Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. None represented the 4th respondent College, though they have been served. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the 3rd respondent in Letter No.DCD (1)/11816/2010 dated 27.05.2010 and the order of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.EXVIII(2)/46186/2009 dated 03.06.2010 with a direction to regularize their admission to B.Sc. (Nursing) course from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. 3. According to the petitioners, they wanted to join B.Sc. Nursing Degree Course in Tamil Nadu and made applications to the Government of Kerala, Board of Higher Secondary Examination and obtained Migration Certificate from the competent authority. Along with the required original certificates, viz., Higher Secondary Certificates, Transfer Certificates issued by the competent authority, the petitioners contacted the 4th respondent College (hereinafter referred to as College), seeking admission under Management Quota for B.Sc. Nursing Degree (4 year course) for the academic year 2009-10 and they were admitted to the 4th respondent College on 16.09.2009 under the Management Quota for B.Sc. Nursing Degree. They paid the requisite tuition fee/Eligibility Certificate fee/Registration fee, etc and since then, they have been attending classes regularly. It is their bonafide belief that the College forwarded all the required papers to the authorities and they will be able to complete their studies in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3a. While that being so, during June 2010, the College informed the petitioners that because of the mistake committed by the erstwhile Principal of the College, the application for eligibility certificate was sent to the 1st respondent University belatedly and the 1st respondent University in its Letter No.DCD(1)/11816/2010 dated 27.05.2010 passed an order rejecting the request of the College for condonation of the belated application. Further, the College Authority informed the petitioners that the University has passed orders to discharge the 15 students from the 1st year B.Sc. Degree Course. On enquiry with the College, the petitioners were informed that the application for registration was submitted in time, i,e, on 23.12.2009, even though the application for eligibility certificate was made ready before the cut off date, viz. 30.09.2009 and that the Demand Draft of the petitioners (15 students) was taken on 05.10.2009 before the extended time fixed by the 1st respondent viz. 20.11.2009. 30.09.2009 and that the Demand Draft of the petitioners (15 students) was taken on 05.10.2009 before the extended time fixed by the 1st respondent viz. 20.11.2009. The same was submitted to the 1st respondent University belatedly, because of the mistake committed by the erstwhile Principal of the College and he has thereby committed procedural irregularity and the application for eligibility certificate along with Demand Drafts dated 05.10.2009 were belatedly submitted during March 2010 and the College Authorities made a request to the University on 03.06.2010 to condone the belated submission of the applications on payment of fine and the college authorities further assured the petitioners that they will get favourable orders before the commencement of the 1st year examination, viz. August 2010. 3b. It is the further case of the petitioners that the College authorities have informed them about the order of the University authorities rejecting their admission stating that their admission for the academic year 2009-2010 cannot be regularized. Challenging the orders passed by the 1st respondent University, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions on the ground that they are not at fault at any point of time and they are fully eligible and that the University authorities should see that the students do not suffer for the procedural irregularities committed by the erstwhile Principal of the 4th respondent College. 4. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and it is stated that the University had initially fixed the cut-off date for admission on 30.09.2009, which was later extended to 20.11.2009. The students who are eligible for admission are required to submit their Eligibility Certificate in person on or before the cut-off date fixed by the University. But, on the contrary, they have failed to submit the Eligibility Certificate in person before the cut-off date, i.e. 20.11.2009 fixed by the University and therefore the admission of the writ petitioners cannot be regularized in B.Sc. (Nursing) course from the academic year 2009-2010 in the College. According to the respondent University, it was not their fault for passing an order rejecting the request of the College for condonation of the belated application and that their University had only acted as per the regulations for the B.Sc. Degree in Nursing (Basic) 2006 of their University, which reads as follows: "4. According to the respondent University, it was not their fault for passing an order rejecting the request of the College for condonation of the belated application and that their University had only acted as per the regulations for the B.Sc. Degree in Nursing (Basic) 2006 of their University, which reads as follows: "4. Eligibility Certificate: The candidate who has passed any qualifying examination other than the Higher Secondary Course examination conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu before seeking admission to any one of the affiliated institutions shall obtain an eligibility certificate from the University by remitting the prescribed fees along with application form which shall be downloaded from the University website (www.tnmmu/ac/in)" Further along with the Eligibility Certificate application form, several instructions were issued to candidates under the heading of "Instruction to candidates". In the said instruction, clause 12 and 13 read as follows: "(12)Candidates must seek Eligibility Certificate only before admission in the College. Eligibility Certificate will not be issued after admission to the candidate. Candidates seeking Eligibility Certificate must fill up the application form in his/her own hand writing and sign in the application without fail. Others should not sign in the application form, if other candidates signed in the application form, the same will be summarily rejected. Only one eligibility certificate will be issued to a candidate or an authorised person. Not more than three Eligibility Certificate application forms will be issued to any candidate or his/her representative. (13)Application for the issue of Eligibility Certificate will not be entertained after the prescribed cut off date for admission to all the UG/PG Degree/Diploma courses during the academic year". 