JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. The ultimate reliance for a fair operation of any standard is that the systems conceived for its working is of the highest efficiency and that there is a constant play of informed critique upon its functioning. Quality, specially in the field of medical and other professional education, can be ensured only by strict and constant commitment to certain standards that achieve uniformity. 2. The medical profession, in particular, deserves resources, both human and other, which will guarantee, to the limits to which it can brook, the highest quality of health care to the citizens. The fundamental intention behind all processes put in place to identify quality of students is that education, especially medical, must not be seen to be one that can be purchased without merit. It is this felicitous intent that has marshalled the courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issues and processes relating to admissions to medical and allied courses. 3. The facts that are presented before us in this case also demonstrate certain similar situations. 4. Ten students, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, claim that they were admitted to the course leading to MBBS degree under the Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Modakkalur, Kozhikode, of which the third respondent is the Principal. According to the petitioners, some of them were admitted in the management quota while the others in the Non Resident Indian (NRI) quota. The pleadings would show that petitioners 2, 3, 6 and 9 were admitted in the management quota, while petitioners 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 were admitted in the NRI quota. 5. The method of admission to the Professional Colleges under the provisions of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Provisional Education) Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Act') invests the Admission Supervisory Committee (for short, 'the Committee'), which is constituted therein, with the power of regulating admissions in unaided Professional Colleges and Institutions. The powers of the Committee is postulated in Section 4 of the Act, where-under they have the power to supervise and control the entire processes of admission of students in the unaided Professional Colleges and Institutions with the imperative legislative intent to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit based and non-exploitative. 6. The powers of the Committee is postulated in Section 4 of the Act, where-under they have the power to supervise and control the entire processes of admission of students in the unaided Professional Colleges and Institutions with the imperative legislative intent to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit based and non-exploitative. 6. The vanguard of the entire process above, is the Committee, which is expected to verify the processes undertaken by each of the Institutions and to confirm that their actions are in terms and in conformity with the specific mandate of the Act, as well as the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, to ensure that the process is merit based and transparent. 7. After the petitioners' admissions were ordered by the college, they approached the Committee, as is required under the provisions of the Act, for approval of such admissions which, however, led to Ext.P1 order, under which the Committee, after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the Principal of the college, found that the admissions of four candidates, namely the second, third, sixth and ninth petitioners are made outside the list published by the Medical College and therefore, that the admissions were not in consonance with the directives issued by it from time to time. Similarly, as regards the admissions of the first, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth and tenth petitioners, who were offered admission in the NRI quota, the Committee found factually that their names were also not included in the online application list published and submitted by the College and therefore, ordered that the admission of the above six candidates were also to be rejected. The petitioners have challenged Ext.P1 in this writ petition as being illegal and unconstitutional. 8. We have heard Sri. George Poonthottam and Sri. Rajagopal, the learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent; Sri. Sanjay.P., the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent; Sri. P.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 9. 8. We have heard Sri. George Poonthottam and Sri. Rajagopal, the learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent; Sri. Sanjay.P., the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent; Sri. P.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 9. The foremost question placed before us for consideration, by the various learned counsel appearing for the parties, is whether the petitioners have applied for admission to the college in the manner that is prescribed and whether their admission granted by the college has been done adhering to the postulates of the various judgments of the courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders issued by the Committee from time to time. 10. As we have already indicated above, the primary and acme responsibility for ensuring that the process is non-exploitative and transparent is vested by the Act on the Committee. The Committee is, therefore, expected to verify each admission closely and to conclude whether it satisfies the imperative scrutiny of law. We notice that the Committee has rejected the admission of the petitioners primarily on the ground that they were not included in the list forwarded by the Medical College to the Committee from time to time, as is required under the mandate of the Act and as per their directives. 11. Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Committee points out that the Committee had issued two directives which are dated 04.08.2016 and 19.09.2016 respectively, the true copies of which are placed on record as Annexures R2(4) and R2(5) respectively, along with the statement filed by the Committee. According to her, as per Clause (3) of Annexure R2(4), being the directives dated 04.08.2016, the Committee had made certain specific instructions to all the colleges, which in our view requires to be read in whole and therefore, is extracted as under: “3. The calling of the applications and submission of the same by the candidates should only be online. The candidates, who successfully complete the online application, should automatically be issued with an acknowledgment. Another mode of application submission will be rejected. Each College shall extend its online facility to the ASC so as to monitor the entire admission procedure of the college. (This procedure could be clarified directly from the ASC Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram). The candidates, who successfully complete the online application, should automatically be issued with an acknowledgment. Another mode of application submission will be rejected. Each College shall extend its online facility to the ASC so as to monitor the entire admission procedure of the college. (This procedure could be clarified directly from the ASC Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram). The activity of any college subverting the admission of inter se merit, if found, will be considered as violation of the order of the ASC.” 12. The learned Standing Counsel further points out that as per Clause (3) of Annexure R2(4), admission in the management, NRI and lapsed seats was directed to be made only from the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (for short, 'NEET') list, maintaining inter se merit, transparency and academic excellence, subject to the orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. She thereafter points to Clause No.(13) in the said order, which reads as under: “13. The vacant seats available, due to any reason including the non-joining, should be notified and admission should be effected from the wait listed candidates prepared and maintained on inter se merit.” 13. After pointing out the relevant portions of Annexure R2(4) as above, the learned Standing Counsel calls our attention to Annexure R2(5) and refers specifically to Clause (4) in the said order, which reads as under : “4. The Medical Colleges are also further directed that:- i. The details of the total individual online applications received by the Medical College for the admissions to MBBS 2016-17. ii. The details of the defects noted by the Medical College in respect of the applicants and the method through which such defects were cured/corrected/rectified. iii. The total list of eligible applicants for MBBS admissions 2016-17 in the Medical Colleges. iv. The total list of rejected candidates from the online applications. v. The total list of eligible candidates for admission to MBBS Course 2016-17 under Management and NRI, prepared strictly on inter se merit basing on the NEET rank list. vi. All the above particulars are to be published immediately in the website of the Medical College and the same should be made known to all the applicants/candidates/ parents/public.” 14. v. The total list of eligible candidates for admission to MBBS Course 2016-17 under Management and NRI, prepared strictly on inter se merit basing on the NEET rank list. vi. All the above particulars are to be published immediately in the website of the Medical College and the same should be made known to all the applicants/candidates/ parents/public.” 14. Smt. Mary Benjamin, learned Standing Counsel for the Committee, edifices her submissions on the above extracted portions of the orders and says that every college within the jurisdiction of the Committee is expected to follow these conditions implicitly and that any admission made in violation or contravention of these would have to visit the candidates with necessary consequences of their admission being found to be vitiated. According to her, even the pleadings on record in this case would show that none of the petitioners had applied online or that they had approached the Committee making any complaint against the college that their applications made online had not been properly processed, scrutinized or evaluated. She, therefore, supports Ext.P1 as being issued with full legal sanction and in compliance of the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 15. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, opens his submissions refuting the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Committee by saying that it is the specific case of the petitioners that though they tried to apply online for admission to the college, it was not possible for them to do so on account of the fact that the website, maintained by the college, was not functioning and that their applications were not allowed to be uploaded fully. He asserts that when the petitioners' applications were thus impeded from being uploaded on account of the technical snag, they were forced to make applications directly to the college and that they were, therefore, entitled to be considered for admission. Even though Sri. George Poonthottam makes these submissions at the Bar, we notice from the pleadings in the writ petition that the petitioners aver that they “made applications to the college directly well in advance because the website of the college was not functioning properly enabling uploading of applications”. Even though Sri. George Poonthottam makes these submissions at the Bar, we notice from the pleadings in the writ petition that the petitioners aver that they “made applications to the college directly well in advance because the website of the college was not functioning properly enabling uploading of applications”. However, after saying so, the petitioners go to say that “the website of the college was suffering from some technical difficulty in the last week of September, 2016 and that the uploading of the application was not happening (sic)”. As per them, this issue was brought to the notice of the Committee and that there was a direction that the applications of those students who approached the college directly may be received for the purpose of admission so that such students would not suffer. 16. The above submissions appear to have been made by the petitioners because, as per the prospectus of the college approved by the Committee by its order dated 02.09.2016, a copy of which has been appended to the statement filed on behalf of the Committee as Annexure R2(3), the last date for submission of online applications to the college was 07.09.2016. 