JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. All these writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 1.8.2017 passed in WP No. 11752 of 2015, WP No. 16369 of 2016 and WP No. 14239 of 2017, wherein the writ petitioners, who have completed their courses now, filed the above mentioned writs seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not approving the admissions of the petitioners as illegal, improper and incorrect. 2. In order to appreciate the issue involved, it would be necessary to refer to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the documents filed therein. The appellants, except Rizwana, who took admission in post graduation i.e., MD (Pathology), all others joined in diploma courses in Orthopedics and Gynecology in N.R.I. College, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District for the academic year 2014-2015. The duration of the diploma course is for two years, while that of MD (Pathology) is for three years. 3. Applications came to be invited by the college for admission into the above mentioned courses in respect of unfilled seats. Responding to the same, appellants-students applied for the said courses in the NRI College, Mangalagiri. After processing their applications, the appellants-students were given admission into the said courses. 4. It is pleaded that by the time they approached the 4th respondent-college in the first week of April, 2014, other seats were filled up and the college authorities informed them to approach them when they notify filling up of unfilled seats. A notification for the same came to be issued on 9.7.2014 and pursuant to which, applications came to be submitted to join in the said courses. The last date for filling up the post graduation seats for the academic year 2014-2015 was 10th July, 2014, by which time, admissions of appellants-students were completed. The college has forwarded their names for approval through letter dated 10.7.2014 and also sent a copy to the 3rd respondent-Medical Council of India as required. A dispute arose in the college management with regard to admission of seats under management quota for the academic year 2014-2015, in respect of certain seats, for which there was much demand. The college has forwarded their names for approval through letter dated 10.7.2014 and also sent a copy to the 3rd respondent-Medical Council of India as required. A dispute arose in the college management with regard to admission of seats under management quota for the academic year 2014-2015, in respect of certain seats, for which there was much demand. It is said that when the Principal of the college invited applications to fill up the unfilled seats, the other group, which was opposing the management, entertained certain applications on their own and sent a list to the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, which wrote a letter to the college stating that they received two lists, one from the Principal and the other from the management and which list has to be accepted. In that back drop, WP No. 17918 of 2014 came to be filed before this Court, wherein a Division Bench directed N.T.R. University of Health Sciences to consider both the lists and prepare a merit list taking into consideration the relative merit of the students available in both the lists. It is not in dispute that the names of the petitioners herein do not figure in both the lists. The 4th respondent-college, after giving admissions to the students in the merit list in terms of the order of the Division Bench, sent the names of the petitioners-students to the university on 10.7.2014. On a premise that the names of the students will be approved as the controversy is over, the petitioners were admitted in the college and thereafter they have completed their courses as on today. While things stood thus, in the month of March, 2015, the University passed an order directing the college to discharge the students from the admissions as the names of the petitioners were not in the approved list sent by the University through their office letter dated 9.11.2014. It is pleaded that insofar as admission of the petitioners-students is not in controversy, much attention was not paid to the procedure for getting their names listed in the approved list. It is said that the letter written by the college informing admission of these petitioners in the month of July itself was before the authorities, when they prepared the final list on 9.11.2014. According to the petitioners-appellants, verification was done by the 2nd respondent-University on 5.11.2014. It is said that the letter written by the college informing admission of these petitioners in the month of July itself was before the authorities, when they prepared the final list on 9.11.2014. According to the petitioners-appellants, verification was done by the 2nd respondent-University on 5.11.2014. It is pleaded that when once the names of the petitioners-appellants, who were admitted in the month of July, 2014, was before the University, while preparing the merit list in the moth of November, 2014, the authorities should have included the names of the petitioners in the updated list. But, they prepared the list only in respect of seats where there is controversy and washed off their hands. Later on, the impugned order came to be passed for discharge of the students. It is further pleaded that no notice was given to petitioners before passing the impugned order, enabling them to give a proper answer. Viewed from any angle it is pleaded that the order of the authorities in directing the college to discharge the petitioners from the college is bad in law. 5. Counter came to be filed disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The University, which is the main contesting party, states that the 4th respondent-college is a private unaided medical college and the total sanctioned intake of seats under Management quota in the following specialty subjects are as under: Sl. No. Name of the Specialty Number of seats 1. DVL 01 2. DM&RD 01 3. D. Ortho. 02 6. It is said that as per Rule 3(iv) and Rule 4(v)(a) of A.P. Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of admissions into Post Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses/Super Speciality Courses) Rules, 2013, the management of the private medical college is empowered to constitute a committee for selection of candidates seeking admission into post graduate diploma and degree courses by conducting interviews. The marks obtained in the qualifying examination is restricted to 85% and 15% marks were allocated for interview. It is said that a list came to be submitted by the college on 24.6.2014 and another list was also submitted on 28.6.2014. The marks obtained in the qualifying examination is restricted to 85% and 15% marks were allocated for interview. It is said that a list came to be submitted by the college on 24.6.2014 and another list was also submitted on 28.6.2014. An explanation came to be called from the Principal of the College vide letter dated 5.7.2014 as regards to sending two merit lists for admission into post graduate diploma and degree courses and explanation came to be submitted by the 4th respondent-college on 7.7.2014 stating that the college prepared the merit list by constituting the selection committee as per the said rules. The Principal in his reply stated that he is not aware of the other list forwarded by the management of the 4th respondent-college and the said list is unauthorized one. At that point of time, the Writ Petition No. 17918 of 2014 came to be filed by five students, which was allowed on 25.9.2014. In obedience to the orders passed by the Division Bench, the University has prepared a fresh merit list basing on the marks secured by the applicants in respect of candidates whose names appeared in both the lists and forwarded the same to the College to admit them in the respective courses. It is pleaded that none of the petitioners herein were in either of the two lists prepared by the University and as such, their names do not figure in the approved list. It is stated that even as on 10.7.2014, which is the last date for admission into P.G. courses, the names of these petitioners never figured nor any intimation about the same was given to the University about their admission. It is further pleaded that the University is not aware about notification issued on 9.7.2014 calling for applications for unfilled seats and also entertaining the applications on 10.7.2014. Since the college has not followed the rules issued in the year, 2013 insofar as filling up of the unfilled seats, the admissions of the petitioners cannot be made valid due to the lapse of time, more so, when the said admissions would be contrary to the orders in WP No. 17918 of 2014. It is further pleaded that the college never sent the list of petitioners and other candidates within the time stipulated by the Apex Court i.e., by 10.7.2014. It is further pleaded that the college never sent the list of petitioners and other candidates within the time stipulated by the Apex Court i.e., by 10.7.2014. On the other hand, the said list was received by the University in the month of October, 2014, by then the writ was allowed with certain directions and an approved list was also prepared by them. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that there is no illegality in the order passed. 7. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the admission of four petitioners-appellants-students in respect of courses referred to above for the academic year 2014-2015 is valid and whether the authorities were right in discharging them from the college? 8. It is to be noted here that Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, representing the Medical Council of India, would state that it is a peculiar case and they are bound by any orders passed by this Court. No counter is filed on their behalf. 9. Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Counsel for the appellants, would contend that though names of the appellants-students do not figure in the approved list prepared pursuant to directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 17918 of 2014, but these appellants-students cannot be found fault for the act of the authorities. According to him, pursuant to advertisement, these appellants-students applied and thereafter their names were sent to the University for approval. For reasons best known, the University failed to take into consideration the letter of the college informing the University about the admissions of these students in their college. It is alleged that even before preparation of the approved list, the University authorities were aware about the admission of these appellants-students in the college. Since the students have completed their courses and the admission into the said courses in the academic year 2014-2015 relate to unfilled seats, pleads that the request of the petitioners-appellants may be accepted. 10. On the other hand, Sri T. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, would contend that the entire procedure followed by the college in admitting the students is contrary to the rules framed. 10. On the other hand, Sri T. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, would contend that the entire procedure followed by the college in admitting the students is contrary to the rules framed. Apart from that, he would contend that the University was not aware about the admissions of the students till October, 2014 and having realized the same, passed the impugned proceedings in the month of March, 2015 discharging the students from the college. 11. Procedure for admission : Rule 4 of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 postulates that the individual college shall issue notification in two newspapers calling for applications for admission into Management quota seats in P.G. Medical, Dental and Super Speciality Courses, also making a provision for downloading the application forms by the prospective candidates from the website of the colleges. Information regarding seat matrix in different specialities under Management quota shall be made available in the website of the respective colleges. Rule 4(iv) of the Act deals with calling for interviews after receipt of applications and thereafter displaying the list of eligible candidates. Rule 4(v)(a) states that the final merit list of the college shall be prepared on the basis of individual's cumulative performance at the first, second and third year MBBS Examination and thereafter the same shall be tabulated and displayed on the notice board of the college and a copy of which also to be sent to the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences for approval. It is said that the college shall make admissions strictly in the order of merit shown in the approved merit list. The same procedure is completed even in respect of super speciality courses, but the rules, which are placed on record, do not speak about the procedure for admission in diploma courses. 