JUDGMENT : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Sri.Roshen D.Alexander, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Smt.Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing counsel representing the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges (respondent No.5). The Calicut University is represented by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel. Sri. Ashok. M. Cheriyan, the learned Standing counsel appears for the M.G. University. The Marian International Institute of Management, which admitted the writ petitioner to the MBA course, is represented by the learned counsel Sri. Georgekutty Mathew. 2. The writ petitioner secured admission to the MBA curriculum for the year 2017-2018, in the Marian International Institute of Management (hereinafter referred to as ' the Marian Institute'). The admission was made provisional as can be seen from the communication dated 05.05.2018 (Ext.P2) of the Marian Institute. The student was in the category of those who were awaiting their graduation results and they were required to submit the final mark sheet or the degree results, not later than 30.06.2018, as per the communication dated 05.05.2018. 3. When the writ petitioner appeared in the MBA Entrance Examination, he was also awaiting the result of the supplementary examination in two of the papers of the B.Com Degree Course, and therefore, the Ext.P2 letter was initially issued directing the student to produce the final graduation examination results by 30.06.2018. 4. In the meantime, the student completed the first and second semester of the MBA curriculum but at that stage, the Admission Supervisory Committee withheld the approval of the admission for the petitioner, through the decision dated 07.11.2018. The basic reason for the withholding was on account of the failure of the student to produce the certificate of the qualifying graduation examination. In the very same decision dated 07.11.2018, the Admission Supervisory Committee approved the admission of 119 students pursuing MBA curriculum in the Marian Institute since all of them, could produce their graduation certificate unlike the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the delay in declaration of his supplementary exam result of the graduation course and the consequent non-approval of his admission in the MBA Course, the student approached the Court seeking a direction to the Calicut University to publish the result of the supplementary examination. During the pendency of that case, the results of the supplementary examination was declared in 19.01.2019. 6. During the pendency of that case, the results of the supplementary examination was declared in 19.01.2019. 6. The Admission Supervisory Committee then took a decision on 07.11.2018 to the effect that only those who submitted the graduation result before the final cut off date i.e 27.11.2018, can be considered for approval of their admission. According to the Admission Supervisory Committee, the relaxation until 27.11.2018 was granted only in respect of the students awaiting their results after appearing in the regular final semester degree examination but not for those, who were awaiting results of the supplementary examination. Since the writ petitioner was also awaiting result of the supplementary examination, the stand of the 5th respondent is that he cannot be treated at par with those, whose regular examination results were delayed. 7. At that stage, an interim order was passed by this Court on 04.12.2018 enabling the student to appear in the first semester MBA Examination, but it was made clear that the student cannot seek any equitable relief on the basis of the interim order. This was because the Admission Supervisory Committee had clarified as early as on 07.10.2016, restricting the benefit of granting time for production of degree certificate after the entrance test for only to those who were awaiting results of the regular examination. 8. The learned counsel Sri. Roshen D. Alexander for the appellant focuses on paragraph 11 of the directives dated 07.10.2016 of the Admission Supervisory Committee, where under, it was resolved that awaiting the results would mean the regular final semester result or the final year result and not the result of supplementary examination. The appellant/writ petitioner submits that the Admission Committee could not have discriminated between those awaiting result of regular examination or of supplementary examination since the main qualifying requirement for admission into the MBA programme, is to be a graduate. The counsel submits that admission to the MBA curriculum (session 2017-2018) was offered on the strength of the superior performance in the entrance test and since the student had admittedly secured the graduation degree in January 2019, he should be treated to be eligible and qualified, to continue with his MBA studies. 9. The counsel submits that admission to the MBA curriculum (session 2017-2018) was offered on the strength of the superior performance in the entrance test and since the student had admittedly secured the graduation degree in January 2019, he should be treated to be eligible and qualified, to continue with his MBA studies. 