17. The importance of application through online process cannot be understated because when the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test was reintroduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sankalp Charitable Trust and another v. Union of India and others [ (2016) 7 SCC 487 ], several writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging certain orders issued by the Government of Kerala whereby the powers of the colleges to admit students were sought to be controlled. By an interim order dated 26.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No.28041 of 2016 and connected cases, a Division Bench of this Court, after consideration of the relevant factual factors quite in detail, made the following directions in paragraph 10 of the said order. Since these directions are of acme importance in this case, we deem it appropriate to extract it so as to facilitate a full reading: “10. Since these directions are of acme importance in this case, we deem it appropriate to extract it so as to facilitate a full reading: “10. Accordingly, there shall be an interim stay of operation and implementation of the impugned orders, G.O.(Rt) No.2314/2016/H&FWD dated 20.08.2016 and G.O.(Rt) No. 2336/2016/H&FWD dated 23.08.2016, subject to the following conditions: i. Admissions to the MBBS/BDS Courses shall be only on the basis of the ranking of candidates in the rank list of NEET, 2016, on the basis of the interse merit among the candidates, who have applied to the respective colleges. ii. All the colleges agree that the applications for admission are received only through online and that, the said process provides transparency with regard to the merit as well as the identities of the applicants. Such applications shall therefore be uploaded for the scrutiny of the Admission Supervisory Committee also immediately on the expiry of the last date for submission of applications. iii. Since the counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee has voiced a complaint that some of the colleges have not obtained approval of the Admission Supervisory Committee, for their prospectus, the admission process shall be proceeded with only on the basis of a Prospectus, for which approval of the Admission Supervisory Committee has been obtained. iv. The Admission Supervisory Committee is directed to either approve or disapprove the Prospectus, submitted to them for approval, within three days of such submission.” 18. We notice that this order was challenged by some of the colleges and candidates before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which led to an order dated 28.09.2016, a copy of which has been appended to the statement filed by the Committee as Annexure R2(2). In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after analysing the basic provisions of the NEET and the Act aforesaid, made the following order: “Having regard to the aforesaid facts as stated by the learned Solicitor General as well as the counsel for the respondents, we set aside that part of condition No.1 wherein the respective colleges are allowed to conduct the counselling and admit the students without going into the merits. This issue shall be finally thrashed out and decided by the High Court in the writ petitions which are pending before it. This issue shall be finally thrashed out and decided by the High Court in the writ petitions which are pending before it. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the admissions of students which have been done by the respective colleges as these are done after reaching arrangement with the State Government. In that behalf, the conditions which are mentioned in the impugned order shall continue to apply.” 19. The effect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, is ineluctable that the colleges concerned are no longer allowed to conduct the counselling or to admit students after the date of the judgment, namely 28.09.2016, but their Lordships deemed it appropriate not to interfere with the admissions of students already made by the individual colleges. 20. We must record that we have mentioned and noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only for the purpose of completing the narration of the factual run-down, but we are certain that this judgment could not in any manner alter the legal setting involved in this case because all the admissions, including that of the petitioners, made by the college, were done before the date of the said judgment. This is pertinent because after the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no college could have admitted students of their own and hence the assessment of the petitioners' contentions in this case will have to be done only on the touch stone of the provisions and the orders that held the field prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. Even though we see that an enervated attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to contend that, on account of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was not necessary for his clients to make an online application, we are doubtless that this assertion is untenable, for the reasons stated above. Further, this submission is completely incongruous, since if the petitioners assert that they were admitted by the college after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence entitled to admission otherwise than through online process, then those admissions would have to be struck down as being in violation of the specific mandate of the judgment, that individual colleges cannot conduct counseling or admit students on their own. Since the records produced in this case, referred to as Ext.R3(d) series, which are the receipts issued by the college accepting the tuition fee of the petitioners after offering them admission, show that such admissions were made on 28.09.2017, being concededly before being aware of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it defies logic to even say that the petitioners need not have made online applications because of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was yet to come. These submissions are totally incredulous and we, therefore, feel it apposite not to say anything further on this but to repel it as being without basis. 