12. Before dealing with the issue, it is to be noted that no explanation is forthcoming from the University as to why they took six months to pass an order directing the college to discharge the students from the college. Even accepting the plea of the University, the fact remains that they allowed the students to continue in the courses and thereafter in the month of March, 2015, orders came to be passed. 13. Even accepting the plea of the University, the fact remains that they allowed the students to continue in the courses and thereafter in the month of March, 2015, orders came to be passed. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to extract the operative portion of the order of the Division Bench in WP No. 17918 of 2014, dated 25.9.2014, basing on which the approved list was sent to college. The relevant portion is as under: "(1) The impugned Rules i.e., Rules 3(vi) and 4(v)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Un-aided Non-Minority Professional Institutional (Regulation of Admissions into Post Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses/Super Speciality Courses) Rules, 2013, framed vide G.O. Ms. No. 93, dated 1.7.2013, are hereby struck down by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and run contrary to the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, directions in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar's case (supra) and also run contrary to the provision under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 itself. (2) The 2nd respondent-University is directed to prepare a fresh merit list by taking into account the cumulative academic merit of students in their I, II and III year MBBS Course alone, by considering the names of all the candidates from both the lists i.e., the list sent by the Principal of the 4th respondent-college and the other list sent by the management of the said college and approve such list and forward the same to the 4th respondent-college within three days from the date of receipt of this order. After receipt of such approved merit list from the 2nd respondent-University, the 4th respondent-college shall take stops for admission of students into various postgraduate degree and diploma courses in medicine for the academic year 2014-2015, in such merit order." 14. A reading of the order indicates that the Division Bench in its order dated 25.9.2014, directed the University to prepare a fresh merit list taking into account cumulative academic merit of students in their I, II and III year MBBS Course alone, by considering the names of all the candidates from both the lists i.e., the list sent by the Principal and also by the Management of the college and forward the same to the college within three days from the date of receipt of the order. After receipt of the order, the college was directed to take steps for admission of students into various post-graduate degree and diploma courses in medicine for the academic year 2014-2015. It is further stated that the admissions into the post-graduate medical courses, which are already made in various private institutions under Management quota and which are approved by the University by following the rules shall hold good and the order of the Division Bench shall not affect admissions for the academic year 2014-2015. Therefore, the guidelines came to be laid down by the Division Bench in its order dated 25th September, 2014. 15. At this stage, the letter dated 30.9.2014, issued by the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, A.P. Vijayawada, addressed to the Principal, N.R.I. Medical College, who is the respondent herein, is required to be looked into. It states that in obedience to the orders passed by the High Court in WP No. 17918 of 2014, dated 25.9.2014 and the direction given, the approved merit list for admission into Post-Graduate Medical Degree/Diploma courses under Management quota for the academic year 2014-2015 was enclosed. It further states that, the college is informed to admit candidates basing on the merit from the approved merit list and follow the procedure laid down in the Government Orders without fail. The said letter also states that the college was further informed to send list of admitted candidates in the prescribed proforma enclosed on or before 7.10.2014 alongwith requisite university fee of Rs. 19,600/- per candidate. But, it is now urged by the college that much prior to the preparation of the merit list by the University, the college addressed a letter dated 10.7.2014, which was received by the Registrar, N.T.R. University of Health Sciences on 14.10.2014 stating that on confirmation of cut-off date as 10.7.2014 and as there was no sufficient time to issue press notification, the college has displayed the admission notification, on the website and the College Notice Boards on 9.7.2014 inviting applications for unfilled seats. Four candidates have approached and applied for various P.G. Degree/Diploma courses. Hence requested authorities to approve the merit list and permit the college to admit the four candidates. Though this letter is dated 10.7.2014, but the endorsement on the same indicate that it was received by the University, which is situated in the same town on 14.10.2014. 16. Four candidates have approached and applied for various P.G. Degree/Diploma courses. Hence requested authorities to approve the merit list and permit the college to admit the four candidates. Though this letter is dated 10.7.2014, but the endorsement on the same indicate that it was received by the University, which is situated in the same town on 14.10.2014. 16. We do not think that it would take three months for the letter to reach University from the college, when both are in the same city. The same has to be viewed with suspicion. Apart from that, when there is no response to the letter dated 10.7.2014, the college, who claims to have written a letter dated 10.7.2014, would not have kept quiet for three months without finding out as to what happened to their letter. This again has to be viewed with suspicion. 