9. On the other hand, Smt. Mary Benjamin as the learned counsel appearing for the Admission Supervisory Committee would submit that the cut off date of 27.11.2018 to produce the final graduation results was intended to facilitate those who were awaiting declaration of their graduate examination result. She submits that the appellant/writ petitioner here has failed to produce the graduation result on or before the cut off date of 27.11.2018. Supporting the decision in paragraph 11 of the Admission Supervisory Committee taken on 07.10.2016, Smt. Mary Benjamin submits that the so called discrimination projected by the appellant would hardly be relevant in as much as even the supplementary result of the petitioner was not declared, by the cut off date (27.11.2018). It is therefore argued that the appellant petitioner did not have the graduation qualification by the cut off date, an essential pre-requisite, for pursuing the MBA curriculum. 10. The counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee next points out that a large number of students who secured provisional admission into MBA curriculum but who had failed to produce their graduation certificate by the cut off date (27.11.2018) were forced to discontinue their MBA studies and if an exception is made for the appellant/petitioner on equitable ground, the same would be unfair to those already affected by the cut off date fixed by the authorities and who were forced to leave their MBA studies midstream. 11. The learned counsel Sri.P.C.Sasidharan appearing for the Calicut University would submit that the writ petitioner failed in the 2017 fourth semester B.Com examination and he took the supplementary examination only in April 2018 along with the final semester examination. He makes a distinction between the students who passed the course in the first attempt and argues that they cannot be equated with those who failed in the first attempt but appear in the supplementary examination in the next year and pass thereafter. He makes a distinction between the students who passed the course in the first attempt and argues that they cannot be equated with those who failed in the first attempt but appear in the supplementary examination in the next year and pass thereafter. According to him, the benefit of the extended cut off date was only to enable those who wait of result of the regular examination of the graduation curriculum and was not intended to cover those, who were awaiting results of their supplementary examination after having failed the same in the first attempt. 12. The admission to the MBA curriculum would require a student to satisfy the twin criteria of being a graduate and also qualifying in the entrance examination. The appellant had cleared the MBA entrance test and on that basis secured the provisional admission while awaiting the result of the graduation examination in which he appeared in April 2018. Simultaneously, he also appeared in the supplementary examination to clear the two papers in which he failed in the previous year (2017). 13. The Admission Supervisory Committee had granted the benefit of extended date for producing the graduation results for those who couldn't produce the graduation result at the stage, when they appeared in the MBA entrance examination i.e., May, 2018. The authorities have stipulated 27.11.2018 as the final cut off date for production of the graduation certificates. The appellant could not secure the graduation degree before the cut off date of 27.11.2018 as he was yet to secure the result of the supplementary examination. In such circumstances, the decision of the authority to deny the approval to his admission, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Since large number of students from various Colleges and Universities would be admitted provisionally to about 44 MBA Colleges in the State, the authorities will have to fix the cut off date for production of the qualifying degree certificate. There cannot be an indefinite extension for the students to secure their graduation result. Therefore we see no merit in the challenge to the fixation of the cut off date projected in the W.P.(C).No.12103 of 2019 as the final cut off date was fixed by an authority who are competent to do so. Moreover, the fixation of the cut off date with advance notice cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory as it was within the year of admission. Moreover, the fixation of the cut off date with advance notice cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory as it was within the year of admission. This cannot also be seen as targeting any individual student, as is sought to be projected by the counsel. 14. In so far as the equitable relief for the student to continue with his MBA studies since he secured his graduation result on 19.01.2019, it would be relevant to refer to the interim order passed by the Division Bench on 12.04.2019. Under the said interim order, the petitioner was allowed to continue in the course and be provisionally registered for the examination. But it was made clear that the continuation of the petitioner shall be at his own risk. Thus, it was made known to the student that no equitable relief can be claimed by him on account of his continuance, during the pendency of the litigation. At any rate, granting an equitable relief for the appellant would be prejudicial to a large number of students 15. In view of the forgoing discussion, the decision on the fixation of the cut of date stipulated by the authorities is upheld. The Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition are accordingly dismissed.