22. It is, therefore, indubitable that the entitlement of the petitioners to seek admission would essentially depend upon the question as to whether they had applied to the college online as per the afore-extracted interim order of this Court and Annexures R2(4) and R2(5) directives of the Committee and on this factual analysis would, to a large extent, depend the ultimate fate of this case. 23. We notice that the specific assertions of Sri. George Poonthottam is that the petitioners had tried to make an online application well within the cutoff date of 07.09.2016. According to him, because of the technical snag experienced in the website maintained by the college, it was not possible for any of the petitioners to upload their applications and, therefore, that they were constrained to make applications directly to the college after the said cutoff date. We must immediately notice that the pleadings on record is, however, highly obfuscatory. We say this because even though in one area of the writ petition, the petitioners say that they made applications to the college “well in advance”, in another portion, they say that such applications were made in the last week of September, 2016. According to them, as is discernible from paragraph 4 of the writ petition, since the website of the college was suffering from “technical difficulty in the last week of September, 2016”, they were constrained to make applications directly to the college. This stand is completely contradictory to each other and we cannot countenance the difference in the inferences that we will be compelled to be drawn from these statements. This stand is completely contradictory to each other and we cannot countenance the difference in the inferences that we will be compelled to be drawn from these statements. When they say that they had made applications well in advance, even though they do not say the actual date of application, which even now is completely kept out of our information, the only inference that can be drawn is that they had made applications prior to the cutoff date, namely 07.09.2016. However, when they say that the technical defect experienced with the website of the college was in the last week of September, 2016, the corollary inference that we are constrained to draw is that their applications were sought to be made in the last week of September, 2016, that is much after the cutoff date. 24. Even though we had directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the college to place on record details as to the actual date of the application made by the petitioners either online or otherwise, we must say with a certain amount of consternation, that such information has been kept away from us and no pleadings have been placed on record to show the actual dates. The date of the applications becomes very pertinent in this case because the prospectus admittedly allowed applications only up to 07.09.2016, whether online or otherwise. We find it difficult to accept the above submissions also for the reason that the petitioners specifically claim that they had all taken the necessary demand drafts, towards the application fee for making applications to the college, much before the cutoff date and in fact, the college has produced it on record as Ext.R3(d) series, along with their counter affidavit dated 11.12.2017. If this is so and the petitioners had, in fact, taken the demand draft for the application fee much prior to 07.09.2016, we fail to understand why they did not approach the college or the Committee making a complaint that their applications have not been either allowed to be uploaded due to the technical snag or that the college was not accepting it before the cutoff date. Of course, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the above extracted interim order of this Court and the directives of the Committee in Annexures R2(4) and R2(5) make it abundantly clear that such applications can be done only online and through no other method. Therefore, if the petitioners had a real concern that their applications were not being allowed to be uploaded on account of a technical snag, then they ought to have either approached the Committee with a specific complaint to that effect or they ought to have approached the college with a written requisition that their applications be considered, notwithstanding the fact that they had not been able to upload the forms online. Concededly, this has not been done. 25. In fact, what we see from the pleadings and materials on record is that certain other candidates, who were seven in number, had approached the Committee sometime in the last week of September, 2016 with a complaint that even though they had applied online, such applications had not been registered by the college and that they were not included in the list forwarded by the college to the Committee. We notice that this allegation was made because the college had forwarded the first list of candidates to the Committee through Annexure R2(8) list which is dated 14.09.2016. The seven candidates, who we have referred above, noticed that their names were not in the said list and they immediately approached the Committee by a complaint, a copy which has been appended to the statement filed on behalf of the Committee as Annexure R2(6) series. In these complaints, the essential allegation is that since the website was not functioning properly, they were not able to upload their applications fully and in some of the complaints, the allegation is that even though they had made applications online, the college had not considered their candidature by including them in the list of candidates forwarded by them to the Committee. It appears that the Committee took cognizance of all these complaints and forwarded the same to the college through Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P3 order, the Committee has said very clearly that there are complaints from candidates, who had tried to make online applications or who had made the online applications, that they were not included in the list forwarded by the college, namely, Annexure R2(8). In Ext.P3 order, the Committee has said very clearly that there are complaints from candidates, who had tried to make online applications or who had made the online applications, that they were not included in the list forwarded by the college, namely, Annexure R2(8). In Ext.P3, all that the Committee had directed the college was to publish the Management and NRI quota separately with the NEET rank list so as to enable the applicants to know the rank position and to include all those candidates who had applied online before the cutoff date. It was also recorded in the said order that the representatives of the college agreed that the details of these seven students would also be included along with the published list of applicants. 