17. Thereafter, on 9.11.2014, the University has addressed letter to the Principal stating that in obedience to the orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 17918 of 2014, dated 25.9.2014 and WP No. 22812 of 2014, dated 24.10.2014; taking into consideration the letter dated 6.11.2014 and in view of the Report of the Scrutiny Committee, a list of approved admissions was sent under CQ and MQ at N.R.I. Medical College, Chinakakani for the year 2014-2015. As this letter enclosing the approved list is dated 9.11.2014, it will be appropriate to extract the letter dated 9.11.2014, which is not disputed by the University. The same is as under: "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, A.P., Vijayawada-8 Date : 9.11.2014 File No. 3078/EA2/PG/2014 To, The Principal, NRI Medical College, Chinakakani. Sir, Sub:- Dr. NTRUHS - PG Admissions -sending of list of approved admissions under CQ & MQ for the year 2014-2015-Regarding. Ref:- 1. G.O. Ms. Nos. 40, 41 & 42, HM&FW (E2) Dept., dated 10.2.2010. 2. G.O. Ms. No. 92, HM&FW (E2) Dept., dated 1.7.2013. 3. G.O. Ms. No. 93, HM&FW (E2) Dept., dated 1.7.2013. 4. G.O. Ms. No. 107, HM&FW (E2) Dept., dated 18.7.2013. 5. This office letter even No. dated 18.3.2014, 16.4.2014 & 21.6.2014. 6. Your letters dated 15.4.2014 & dated 24.6.2014. 7. Lr. dated 28.6.2014 of Members of NRI Academy of Sciences, Chinakakani. 8. This office Lr. No. 1678/EA2/PG/2014, dated 5.7.2014. 9. Your Lr. No. Nil, dated 7.7.2014. 10. Orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 17918 of 2014, dated 25.9.2014. 11. 6. Your letters dated 15.4.2014 & dated 24.6.2014. 7. Lr. dated 28.6.2014 of Members of NRI Academy of Sciences, Chinakakani. 8. This office Lr. No. 1678/EA2/PG/2014, dated 5.7.2014. 9. Your Lr. No. Nil, dated 7.7.2014. 10. Orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 17918 of 2014, dated 25.9.2014. 11. This office Lr. Even No., dated 30.9.2014. 12. Your Lr. dated 7.10.2014 with list of admitted candidates. 13. This office Lr. Even No., dated 8.10.2014. 14. Your Lr. dated 10.10.2014. 15. Orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 22812 of 2014, dated 24.10.2014. 16. Your Lr. dated 6.11.2014 alongwith list of admitted candidates. 17. Report of the Scrutiny Committee. 18. Orders of the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. NTR UHS, dated 9.11.2014. ..... In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 17918/2014 dated 25.9.2014 and in WP No. 22812 of 2014, dated 24.10.2014, taking into consideration of your letter 16th cited and in view of the report: of the Scrutiny Committee, I am by direction sending herewith the list of approved admissions under CQ and MQ at NRI Medical College, Chinakakani for the year 2014-2015. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Encl. : As above. Registrar" 18. Inspite of the above letter dated 9.11.2014, the college permitted the appellants to attend the classes. Though the college alleges that it has sent an intimation of admission of these students in the month of July, 2014 and which was received by the University in the month of October, 2014, which is prior to the letter dated 9.11.2014, there is no reference to the letter received by the University in the month of October, 2014. Atleast, the University should have responded in some form or the other, either immediately or alongwith the letter dated 9.11.2014 expressing their views over the admission of four students in the college as illegal and incorrect. The record also shows that the University never found fault with the admission of the four students in their respective courses till March, 2015, when proceedings came to be passed on 31.3.2015 requesting the college to discharge the students. The college took the plea that the admission of the students in the month of July was communicated to the college and with the hope that the University will accept their request, permitted the students to continue in the college. The college took the plea that the admission of the students in the month of July was communicated to the college and with the hope that the University will accept their request, permitted the students to continue in the college. In other words, the plea of the college appears to be that they presumed acceptance of admission in the absence of any reply from the University to the letter written in July, 2014. But, in the bargain, four students who were admitted in the college completed their courses for diploma and also in regular P.G. courses by the end of the academic year, 2017 and are awaiting for receipt of degree certificate from MCI. It is to be noted here that these students completed their courses pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. We are of the view that the procedure adopted by the college in admitting the students into the college into the courses referred to above is totally contrary to the procedure contemplated under law. 19. But, the plea of the college and the students is that these seats came to be filled up in the unfulfilled category and if students are not given admission, these seats would have gone unfilled. Merely because the seats would go unfilled, does not mean that the college can resort to back door method of taking students into the college bypassing the rules and guidelines laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. But, at the same time, the college cannot put the students in lead and take advantage of the situation. What is weighing with us is that these four students, who have studied in that college for nearly 2 to 2-1/2 years and on whom substantial amount has been spent to make them Doctors and Technicians, would suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be brought back, if they are discharged from the admission. As held by us, the college is definitely at fault for which the authorities concerned may have to take action, but not at the cost of students, even assuming that students are aware about the mischief played by the college. 20. In State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 , the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court dealt with a situation where the 1st respondent therein gave admission into the medical course which has deprived one Scheduled Tribe candidate in joining medical course. 20. In State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 , the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court dealt with a situation where the 1st respondent therein gave admission into the medical course which has deprived one Scheduled Tribe candidate in joining medical course. Having found that the admission of the student in the said course was illegal and having regard to the lapse of time the Apex Court observed as under: "Having regard to all aspects and for the reasons stated above, this appeal merits acceptance, Hence, it is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. Respondent No. 