JUDGMENT : Govind Mathur, J. This intra court appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated February 19, 2016, passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2016. By the judgment impugned learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant petitioners to have direction to restrain the respondent University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') from cancelling their admission to the course of M.Sc. (Chemistry) and further to allow them to appear in the M.Sc. (Final) examination. 2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that acting upon a programme for admission to the post graduation courses issued by the University, the respondent No.2 College (hereinafter referred as 'the College'), admitted the appellant petitioners to the course of M.Sc. (Chemistry) and also allowed them to appear in M.Sc. (Previous) examination. The result of the petitioners was also declared but their mark sheets were not issued being not enrolled as scholar with the University. As per the University, admission of the appellants was bad since inception being not having 60% marks in qualifying examination, an eligibility for admission to M.Sc. (Chemistry), hence their admissions were not confirmed and they were not enrolled to the course concerned. 3. Learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by observing and holding as under:- "From a perusal of the chronology as noticed herein before, it is apparent that in the Policy of the State there is no provision for the Colleges to be permitted to grant admission by relaxing the minimum qualifying norms in case the seats remained vacant with them, despite that the respondent No. 2 College granted the admissions and petitioners despite being aware of the eligibility requirements took admission at their own risk and consequence; the attempt on the part of respondent No. 2 College and the petitioners to tilt the balance of equity in their favour merely by managing appearance of the petitioners in M.Sc. (Previous) examination despite being not enrolled with the University only on provisional basis, only with a view to overcome the ineligibility of the petitioners cannot be encouraged by permitting the petitioners to complete their course despite the fact that they are clearly ineligible in terms of the criteria laid down by the State Government. (Previous) examination despite being not enrolled with the University only on provisional basis, only with a view to overcome the ineligibility of the petitioners cannot be encouraged by permitting the petitioners to complete their course despite the fact that they are clearly ineligible in terms of the criteria laid down by the State Government. The respondent No.2 College has clearly violated the Guidelines/Policy/Rules laid down by the State for the purpose of granting admissions to various courses and has apparently only with a view to suppress and/or hide its wrong doing has put forth the students before this Court only with a view to see that on account of sympathy for the careers of the students, the illegal and unethical action of the respondent No.2 would get legitimacy. Any relief granted in the present circumstances would harm the larger interest of the students/the educational scenario as a whole as the same would encourage the Private Colleges/Colleges/Institutions in granting admission to ineligible candidates and would seek to invoke the sympathy in the name of the careers of students and, therefore, the said attitude/attempt has to be nibbed in the bud." 4. Suffice to notice that during pendency of the petition for writ the appellants appeared in M.Sc. (Final) examination, result of which is awaited. The appearance in the examination was in pursuance to an interim order passed by Single Bench of this Court. 5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants applied for admission to M.Sc. (Chemistry) by relying upon the conditions given in the prospectus published and issued by the College and that nowhere discloses the eligibility for admission to the course concerned. The appellants being under bona fide belief that they are eligible to be admitted to the course concerned, submitted applications and took admission and if there is any fault in their admission, that is due to the College and for that they cannot be penalised. It is further submitted that the equity also demands to make the admission of the appellants absolute, otherwise they have to suffer a loss of two precious years spent to acquire education. 6. It is further submitted that the equity also demands to make the admission of the appellants absolute, otherwise they have to suffer a loss of two precious years spent to acquire education. 6. Per contra, it is stated by learned counsel for the University that the College played a mischief by admitting the students who were not eligible and for that necessary proceedings have already been initiated to take adequate action, however, in any case the admission of the appellants which are contrary to the eligibility norms do not create any right in their favour to continue with the post graduation course in science. It is asserted that no equity sustains contrary to law, thus, the Single Bench rightly dismissed the petition for writ. 7. On asking, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the College accepted that in the prospectus the eligibility for admission to M.Sc. (Chemistry) and other post graduate courses was not disclosed. We too perused the prospectus, that nowhere mentions the eligibility for admission to the course of M.Sc. 8. Heard learned counsels. 9. As already stated, it is the position admitted that the prospectus of the respondent College nowhere mentions about eligibility for admission to M.Sc. Course. The College was aware about the eligibility requirement and also the ineligibility of the appellants for admission to the M.Sc. course, but admitted them. Pertinent to mention that immediately after admission of the appellants, the College wrote a letter to the Commissioner, College Education on 26.8.2014, seeking approval of the admission to the students in M.Sc., who were not having minimum requisite marks for admission to the course aforesaid. It is further relevant to mention that the Commissioner, College Education, is absolutely stranger so far as eligibility for admission is concerned. 