26. Pursuant to Ext.P3, we notice that the college wrote back to the Committee through a letter, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure R2(7) along with the statement filed by the Committee. In Annexure R2(7), the stand taken by the college was that the seven persons, who had made complaints before the Committee, had not been included due to technical errors but it was expressly admitted they were all persons who had made applications online before the cutoff date. It was, therefore, conceded in Annexure R2(7) that the names of all such persons would also be included in a fresh list, that they enclosed along with the said letter. The fresh list enclosed with Annexure R2(7) has been placed on record by the Committee, along with their statement, as Annexure R2(9). We notice from Annexure R2(9) list that the numbers therein have been expanded in comparison to the earlier list, presumably to include all those candidates who had made applications online or who had attempted to make applications online prior to 07.09.2016, but whose names had not figured or featured in Annexure R2(8) list. 27. We notice that the issues in this case really began after this stage. This is because, after receipt of Ext.P3 order, the college appears to have uploaded an information on their website, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P4 wherein they say: “As directed by the Hon'ble Admission Supervisory Committee, we undertake to accept all such applications received in the college office with the proof of their unsuccessful attempts for registration along with DD taken before the scheduled cutoff date. These applications will be considered for Spot Admissions to vacant seats.” 28. The information on the website as above, therefore, is as if the Committee had directed the college to accept all applications, whether they were made after 07.09.2016 or otherwise, up to the date when the admissions are made and an impression was given that all such applications will be considered at the time of spot admission. This is the genesis of the controversy herein since it appears, and which fact is virtually admitted, the petitioners had made applications to the college being attracted by the information in Ext.P4. 29. However, before we made up our mind and in order to dispel the suspicion as to whether the petitioners' applications were made before 07.09.2016 or made after 24.09.2016, being the date of Annexure R2(9) list, we asked Sri. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the college to obtain specific instructions on this when this case was heard yesterday. The learned counsel today comes back to us with a clear submission that all these candidates had made their applications after the date of Annexure R2(9) list. It really means that the petitioners had made their applications much after the cutoff date of 07.09.2016; that their applications were accepted by the college pursuant to the information posted by them through Ext.P4 and that the students were, therefore, attracted to the proposition of the offered seats and admission in the college. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioners still maintains vehemently that the petitioners had made applications online prior to the cutoff date, but the stand of the college recorded above speaks Otherwise. It is also pertinent that nowhere in the writ petition is it pleaded specifically that the petitioners had applied online before 07.09.2016 or that they were unable to upload the information before that date. The pleadings in the petition are absolutely vague and indecisive and we can only infer that this is because they are unwilling to give information to this Court as to the actual date on which they had made applications to the college. 30. The facts, thus being clear, there are two problems that the petitioners will immediately face. The first is that even assuming that they had made applications, they will have to establish that they made the applications before the cutoff date, namely 07.09.2016. 30. The facts, thus being clear, there are two problems that the petitioners will immediately face. The first is that even assuming that they had made applications, they will have to establish that they made the applications before the cutoff date, namely 07.09.2016. That by itself, unfortunately, is not sufficient because they will have to further establish that they made the applications online or that they attempted to make applications online. 31. The process of making applications online through a computer network is obviously to ensure transparency because transparency, in its ultimate analysis, is in the absence of all hidden agenda and conditions, accompanied by the easy availability of full and complete information required to obtain a panoptic view of the way in which the process was administered and the students admitted. The fact remains in this case that we are unable to obtain any information as to whether the petitioners had applied online or whether they had applied within the cutoff date, namely 07.09.2016. This is the singular hurdle that the petitioners should face in this case. 32. As we have already indicted above, the effect of the interim directions of this Court in Annexure R2(1) order is that all applications will have to be made by the students only through the online process and these directions have been cemented through the conditions imposed by the Committee itself in Annexures R2(4) and R2(5) directives. It is, therefore, indisputable that if the applications were not made online and they were not made within the time granted in the prospectus, then the college could not have accepted the same legally. 