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-1986. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practicing as a doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribes candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to respondent No. 1. If any action is taken against respondent No. 1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribes covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 16372 of 1985 and other related matters, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment." 21. In Aishwarya Dhananjay Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2017 (3) SCT 230 (Bom.), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was also dealing with a case where the petitioner secured admission in BJ Medical College, Pune for the MBBS Course on the seat reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC. The petitioner belongs to Kunbi Caste, which falls in OBC. The petitioner belongs to Kunbi Caste, which falls in OBC. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has validated the Caste Certificate of the petitioner and accordingly issued Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner. While referring to the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the Court while disagreeing the plea of the petitioners therein observed as under: "We may also usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind (supra). Milind's case (supra), was relating to the admission in the Medical College. The question that arose for consideration in that case was, whether it was open to the State Government or Courts or other authorities to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes and in particular whether Halba Koshti was sub-division of Halbad Tribe. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was not permissible to amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes by including any sub-division or otherwise. However, on facts, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the respondent therein, i.e., Milind had been admitted in Medical Course in ST. Category more than 15 years back. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that though said Milind deprived one Scheduled Tribes student of a medical seat, the benefit of that seat could not be offered to other genuine Scheduled Tribes student at that distance of time even if said Milind's admission was to be annulled; and if his admission was annulled, it will lead to depriving the services of a doctor to the society on whom public money had already been spent. In those circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court held that invalidation of caste of said Milind will not affect the degree secured by him or his practice as a doctor. It was, but made clear that said Milind could not more claim to be belonging to Scheduled Tribes." 22. In Dattu Namdeo Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 1 SCC 549 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that disturbing the educational career or employment of a candidate, which has become final with the passage of time, will not be in the interest of anyone. 23. In Dattu Namdeo Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 1 SCC 549 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that disturbing the educational career or employment of a candidate, which has become final with the passage of time, will not be in the interest of anyone. 23. In the case of Swati v. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No. 7411 of 2010, the Apex Court though dismissed the appeal filed by her, directed that the benefits that had already been enjoyed by her and the degree obtained by her in the BDS Course, which she had completed, would continue. The Court had further directed that she would not be entitled to any further benefits under the Caste Certificate issued to her and that whatever advantage she may have obtained by way of payment of fees at the reduced rate, were to be made good by her by paying the difference. 24. Dealing with the issue as to the continuation of the student for the next year, in the course of bachelor of technology, which was a four years Engineering Course, the learned Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh observed as under: "Thus, keeping in view the settled principle and in view of the fact that the University was itself responsible on account of the fault of it's service provider and failed to decide the issue for 2 long years and permitted the student to continue with his course, the candidate cannot be made to suffer for the said lapse. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be permitted to continue in the B.Tech. Course from the stage where he was denied permission to sit in the 4th semester examination." 25. From the narration of events it is apparent that the college was at fault in admitting the students without following the procedure required under law. At the same time, the University to whom the college wrote a letter in the month of October, 2014, kept quiet till March, 2015, by which time four students have completed more than five months out of two years course. Things would have been different had the University reacted in the month of October, 2014 itself, or atleast while sending the approved list in the month of November, 2014. Things would have been different had the University reacted in the month of October, 2014 itself, or atleast while sending the approved list in the month of November, 2014. It is no doubt true that the interim orders state that admission and completion of course shall be subject to the result of writ petition and no equities to be claimed, but, in a case of this nature where substantial amounts have been spent for the education of students, withholding of the certificates after completion of three years of course will not benefit anyone. On the other hand, if the students intend to pursue their professional career, it may be of some use to the society if they are made to work in rural areas for substantially long period. 26. Having regard to the above and the judgments referred to above, the writ appeals are disposed of, directing the concerned to accept the courses completed by the students-appellants and issue necessary certificates enabling them to pursue their professional career. No order as to costs. 27. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.