10. In this factual background, we are having no doubt that the College intentionally and knowingly admitted the appellants to the course of M.Sc. despite their ineligibility. Learned Single Bench, thus, rightly observed that the College violated the Guidelines/Policy/Rules laid down by the University. We are also having our own doubts about the fact that the appellants were innocent and they were also not knowing about their ineligibility and further that they simply acted as per the prospectus published and issued by the College. despite their ineligibility. Learned Single Bench, thus, rightly observed that the College violated the Guidelines/Policy/Rules laid down by the University. We are also having our own doubts about the fact that the appellants were innocent and they were also not knowing about their ineligibility and further that they simply acted as per the prospectus published and issued by the College. True it is, the conduct of the College as well as the appellants is deplorable, but at the same time we are of the view that the appellants are young boys and they have spent two precious years in acquiring studies, hence, their conduct can be saddled in a better way by imposing some other punishment instead of cancelling their admission to the course of M.Sc. We would also like to state that the eligibility prescribed is not statutory but administrative in nature. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smita Johnbhai Master and ors. v. State of Gujarat and ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1633 , while dealing with an issue akin, held as under :- "3. ..... ..... ..... The question is, should these youngsters be deprived of their one year of their precious life and the training imparted to them rendered nugatory merely because at the end of one year it is now found that the orders securing admission to them have been withdrawn. May be, the Gujarat Government and the Director of Education were not well advised in directing admissions in the manner done under the orders which have been subsequently withdrawn. Should this unwary students not guilty on their own part of any improper conduct, suffer such harsh treatment, lose a precious year of life and to be denied the benefit of a course which they have completed at least for a period of one year? 4. Undoubtedly, a grievance is being made now that those who benefit by the Court's interim order should not be allowed to take any advantage of it if the petition in which interim order was made is liable to be rejected. Another grievance equally meritorious is that those who secured admission which is found to be unjustified but continued to receive training under the interim orders of the Court, would enjoy an unfair advantage over those who failed to get admission because of the invalid admissions of the first mentioned persons. Another grievance equally meritorious is that those who secured admission which is found to be unjustified but continued to receive training under the interim orders of the Court, would enjoy an unfair advantage over those who failed to get admission because of the invalid admissions of the first mentioned persons. Conversely if interim arrangement is not directed what an oppressive out-come it would be if the challenge initially made in the petition to the Court turns out to be effective and valid. These are some unavoidable consequence of the system which howsoever one may disapprove, cannot be wished away. Even if we do not grant any relief to the petitioners whose petition is being dismissed, those who could not secure admission would not get to be better off, because their loss of one year cannot be compensated or restored by any process known to law. Clock cannot be put back howsoever one may ardently desire. 5. Therefore, with a view to mitigating the harshness of law blended by the fairness of equity, we direct that all those who secured admissions under the aforementioned five orders of the Director of Education and have completed first year course and have also appeared at the examination held at the end of first academic year should be treated as admitted for the limited period of first year. 12. In the instant matter too the appellants have undergone two years studies and have also appeared in M.Sc. (Final) examinations. The cancellation of their examination at this stage shall be too harsh. The cancellation of their admission though will adversely effect their entire career, but shall not be any lesson for the College, the Principal culprit in committing the wrong. The College, as already stated, knowingly and intentionally admitted the appellant petitioners in the course of M.Sc., thus, deserves to be dealt with sternly. We are also of the view that the University should also be vigilant and should provide necessary guidelines to ensure that no Institution/Body/person may misuse its authority relating to admission in educational courses. 13. In view of whatever stated above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal with following orders and directions :- 1. The judgment impugned dated 19.2.2016, passed by learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition, is set aside; 2. The admissions of the appellant petitioners with the course of M.Sc. 13. In view of whatever stated above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal with following orders and directions :- 1. The judgment impugned dated 19.2.2016, passed by learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition, is set aside; 2. The admissions of the appellant petitioners with the course of M.Sc. (Chemistry) are made absolute provided each of them deposits a cost of Rs. 5000/- with the Rajasthan High Court Legal Aid Committee within a period of one month from today; 3. The result of the appellants be also declared after depositing the cost in the terms above; 4. The respondent College is saddled with the cost of rupees two lacs that is to be deposited with the Rajasthan High Court Legal Aid Committee within a period of one month from today, failing which the College shall not be permitted to admit any student in forthcoming educational session in the post graduation courses; 5. The University is at liberty to proceed against the College to take appropriate action for violation of the eligibility conditions; and 6. The respondent University is directed to ensure that each and every College affiliated with it publishes the eligibility required for admission in different courses in their prospectus and also in the notice for admission, if any, published in any news paper or other form of media. The respondent College shall also ensure that in all its future prospectus there shall be complete details about eligibility as settled by the University/the State time to time for admission to the course concerned. Appeal disposed of writ directions.