JUDGMENT A.K. Sharma, J.:- Challenging the action of the respondents in cancelling the admission granted to the petitioner in LL.M. course by the Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya. Jabalpur, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Facts in nutshell go to show that the petitioner passed the LL.B. final year examination in the academic session 2009-2010 and in the said examination obtained 53.54% marks. He appeared in the qualifying entrance examination conducted for admission to the LL.M. course for the academic session 2012 and accordingly petitioner was granted admission after depositing the tuition fees in April, 2012. He was not permitted to appear in the LL.M. first semester examination and when his results were not declared, it seems that he filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W. P. No. 14454/2012, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. 3. It is now pointed out that vide impugned order, the representation of the petitioner was decided and instead of granting benefit to the petitioner, his admission itself for the LL.M. course was cancelled. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court namely Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp) SCC 740 and Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and others, (1989) 1 SCC 399 , and contended that when admission was granted to a candidate without concealment of any fact then the University cannot cancel the admission of the student concerned and for a mistake committed by the authorities, the student cannot be put to loss. It is also contended that the respondents/University cannot act in any arbitrary and illegal manner in cancelling the admission of the candidate, even if he was ineligible for admission the same should be regularised now when there is no error on. the part of the student. Accordingly, contending that the petitioner did not conceal any fact with regard to cut-off marks received in the LL.B. examination and after scanning his documents he was granted admission on accepting the fees, now the respondents cannot cancel his admission on the ground that he did not receive minimum 55% marks required for admission in the LL.M. course. Shri Dubey, further argued that the act of the respondents in cancelling the admission of the petitioner could not be upheld. 5. Shri Dubey, further argued that the act of the respondents in cancelling the admission of the petitioner could not be upheld. 5. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/University objected to the aforesaid contention and pointed out that as per the statutory rules framed for admission to the course in question, minimum marks fixed is 55% marks for general candidates and 50% marks for reserved category candidates. It is said that admittedly the petitioner has received only 53.54% narks in the qualifying examination, i.e., LL.B. examination, hence, he was not eligible to participate in the process of admission. However, Shri Kaurav, submits that when this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner, he submitted an application (Annexure A-1), dated 12-12-2011 and sought for grant of relaxation in marks for admission and in his application it was indicated by the petitioner that he is willing to take admission subject to grant of relaxation by the Higher Education Department. In support thereto an affidavit (Annexure A-3) was also filed by him on 2-4-2012 indicating that he is willing to take admission subject to approval of the Higher Education Department. It is stated that the matter was placed before the Standing Committee and it approved for provisional admission of the petitioner subject to the decision of the Higher Education Department for relaxing the rules, if permissible. 6. It is contended by Shri Kaurav that the case of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the direction issued by this Court earlier in W. P. No. 14454/2012 and action has been taken. It is pointed out by Shri P.K. Kaurav, that the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Officer CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, AIR 2003 SC 3720 and earlier in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bonsal and others, (1993) 4 SCC 401 , have laid down the principles that in violation to rules and regulations, no admission can be granted. Bonsal and others, (1993) 4 SCC 401 , have laid down the principles that in violation to rules and regulations, no admission can be granted. Recently, in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University and another v. Krishnendu Halder and others, (2011) 4 SCC 606 , it has been held that the students whose marks fall short of the eligibility criteria fixed by the State/University, still the institute admits such students, he cannot contend that the admission should be approved even if he does not fulfil the eligibility criteria fixed by the State/University and by permitting so the entire educational system should not be disturbed or derailed. 7. It is argued by Shri Kaurav that this is not a case where mistake has been committed by the University, the petitioner was granted admission in violation to rules and regulations prescribed by the University. It is pointed out that the petitioner was granted provisional admission only because the petitioner had submitted an affidavit undertaking that he will follow the decision taken by the Higher Education Department for relaxation of marks for admission and now the petitioner is bound by the undertaking submitted by him. 8. Shri Kaurav submits that when the rules do not permit relaxation of marks no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Shri Kaurav further argued that the petitioner deliberately concealed certain factual aspects of the matter, therefore, he does not deserve any sympathetic consideration. Moreso, it is emphasised by Shri Kaurav that sympathetic consideration cannot be made to override or be made contrary to statutory rules and regulations. Accordingly, Shri Kaurav prays for dismissal of the petition. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and bestowed our consideration to the facts of the case and legal principles laid down. Even though, the principle relied upon by Dr. R.B. Dubey provides that if a student is admitted without misrepresentation or any act on his part which amounts to any concealment of material information, the admission granted and continued for long period should be regularised, however, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Even though, the principle relied upon by Dr. R.B. Dubey provides that if a student is admitted without misrepresentation or any act on his part which amounts to any concealment of material information, the admission granted and continued for long period should be regularised, however, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. This is not a case where due to some mistake or error committed by the University admission was granted to the petitioner but on the contrary, the petitioner was found to be not fulfilling the required criteria, inasmuch as it was found that he fell short of eligibility criteria of 55% marks obtained in LL.B. course for admission to the LL.M. course. No provision, rule or regulation was brought to the notice of this Court nor is there any material available on record to show that the University was authorised to relax the condition, on the contrary, the documents available on record along with the minutes of the Standing Committee and documents (Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3) filed by the respondents go to show that when these facts came to the notice, University refused admission to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application dated 12-12-2011 along with affidavit sworn on 2-4-2012 seeking conditional admission subject to relaxation if permissible. Thereafter, the Standing Committee gave provisional admission subject to relaxation by the Higher Education Department. 10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the University while processing the claim of the petitioner, was aware of the fact that the petitioner is not eligible. Admission was granted after obtaining the consent, undertaking and affidavit of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to interfere with the cancellation order. The judgments of the Apex Court referred to by Dr. R.B. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Ashok Chand Singhvi (supra) and Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra) will not apply as they are clearly distinguishable on facts, on the contrary judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University (supra) and Regional Officer CBSE (supra), go to show that when eligibility conditions are fixed by the University for the admission to various courses the same cannot be ignored or violated by considering the case of the student sympathetically. Once from the material available on record it is clear that provisional admission granted to the petitioner was a result of some affidavit sworn by the petitioner, it was provisional in nature and when the rules does not permit grant of permission to the petitioner, we see no reason to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus relaxing the eligibility criteria and granting permission to the petitioner to pursue the course in consistent to the rules of admission. The illegality committed by the University cannot be perpetuated by this Court. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondents cancelling the admission of the petitioner. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Petitions dismissed.