Judgment 1. The petitioner had joined the 2nd respondent - College for the study of Pharm-D course for the academic session 2012-2013. He was admitted to the College on 5.10.2012 in the management quota. The College sent the list of students admitted to the said course to the 1st respondent-University for approval in the month of November, 2012. The University sent the approved list at Annexure-A to the College on 20.08.2013. The admission of the petitioner to the said course was not approved by the University. He was not permitted to appear for the first year Pharm-D course examination held in August, 2013. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition for quashing the communication at Annexure-A disapproving his admission to the said course and for certain other reliefs. 2. The respondent - University has filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner has not completed 17 years of age on or before 31st December, 2012. Therefore, he is not eligible for admission to the said course as per the relevant Regulations of the University. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Chapter I1/ of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 ('Act' for short) provides for the constitution of authorities of the University. The Syndicate of the University is one such authority constituted under Section 24 of the Act. The members of the Syndicate are academicians and experts in the field of education and in particular, education in health sciences. The Academic Council is the Principal academic body of the University to coordinate and exercise general supervision over the academic polices of the University subject to the provisions of the Act, statues and ordinances made for the said purpose. 5. Section 35(1) of the Act provides for making of ordinances by the Syndicate from time to time and amend or repeal the same. Section 35(2)(c)(d) and (i) of the Act empowers the Syndicate to make ordinance providing for conditions under which students shall be admitted to the Courses of study, leading to degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions of the University and conduct of examinations of the University and conditions under which students shall be admitted to such examination, and in all other matters which by the Act or by the Statutes are to be or may be provided by the ordinances. Section 35(3) of the Act states that every ordinance made by the Syndicate in the matter relating to conduct or standard of examination shall consult the Academic Council. 6. The Syndicate of the University has made Pharm-D Revised Regulations, which is effective from 2012-2013 in exercise of power conferred under Section 35(2). These Regulations provide for the eligibility criteria for admission to the course. Regulation 1.2 states that the candidate should have completed 17 years of age on or before 31st day of December of the year of admission to the said course. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born on 24.1.1996. He was admitted by the College to the course in question for the academic session 2012-2013 on 5.10.2012 in the management quota. He has not completed 17 years of age on or before 31.12.2012. Therefore, he is not eligible for admission to the course for the academic session 2012-2013. In the circumstances, the University was justified in not approving the admission of the petitioner to the course for the academic year 2012-2013. 8. The University consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education have mode the ordinance providing the age limit for admission to the course in question. It is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such policy in the absence of arbitrariness. It is well established that the Courts cannot device their own criteria for admission contrary to the Regulations made by the University. The power conferred by Articles 226/227 being designated to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law, it cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. This Court cannot direct the University to disobey its own regulations and approve the admission of the petitioner. 9. Now, the question is what should happen to the petitioner, who has been illegally admitted by the college to the aforesaid course for the academic year 2012-2013? The college has committed a grave error in admitting the innocent petitioner to the course. The petitioner should not be left at the mercy of the college. His future cannot be put in jeopardy. It is settled that Article 226 of the Constitution grants extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary. The college has committed a grave error in admitting the innocent petitioner to the course. The petitioner should not be left at the mercy of the college. His future cannot be put in jeopardy. It is settled that Article 226 of the Constitution grants extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary. It is perfectly open for the Court to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects. Article 226 of the Constitution of India being couched in comprehensive phraseology, ex-facie it confers wide powers on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. In appropriate cases, the High Court can do complete justice by moulding the relief. 10. In B.C. CHATURVEDI vs. UNION OF INDIA - (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Power to do complete justice inheres in every Court not. to speak of a Court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. In ROSHAN DEEN vs. PREETI LAL - (2002) 1 SCC 100 , the Apex Court has held that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to advance justice and not thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Court is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. 11. The petitioner was admitted by the 2nd respondent - College for the academic year 2012-2013 contrary to the Regulations made by the University. The college cannot plead ignorance of the eligibility criteria for admission of students to the course. I am of the view that interest of justice will be met if the 2nd respondent - College is directed to readmit the petitioner to the Pharm-D course for the academic session 2013-2014. The fee paid by him for the academic year 2012-2013 has to be adjusted for the current academic year. In other words, no fee shall be collected by the College from the petitioner while admitting him to the course in question for the academic year 2013-2014. The fee paid by him for the academic year 2012-2013 has to be adjusted for the current academic year. In other words, no fee shall be collected by the College from the petitioner while admitting him to the course in question for the academic year 2013-2014. This will minimize the hardship caused to the petitioner by his illegal admission to the course for the academic session 2012-2013. The Registrar of the first respondent - University should ensure that the petitioner is admitted to the 2nd respondent - College for the course in question for the academic session 2013-2014 without payment of any fee since the College has admitted him illegally for the academic year 2012-2013. 12. As stated earlier, the 2nd respondent-college is affiliated to the University. The college has to make admissions strictly in accordance with the Regulations of the University. Though notice has been served in this case, the college has remained unrepresented. The college has admitted the petitioner to the course in question contrary to law. The petitioner bad not even completed 17 years at the time of his admission, it appears that he has innocently joined the college. The college cannot plead ignorance of the binding Regulations of the University. I am of the view that the college has to suitably compensate the petitioner for the hardship and loss he has suffered on account of his illegal admission. In BUDDHIST MISSION DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL (2) vs. BHUPESH KHURANA AND OTHERS - (3009) 4 S.CC 473, the Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the Dental students towards compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, who have lost one year on account of their illegal admission for the academic session 1992-1993. This is also a fit case that the College has to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner towards compensation. 13. Since the order of the University disapproving the admission of the petitioner for the academic year 2012-2013 is upheld, the petitioner is not entitled for declaration of the result of the examination taken by him pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 23.8.2013. 14. In the light of the above discussion, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. 14. In the light of the above discussion, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. The second respondent-college is directed to admit the petitioner to the course in question for the academic session 2013-2014 without receiving any fees from him. The Registrar of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is directed to ensure that the petitioner is admitted to the said course for the academic session 2013-2014 in the management quota without payment of any fee. The 2nd respondent - College is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner towards compensation within a period of six weeks from today. No costs.