JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The controversy in this case has its genesis on the fact that petitioner was admitted to M.A. (English) by the St. Albert’s College, Ernakulam - of which the 2nd respondent is its Principal, allegedly without him having acquired the minimum qualifications required for the same. 2. The petitioner asserts that he had all the eligibility, as are mandated and requisite under the applicable Rules and Regulations; and that it is after verifying his credentials that the 3rd respondent had admitted him to the course in question. He says that, however, when his papers were forwarded to the 1st respondent-Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G. University for short) for registration, it has been rejected through Exts.P7 and P8 for the reason that his qualifying examination was not valid or eligible, as per the applicable Regulations of the University. 3. Sri. K.B. Gangesh-learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that Exts.P7 and P8 are wholly improper and issued without proper application of mind, because his client had been admitted to the College on the basis of the Prospectus approved by the University for the year 2017. He submitted that there was no inhibiting restrictions in the said Prospectus, as has now been stated in Exts.P7 and P8 and therefore, that said orders are illegal and untenable. 4. In response, however, Sri. Surin George Ipe-learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P5 Prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Courses for the year 2018 approved by his client, a candidate can obtain admission to the M.A. course only if he/she obtained 50% marks in Part I English, comprising of three papers; and 45% marks in Part III subjects (main and subsidiaries). He pointed out that, even going by the petitioner’s admitted qualifications, he had completed his degree with only one paper in English and therefore, that this falls foul of the specific requirements in the afore mentioned Prospectus. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. Sri. Sherry J. Thomas-learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-College, conceded that it was his client who had admitted the petitioner after evaluation of the credentials. He pointed out that the admission was offered based on Ext.R3(a) Prospectus, which was the one available and known to his client, wherein, the afore mentioned requirement of a candidate to have qualified English through three papers is conspicuously absent. He pointed out that the admission was offered based on Ext.R3(a) Prospectus, which was the one available and known to his client, wherein, the afore mentioned requirement of a candidate to have qualified English through three papers is conspicuously absent. He submitted that his client had acted faithfully because the decision to admit students like the petitioner were taken under the advice of the Academic Council of the College, which contains three nominees of the University, who are all eminent Professors. He submitted that his client was not aware of Ext.P5 Prospectus, which is stated to be one brought into force by the University for the year 2018; but that he was under the legitimate impression that the earlier Prospectus, namely Ext.R3(a), held the field, based on which the petitioner was granted admission. He concluded the submissions saying that his client has committed no wrong because he was only acting under the advise of the Academic Council and if there was any change in the Prospectus of the year 2017, it ought to have been brought to his notice by the nominees of the University, whose presence in the Academic Council is meant for such purposes. He thus prayed that no orders be issued against his client. 6. The rival submissions of the parties as afore would render it perspicuous that the real controversy is not between the petitioner and the College, but between the College and the University. I say so because, the University takes the stand that petitioner’s admission could have been offered only as per Ext.P5 Prospectus, which they say was the amended one; while the College says that they prepared Ext.R3(a) Prospectus for the year 2018, being guided by the Prospectus for the earlier year, since they were not aware of any amendment to it subsequently. 7. In this regard, the arguments of Sri. Sherry J. Thomas on behalf of the 3rd respondent is very pertinent. He submits that his client was not aware of any amendment to the Prospectus which was published in the year 2017, and that same was carried forward to the next year, as is evident from Ext.R3(a); based on which, the petitioner was granted admission. Sherry J. Thomas on behalf of the 3rd respondent is very pertinent. He submits that his client was not aware of any amendment to the Prospectus which was published in the year 2017, and that same was carried forward to the next year, as is evident from Ext.R3(a); based on which, the petitioner was granted admission. He vehemently affirms that, had there been any amendment to the prospectus of the year 2017, then same ought to have been brought to the notice of his client by the Academic Council, particularly by the three nominees of the University, since their job was to properly advise the College in such matters. 8. That said, the very factum of the College having admitted the petitioner on the basis of Ext.3(a) Prospectus would render it apodictic that even the Academic Council of the College was not aware of Ext.P5 amendments. 9. The question as to how this missed even the nominees of the University is a matter of grave importance and in that regard, perhaps even a legitimate presumption can be drawn that either the amendments were not properly published or that it was not brought to the notice of the individual Colleges in the manner known to law. 10. Since there is no corroborative evidence to prove that Ext.P5 had been brought to the notice of the College, or that it had been published properly, except that it was stated to have been shown in the internet site of the University, I am certain that the explanation given by the 3rd respondent-Principal of the College is worthy of this Court's acceptance. 11. When I say so, then the axiomatic question will arise as to what kind of relief that the petitioner is entitled to be granted. 12. In this regard, my path is fully illuminated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Selin Mary Mammen vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others, 2008 KHC 7286, wherein, in a different set of circumstances, namely where a candidate fell short by one mark out of the total of 1000 marks, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed regularization of her admission as a One Time Measure, but without making it a precedent. 13. 13. In the case at hand, the petitioner is, in fact, the victim of an action committed by the Principal of the College; who, in turn, went by the advice of the Academic Council, which had at least three nominees of the University. When the said nominees did not bring it to the notice of the Principal that the Prospectus had been altered or changed, I cannot find fault with the former in having admitted the petitioner. This is more so because the University has not explained in their pleadings, how their nominees had omitted to bring to the notice of the Principal that the Prospectus had been altered, from that which was published in the year 2017. 14. For the afore reasons and singularly in the realm of facts above noticed, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P7 and P8; with a consequential direction to the University to regularize the admission of the petitioner in the 3rd respondent-College and allow him to complete the course and to issue the Certificate of Degree, subject to every other statutory condition and criterion being satisfied. This shall be done by the University not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 15. Needless to say and merely for reiteration, this judgment is only intended for the petitioner and for no other person, since it has been issued in the specific and peculiar circumstances noticed.