33. We notice that the stratagem employed by the college is that they are taking umbra under the orders of the Committee itself in Ext.P3. What they are trying to say before this Court, in the pleadings and the submissions made at the Bar, is that the Committee had permitted them to accept and process all applications made by the candidates even after the cutoff date and that the college would, therefore, be empowered to make admissions through a spot process. What they are trying to say before this Court, in the pleadings and the submissions made at the Bar, is that the Committee had permitted them to accept and process all applications made by the candidates even after the cutoff date and that the college would, therefore, be empowered to make admissions through a spot process. We are afraid that this submission can never find favour in law, because once the prospectus was clear that no applications could have been made after the cutoff date and that such applications have to be made online, even the Committee could not have ordered otherwise, except in the manner that is sanctioned under the Act. This has not been done concededly and we notice that in Ext.P3, all that the Committee has said is that all those candidates who had made online applications before the cutoff date but whose applications were, even then, not considered by the college be included in the fresh list so as to obtain transparency in the process. We are afraid that the college took illegal advantage of this direction in Ext.P3 and then gave an impression to the prospective candidates, through their representation made through Ext.P4, that they would even accept applications made after 07.09.2017 and even after 24.09.2017. 34. To exacerbate the problem, the college never forward these applications of the candidates they allegedly received after 24.09.2016 to the Committee at any point but Sri. Sanjay, the learned counsel appearing for the college concedes that it was forwarded to the Committee only on 05.10.2016. However, even that being so, we notice that the college published a list containing 33 new candidates, whose applications were allegedly received in their office till 27.09.2016 and that they notified a spot admission process to be conducted on 28.09.2016. We get this information from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the college dated 22.07.2017. After publishing such a list and after notifying the process of spot admission on 28.09.2016, we are told by the learned counsel that the petitioners were admitted through such process and that the tuition fee and other charges were collected from them by the college on the same day. They have produced on record Ext.R3(d) series, being the receipts issued by the college to the petitioners on completion of their admission, which are all dated 28.09.2016. This date is also relevant for another reason. They have produced on record Ext.R3(d) series, being the receipts issued by the college to the petitioners on completion of their admission, which are all dated 28.09.2016. This date is also relevant for another reason. This is the date on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued Annexure R2(2) order curtailing the power of the colleges to make admissions on their own and leaving it to the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations to do so. The manner in which the college has published an additional list of 33 candidates on 27.09.2016, then notifying a spot admission on 28.09.2016 and completing the admission on the same day, in our view, appears to be suspiciously hasty and intended to get over the consequences of the orders that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued. 35. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, faced with the above, submits before us that even if it is accepted as true, the fact that the petitioners had made applications after the cutoff date or that it was not done through the online method, it should not be used against the petitioners' admission because it would be of no consequence or assistance to any other candidate now if their admissions are cancelled, as has been done through Ext.P1 order. He says that if the petitioners' admissions are now cancelled, then all those seats would become vacant since no one can be admitted after 07.10.2016, which was the extended date, within which the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations was authorised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to fill up all lapsed seats. He further submits that no complaint has been made by any other candidate against the petitioners that they have been bypassed for accommodating them and he, therefore, maintains that even assuming that the petitioners have not followed the procedure mandated in law, their admissions ought not to be cancelled. He finally submits before us that all the petitioners are highly qualified and he shows us that the petitioners are all ranked between 26,886 and 3,53,937 in the NEET results. According to him, several candidates who are placed in rank much lower than the petitioners in the NEET results had already been approved by the Committee through Ext.P1 and he cites certain instances of candidates who have secured ranks as low as 4,00,000 and below. According to him, several candidates who are placed in rank much lower than the petitioners in the NEET results had already been approved by the Committee through Ext.P1 and he cites certain instances of candidates who have secured ranks as low as 4,00,000 and below. He thus asserts that there is no compromise in the merit while admitting the petitioners, since all of them are ranked high in the NEET list. 36. Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned standing counsel for the Committee refutes the above contentions of the petitioners by saying that the specific instances shown by Sri. George Poonthottam with respect to lower ranked persons being included in the list are not factually accurate because those students were admitted to the NRI seats and that too because they were included either in Annexures R2(8) or R2(9) lists forwarded by the college to the Committee. According to her, the question whether merit has been compromised or whether the petitioners are higher in rank to the others who are included in the list, would be of no consequence because what the Committee is expected to do is to ensure that the process established for the purpose of admission is scrupulously followed. According to her, even assuming that the petitioners are ranked higher up in the NEET list, which she does not admit, they should not get any benefit from this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if they are seen to have violated the processes under which they could have obtained the admissions. 37. Sri. P. Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent University submits more or less in tune with the submissions made by Smt. Mary Benchamin but he adds that no admissions should be allowed which is in violation of the time schedule prescribed in the prospectus and that the University will act as per the directives of the Committee with respect to the admissions made by the college. He, however, reiterates that the pleadings do not say that any of the petitioners have attempted to upload their applications online within the time frame granted in the prospectus. 38. We have considered the above submissions quite in detail. As we have already said above, the petitioners' entitlement to admission would depend upon whether they have made applications within the cutoff date in the manner prescribed. 38. We have considered the above submissions quite in detail. As we have already said above, the petitioners' entitlement to admission would depend upon whether they have made applications within the cutoff date in the manner prescribed. This means that they ought to have made online application on or before 07.09.2016 and that the college could have then included them in a list of all those candidates who had so applied. Even taking cognizance of the specific allegation of the petitioners that they had attempted to make application on or before 07.09.2016 and that such attempt was not fructified on account of the technical snag of the website, we fail to understand why the petitioners did not approach the Committee with a complaint, as was done by the seven candidates which resulted in Ext.P3 order. 39. If the petitioners had approached the Committee as had been done by the seven others, obviously the Committee could have assessed as to whether the petitioners' application had been made properly and whether the college was wrong in not including them in the list forwarded to the Committee by them through Annexure R2(8). This is crucial because, the complaint of seven candidates before the Committee was specifically that even though they had made application online, they were not included in Annexure R2(8) list forwarded by the college and they sought consequential orders from the Committee to include them. We notice that, in fact, this is all that the Committee has done through Ext.P3 proceedings and the directions contained therein was only to include those candidates who had made the online applications within the time granted in the fresh list to be furnished by the college. Unfortunately, these directions have been sought to be taken advantage of by the college by publishing Ext.P4 information on their website and attracting candidates through their promise that they would be considered for spot admission, even though their applications are made much after the cutoff date. In fact, as has been recorded by us above, it is the specific submission of Sri. Sanjay, the learned counsel appearing for the college that the applications of all the petitioners were made after 24.09.2016. 40. In fact, as has been recorded by us above, it is the specific submission of Sri. Sanjay, the learned counsel appearing for the college that the applications of all the petitioners were made after 24.09.2016. 40. We are afraid that we cannot countenance the brazen violations that we notice in this case and we are of the view that by granting any type of imprimatur to such action at the hands of the college or of the petitioners, we would be doing violence to the letter and spirit of the Act and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure R2(2) judgment. Once we see that the process has not been complied with and that attempts were made to override the imperative postulates of that process, it would be of no consequence, even though we notice the submission of Sri. George Poonthottam that the petitioners are ranked higher than various others who are included in the admission list or that they are better qualified than the others who are included through the process of the Controller of the Entrance Examinations. These are of no moment at all because we are certain that while we consider the validity of Ext.P1 order issued by the Committee, our enquiry will have to be confined to whether the Committee has acted within the limits of its jurisdiction and whether while issuing Ext.P1, they have considered all the relevant factors and have confined themselves to the parameters and circumscribed limits of their authority vested with them by the provisions of the Act. The Committee is a statutory body enlivened by the various provisions of the Act and we cannot brush aside their orders casually even if we see that the petitioners may have a case built upon comparative merit. This is not our province and we are of the view that it is not the duty of the Committee to verify whether the comparative merit of the petitioners and others have been violated when it is virtually conceded before us that the petitioners did not enter the fray through legitimate means and in the manner that they were expected to do legally and forensically. 41. At this point of time, Sri. 41. At this point of time, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners says that these issues have already been considered by a Bench of this Court leading to Ext.P8 judgment, which has been produced along with I.A.No.18274 of 2017. According to him, the judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.31814 of 2017 establishes the law that online applications to the colleges are not required. We have examined the judgment with great amount of care. We notice that the learned Bench has, after adverting to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a copy of which is referred to in this writ petition as Annexure R2(2), concluded that candidates were not required to make online applications to any particular college after the date of the said judgment. This proposition cannot be denied because once the judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no question of any individual college holding counselling or admitting students of their own and they could have done so only before the judgment. Therefore, there is no question of any further application being made by any student of the college online or otherwise since it would be of no consequence. However, since the admissions already made by the individual colleges prior to the date of the judgment were not interfered with, it would only mean that such admissions, if it had been legally done as per the then applicable orders and directives, would continue. 