitioners have aggregate of 50% marks or 50% marks in group subjects in the qualifying examinations. He further submitted that, admittedly, none of the petitioners have aggregate of 50% marks or 50% marks in group subjects in the qualifying examinations. According to the learned Standing Counsel, even in the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3907 of 2010, he does not have 50% aggregate or 50% marks in group subjects, excluding the marks in Indian Heritage and Culture and Science and Civilization, as envisaged by the University and specified in the memorandum of marks itself. The learned counsel further submitted that an exemption once granted cannot be insisted to be followed for all times to come and that any relaxation in the qualifying marks would lead to fall in standards of Education. The learned counsel distinguished the judgment of the Division of this Court in Reemaan College of Education (1 supra). 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The Rules prescribing minimum marks in the qualifying examinations is in parimateria with each other in respect of admissions to both the courses, viz., B.Tech and MBA. According to the said Rule, to be eligible for admission into these courses, a candidate must have not less than 50% of the aggregate marks or 50% marks in group subjects in the qualifying examinations. While keeping the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3907 of 2010 aside for a while, the rest of the petitioners in other Writ Petitions do not possess the prescribed minimum marks. In my considered opinion, the Rules, which are intended to govern the admissions, have to be scrupulously followed. Lest, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, the standards of Education cannot be maintained. This apart, the indiscriminate relaxation of the Rule in individual cases would lead to indiscipline in academic matters, rendering the very object of prescribing qualifying marks otiose. 10. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the year 2006-07 the State Government had itself relaxed the Rule, I am afraid, no relief can be granted to the petitioners on the basis of such a relaxation. Admittedly, the Rules do not contain any provision, by which the State Government is empowered to relax the minimum marks. Admittedly, the Rules do not contain any provision, by which the State Government is empowered to relax the minimum marks. Therefore, the petitioners cannot insist that they are also entitled to the same act of benevolence shown by the State Government in favour of certain students of the academic batch of 2006-07. The Law is well settled that equality cannot be applied when it arises out of illegality and Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not entitle a person to claim negative equality. (See: STATE OF BIHAR VS. UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH (2009) 5 SCC 65 and STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURJIT SINGH (2009) 9 SCC 514 ). The petitioners have neither pleaded nor established that they have a right vested in the Rules for being considered for relaxation from possessing minimum marks. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, rejected. 11. With regard to the decision of the Division Bench in Reemaan College of Education (1 supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Division Bench has dealt with a case where the order of the respondent disapproving the candidatures of six students admitted into B.Ed., course in excess of the ceiling strength fixed for the particular subject under 20% Management quota, was questioned. When the learned single Judge has declined to grant the relief in favour of the petitioner therein, he has filed a Writ Appeal, which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench. The Division Bench granted the relief mainly on the ground that the State Government had earlier issued orders regularizing similar admissions by levying penalty amount of Rs.5,000/- per seat for minority candidates and Rs.25,000/- per seat for non-minority candidates in minority colleges. The Division Bench felt convinced by the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant therein that a similar gesture should be shown in favour of the appellant as well. It is, however, of relevance to notice the observations of the Division Bench in its concluding paragraph of the order, which reads as under: “We are passing this order keeping in mind the career of the students who have completed the course and awaiting results. It is, however, of relevance to notice the observations of the Division Bench in its concluding paragraph of the order, which reads as under: “We are passing this order keeping in mind the career of the students who have completed the course and awaiting results. It is also to be noted that these colleges are in the habit of violating the statutory admission Rules framed under the Act and also approaching this Court at the eleventh hour when the admitted candidates are not allowed to write examinations, and it is not known inspite of such violations, as to how the recognitions of such colleges are renewed from year to year. In this view of the matter, we also direct that a copy of this order shall be sent to the National Council for Teacher education, Southern Region, Bangalore, which shall also keep in mind about the said proceedings and the violations alleged against the institutions, at the time of renewal of recognitions”. While on the facts of the case before it the Division Bench felt inclined to extend the same relief as was given by the Government in favour of others, it has, however, taken judicial notice of the fact that the Colleges are in the habit of violating statutory Rules and approaching the Court at the eleventh hour when the admitted candidates are not allowed to write the examinations. These observations reflect the state of affairs prevailing with regard to the Educational Institutions, many of which appearing to follow the Rules more in breach by indiscriminately admitting the students contrary to the Rules and Regulations in force. The sympathy, which is being extended by this Court on a case to case basis depending upon the facts, is being misused by the Colleges to make unlawful gains knowing well that their acts are contrary to the specific statutory provisions. In my opinion, the order of the Division Bench has not specifically laid down any ratio and was based on the facts obtaining in the said case. I am, therefore, of the view that the said order of the Division Bench will be of no help to the petitioners to grant relief in their favour. 12. I am unable to comprehend the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the students were not aware of the Admission Rules. I am, therefore, of the view that the said order of the Division Bench will be of no help to the petitioners to grant relief in their favour. 12. I am unable to comprehend the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the students were not aware of the Admission Rules. As candidates intending to pursue professional courses, it is their duty to know the Admission Rules. By feigning ignorance, the petitioners cannot invoke the sympathy of this Court. When, admittedly, the Colleges have violated the statutory provision in admitting the petitioners, no relief can be granted to the petitioners by this Court on misplaced sympathies and misconceived equities. Interference by this Court in such cases encourages Colleges to perpetrate their illegal acts. The Law is well settled that no Mandamus can be issued to the State or it’s Instrumentalities either to refrain from enforcing the Law or to act contrary to the Law. (See: State of U.P. Vs. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 ). If the Colleges have misled them, the petitioners are entitled to initiate civil and criminal action against such Colleges by invoking common law remedies. 13. Coming to the contentions raised in Writ Petition No.3907 of 2010, I have not felt convinced with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the marks memorandum issued by the Osmania University, it is clearly stated that the Indian Heritage and Culture and Science and Civilization marks are not included in the Part-II aggregate and division. The respondent has furnished the details of percentage of marks of the petitioner by taking into consideration three different scenarios, viz., aggregate percentage of marks in Part-I and Part-II; percentage of marks in Group subjects (Part-II); and percentage of marks, including the above mentioned three subjects i.e., Indian Heritage and Culture, Science and Civilization and Environmental Studies. If the percentage of marks in the above three subjects are excluded, the petitioner will fall short of the required 50% of the aggregate marks and also 50% marks in group subjects as he is shown to have got only 49.1% and 49.2% respectively. As the University has itself specified that the above mentioned three subjects are not included in Part-II, both for the purpose of aggregate and awarding Division, the respondent is justified in not including those marks either for computing the aggregate percentage or the group marks. 14. As the University has itself specified that the above mentioned three subjects are not included in Part-II, both for the purpose of aggregate and awarding Division, the respondent is justified in not including those marks either for computing the aggregate percentage or the group marks. 14. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to initiate appropriate action against the erring colleges for blatant violation of the Admission Rules and playing with the careers of the students.