Judgment :- 1. The five petitioners were admitted in the Teacher Training Course by the 4th respondent Raak Teacher Training Institute for the academic year 2011-2012. When the names were sent for approval by the Competent Authority, viz., the Director of School Education, Puduchery informed that the 5 petitioners were not qualified for being admitted to the Diploma in Teacher Education Course. The reason given in the order was that all the 5 petitioners have scored less than 45 % and the minimum eligibility for entry into the said course as prescribed by the Union Territory is 45%. Challenging the rejection and non-grant of approval, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. 2. Two grounds were urged by Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioners. The first ground was the petitioners atleast in one case had secured 44.8% and that can be rounded of to 45%. Secondly, in the neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu, there is no requirement of minimum percentage of marks for the SC/ST candidates. Therefore, there is no justification for the first respondent Director to prescribe the minimum eligibility marks for SC/ST candidates. 3. When W.P.Nos.16715 and 16717 of 2012 came up on 02.07.2012, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to serve notice on the learned Government Pleader, Puducherry. Accordingly, Ms.Mala learned Government Pleader appears. Subsequently, when the other three writ petitions came up for admission, all the writ petitions were tagged together and a common order is passed. 4. The contention that neigbouring State has not prescribed any minimum marks for SC/ST candidates cannot be a ground to challenge the admission procedure prescribed by the Union Territory of Puduchery. It is not as if such conditions were not prescribed even before the petitioners have joined the course and it is for the concerned institution not to have admitted such candidates. Knowing fully well the Standing Regulation if they admitted, it is for the petitioners to proceed against the said institution for giving them improper admission, but on the ground of their being admitted and completing the course, this Court cannot give any direction to the respondents to permit them to write the examination. When once it is held they do not have 45%, it is immaterial whether one candidate is having marks fraction of less than the minimum marks prescribed. When once it is held they do not have 45%, it is immaterial whether one candidate is having marks fraction of less than the minimum marks prescribed. It is also not open to this Court to round off the marks to make it appear that at least one candidate has got minimum of 45% so as to continue the examination. 5. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . In paragraphs 39 to 42, 48,50, 51 and 66, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:- "39.In PritSingh (Dr.) v. S.K. Mangal this Court examined the case of a person who did not possess the requisite percentage of marks as per the statutory requirement and held that he cannot hold the post observing: (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 12-13) "12. ... It need not be pointed out that the sole object of prescribing qualification that the candidate must have a consistently good academic record with first or high second class Master's degree for appointment to the post of a Principal, is to select a most suitable person in order to maintain excellence and standard of teaching in the institution apart from administration. ... The appellant had not secured even second class marks in his Master of Arts Examination whereas the requirement was first or high second class (55%). The irresistible conclusion is that on the relevant date the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications. 13. ...on the date of the appointment the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications and as such his appointment had to be quashed." (emphasis added) 40. In PramodKumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission this Court examined the issue as to whether a person lacking eligibility can be appointed and if so, whether such irregularity/ illegality can be cured/condoned. After considering the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, this Court came to a conclusion that lacking eligibility as per the rules/advertisement cannot be cured at any stage and making appointment of such a person tantamounts to an illegality and not an irregularity, and thus cannot be cured. A person lacking the eligibility cannot approach the court for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. 41. A person lacking the eligibility cannot approach the court for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. 41. This Court in PramodKumar further held as under: (SCC p. 160, para 18) "18. If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularised, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi(3), National Fertilizers Ltd. v. SomvirSingh and Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta).]" Relaxation 42. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University issue of relaxation of eligibility came up for consideration before this Court wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 425-26, paras 15-16) "15. ... We regretfully but respectfully disagree with the Division Bench and uphold the sense of high second class attributed by the learned Single Judge. The midline takes us to 54% and although it is unpalatable to be mechanical and mathematical, we have to hold that those who have not secured above 54% marks cannot claim to have obtained a high second class and are ineligible. 16. ...We have earlier held that the power to relax, as the Ordinance now runs, insofar as high second class is concerned, does not exist. Inevitably, the appointment of the 3 respondents violate the Ordinance and are, therefore, illegal." (emphasis added) 50. In the absence of an enabling provision for grant of relaxation, no relaxation can be made. Even if such a power is provided under the statute, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. (See Union of India v. DharamPal.) Such a power cannot be exercised treating it to be an implied, incidental or necessary power for execution of the statutory provisions. Even an implied power is to be exercised with care and caution with reasonable means to remove the obstructions or overcome the resistance in enforcing the statutory provisions or executing its command. Incidental and ancillary powers cannot be used in utter disregard of the object of the statute. Such power can be exercised only to make such legislation effective so that the ultimate power will not become illusory, which otherwise would be contrary to the intent of the legislature. Incidental and ancillary powers cannot be used in utter disregard of the object of the statute. Such power can be exercised only to make such legislation effective so that the ultimate power will not become illusory, which otherwise would be contrary to the intent of the legislature. (Vide Matajog Dobey v. H.S. Bhari and State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society.) 51. More so, relaxation in this manner is tantamount to changing the selection criteria after initiation of selection process, which is not permissible at all. Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. (Vide K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi.) 66. In State of Orissa v. DamodarNayak, question arose that in case the teacher at the time of appointment, did not possess the requisite eligibility i.e. qualifications, whether he could claim any benefit under the grant-in-aid scheme. The respondent teacher therein had secured 53.9% marks and required eligibility provided for 54%. This Court held that undoubtedly 53.9% marks were very close to required marks i.e. 54%, but the teacher so appointed did not possess the eligibility. The court took notice of the fact that he was appointed in 1978 but acquired further qualification on 10-7-1987, and held: "Admittedly, since the first respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification and acquired the same only on 10-7-1987 he will be eligible to the benefit of the grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1-8-1987 and onwards." 6. In the light of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.