42. In any event of the matter, the observations in Ext.P8 judgment would have no effect or application to this writ petition because concededly all the admissions, including that of the petitioners, were made by the college before the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is clear from the pleaded facts and from the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the college that when the petitioners were allotted seats through spot admission, they were not aware of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that they have only followed the earlier procedure. It, therefore, becomes luculent that even as per the assertions of the petitioners and the college, admissions were made not in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but in terms of Annexure R2(1) interim order of this Court and Annexures R2(4) and R2(5) directives of the Committee. It, therefore, becomes luculent that even as per the assertions of the petitioners and the college, admissions were made not in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but in terms of Annexure R2(1) interim order of this Court and Annexures R2(4) and R2(5) directives of the Committee. In fact, only this could have been done because, once the judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further admissions could have been made by the college. 43. We, therefore, cannot find favour with the submissions of Sri. George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Ext.P8 judgment would inure to the benefit of the petitioners herein and that their admissions should be approved. 44. It is also the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were permitted to continue the course as per the interim orders of this Court, dated 27.07.2017, whereby they were allowed to take the examinations on a provisional basis, they should be allowed to continue on principles of equity to complete their course. This submission, according to us, is completely misplaced because the interim order passed by this Court was issued on a limited assessment of the facts before this Court but without going deep into the merits of the contentions at that point of time. It is only an interim arrangement made with respect to the status of the petitioners and they had obviously obtained that order knowing fully well that their appearance in the examination, as permitted by this Court, was purely on provisional basis, thereby meaning clearly that they would not obtain any benefit out of such interim order. In any event of the matter, it is settled law that while disposing of a matter finally, even the Court which passed the interim order would not be bound by the same and that the considerations at the time of final disposal are completely different and varied with respect to the considerations made at the time of the interim order. We can only, therefore, repel these contentions as being unsustainable in law. 45. We can only, therefore, repel these contentions as being unsustainable in law. 45. At this juncture, we must also remind ourselves the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India [ (2017) 3 SCC 652 ], where the students, who obtained illegal admission, were only seen by the Court to be victims rather than perpetrators, which is as under: “15. The question before this Court is not who is to be blamed for the present state of affairs-whether it is the students or the College or the State of Chhttisgarh. The question is really whether the rule of law should prevail or not. In our opinion, the answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. The College and the State of Chattisgarh have not adhered to the law with the result that the petitioner became a victim of circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed against the College and the State of Chhattisgarh being a victim of their maladministration. The plight of the petitioner is unfortunate but it cannot be helped. 16. We were told during the course of submissions that some similarly placed students participated in NEET and qualified in the examination. Those students like the petitioner who did not participate in NEET and placed their trust only in the College and the State of Chhattisgarh took a gamble and that gamble has unfortunately not succeeded. While our sympathies may be with the petitioner and similarly placed students, we cannot go contrary to the orders passed by this court from time to time, only for their benefit.” 46. In the case at hand, we are not even sure if the petitioners can present themselves to be victims of circumstances since the afore-recorded facts would, at least, to some extent, show their complicity in the attempt to secure admission, otherwise than through legitimised methods. That being so, even if we are to presume to the contrary and even if we are to hold any sympathy for the plight of the petitioners, the inviolable command of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Rule of law should prevail would disallow us to intervene in the lawful orders issued by the Committee. 47. That being so, even if we are to presume to the contrary and even if we are to hold any sympathy for the plight of the petitioners, the inviolable command of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Rule of law should prevail would disallow us to intervene in the lawful orders issued by the Committee. 47. In the survey of all the facts and circumstances as we have detailed above, it becomes perspicuous that the challenge made by the petitioners against Ext.P1 order cannot obtain forensic support and that it will certainly have to fail. We see that Ext.P1 has been issued by the Committee after analysing and assessing the various factors as were available to it and after the fact that the petitioners had not applied online or within the time granted in the prospectus, was established beyond doubt. In such view also, we find that Ext.P1 order is irreproachable and cannot be found fault with and we are, therefore, compelled to dismiss this writ petition, which we do hereby. In the peculiar circumstances that we have seen in this writ petition, we refrain from making any order as to costs and direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.