4a. In the counter, it is also stated that the petitioners have submitted their Eligibility Certificates only after the cut-off date through the College and therefore their admission in the College cannot be regularised and the same is in violation of the Regulations of the University. As per the judgments of the Apex Court, the college authorities does not have power to admit the students after the cut off date. The University had clearly instructed the candidates to submit their Eligibility Certificate in person before 20.11.2009. Therefore, according to the respondent University, the petitioners are not fully eligible to be admitted in the 4th respondent College for the academic year 20092010. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. The University had clearly instructed the candidates to submit their Eligibility Certificate in person before 20.11.2009. Therefore, according to the respondent University, the petitioners are not fully eligible to be admitted in the 4th respondent College for the academic year 20092010. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have submitted their applications through the 4th respondent College and they have submitted their Eligibility Certificates by taking a Demand Draft on 05.10.2009 to the College immediately. They have been admitted to the College before the cut-off date, i.e. 20.11.2009. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it is an admitted fact that the erstwhile Principal of the College has committed irregularities by not submitting the applications in time. Therefore, there is delay in making applications to the University and because of that, the petitioners admission have been rejected on no fault on them. 5a. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of his contentions has relied on the following: (i)a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1980) 2 SCC 752 in the case of Charles K.Skaria and others vs. Dr.C.Mathew and others "23. We are aware that when a statute vests a public power and conditions the manner of exercise of that power then the law insists on that mode of exercise alone. We are here unconcerned with that rule. A method of convenience for proving possession of a qualification is merely directory. Moreover, the prospectus itself permits government to modify the method, as the learned Single Judge has pointed out. In this view, we see nothing objectionable with the government directive to the selection committee, nor in the communication to the selection committee by the university, nor even in their taking into consideration and giving credit for diplomas although the authentic copies of the diplomas were not attached to the application for admission. A hundred examples of absurd consequences can be given if the substance of the matter were to be sacrificed for mere form and prescriptions regarding procedures." (ii) yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 740 in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka Uiniversity and another "8.... The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. Examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment, allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring engineering colleges, the Karnataka University should take appropriate action because the managements of these engineering colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the engineering degree course. ..." 6. Per contra, Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that there is a clear instruction from the respondent University that the candidates, who have passed any qualifying examination other than the Higher Secondary course examination conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, before seeking admission to any one of the affiliated institutions shall obtain an eligibility certificate from the University and it has to be submitted along with the application in person and the same has to be handed over to the University for getting the eligibility certificate. He would further submit that the application for issuance of eligibility certificate will not be entertained after the prescribed cut-off date, as the date has been fixed by the Supreme Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents in support of their case and also analysed the relevant provisions in the prospectus of the respondent University. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are outside the State of Tamil Nadu and they have sought admission from the Institutions situated within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent University and the conditions prescribed for admission to any of the Institutions within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent University. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are outside the State of Tamil Nadu and they have sought admission from the Institutions situated within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent University and the conditions prescribed for admission to any of the Institutions within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent University. They have obtained Essentiality Certificate. They have applied for B.Sc. Nursing course in the 4th respondent College and they have taken a Demand Draft for their admission on 05.10.2009. It is seen that the last date for admission was 30.09.2009 and thereafter, it was extended to 20.11.2009. It appears that the petitioners have been admitted in B.Sc. Nursing Degree (4 year) Course in the 4th respondent College on 16.09.2009 itself. It is the requirement that they have to obtain Eligibility Certificate from the 1st respondent University in person and submit their applications duly filling them in their own handwriting and sign in the applications without fail. After obtaining the Eligibility Certificate, the candidates are authorized to get their admissions. But, after the cut-off date, any application for admission without Essentiality Certificate will not be entertained. The rejection letter passed by the 1st respondent University would reveal that the applications made by the College on 26.03.2010 is much beyond the cut-off date, i.e. 20.11.2009. Therefore, the rejection made by the 1st respondent is on the ground that the applications were submitted belatedly. Accordingly, the 1st respondent University has directed the College to discharge the students from admission into the College. Though the 4th respondent is served, there is no representation on their behalf to deny the above position. 9. On the facts pleaded by the petitioners, it is seen that on their enquiry with the 4th respondent College, the applications for registration were submitted to the College with the fond hope that pursuant to the applications made, they would get eligibility certificate at one stroke with a bonafide reason that they have made applications to the College and they had the information from the College authorities that their applications will be forwarded immediately even before the cut-off date. But, the fault appears to be with the College, since the erstwhile Principal has kept the applications in abeyance without forwarding them within the time frame; but, instead forwarded the same on 26.03.2010, much beyond the cut-off date. Hence, the applications of the petitioners have been rejected by the 1st respondent University. 10. But, the fault appears to be with the College, since the erstwhile Principal has kept the applications in abeyance without forwarding them within the time frame; but, instead forwarded the same on 26.03.2010, much beyond the cut-off date. Hence, the applications of the petitioners have been rejected by the 1st respondent University. 10. In Rajendra Prasad Mathurs case relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has held that in case of young students from other States, who have passed first year B.Sc. Examination of the University, with the expectation that they would get admission in the College, the fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted them, because the Principals of the Engineering Colleges must have known that the students were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases, they granted admission to the students. The Apex Court, in the said case allowed the students to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission, on the ground that they should not suffer for the sins of the Managements of the concerned Engineering Colleges. 10a. In yet another decision in the case of Charles K. Skarias relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, the Supreme Court has held that when a statute vests a public power and conditions the manner of exercise of that power, then the law insists on that mode of exercise alone. A method of convenience for proving possession of a qualification is merely directory. Moreover, the prospectus itself permits government to modify the method. In that view, the Supreme Court felt nothing objectionable with the government directive to the selection committee, nor in the communication to the selection committee by the university, nor even in their taking into consideration and giving credit for diplomas although the authentic copies of the diplomas were not attached to the application for admission. A hundred examples of absurd consequences can be given if the substance of the matter were to be sacrificed for mere form and prescriptions regarding procedures. 11. A careful analysis of the rulings of the Supreme Court would make it clear that the Institutions which have committed mistakes for their sake of convenience have not come forward to explain the situation either by appearing in person or through counsel. 11. A careful analysis of the rulings of the Supreme Court would make it clear that the Institutions which have committed mistakes for their sake of convenience have not come forward to explain the situation either by appearing in person or through counsel. In the case on hand, the petitioners have taken a Demand Draft much prior to the cut-off date and also they claimed that their applications have been submitted to the 4th respondent College with the fond hope that the College will forward the same to the 1st respondent University to get Eligibility Certificate for their admission. 12. The above facts and circumstances would reveal that though the petitioners have submitted their applications to the 4th respondent College seeking for Eligibility Certificate, the College has not forwarded the same to the 1st respondent University for the grant of Eligibility Certificate, so as to enable them to get admission in the 4th respondent College. Therefore, the delay lies with the 4th respondent College for not forwarding the applications of the petitioners to the 1st respondent University before the cut-off date, though it is required that the candidates themselves submit their Essentiality Certificate along with their applications. 13. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, without interfering with the orders of the respondent University and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the view that the 1st respondent University may be directed to look into the entire situation leading to the submission of applications and the Demand Draft dated 05.10.2009 much prior to the cut-off date. If such applications are made by the 4th respondent College to the 1st respondent University, it may be looked into by the 1st respondent in accordance with law taking note of the above rulings of the Supreme Court as well as the factual aspects pleaded by the petitioners. If such applications are made by the 4th respondent College to the 1st respondent University, it may be looked into by the 1st respondent in accordance with law taking note of the above rulings of the Supreme Court as well as the factual aspects pleaded by the petitioners. Accordingly, the 1st respondent University is directed to re-consider the position, taking note of the delay on the part of the 4th respondent College and give due consideration to the claim made by the petitioners in accordance with law and on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of one (1) week from today, taking note of the urgency expressed by the petitioners that the examination is to commence on 02.08.2010 and as the counsel for the respondent University has also agreed to take a decision in respect of the claim of the petitioners. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.2 to 2 of 2010 in the above writ petitions are closed.