JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is a lady of 23 years, obtained admission to the M.A (English) course in the “Catholicate College”, Pathanamthitta – of which the 5th respondent is the Principal. However, when papers were forwarded to the University for her registration by the said College, it has been denied imputing that she did not disclose all her educational credentials and therefore, that she may have obtained a steal over more meritorious candidate. 2. The petitioner asserts that she disclosed her credentials as per the Admission Prospectus; and therefore, that the allegations now made against her are completely without basis. She, thus, prays that Exts.P9 and P10 orders of the Mahatma Gandhi University ('MG University' for short) be quashed and the respondents be directed to regularise the admission and register her, without any further delay. 3. I have heard Sri D. Kishore – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Issac Kuruvilla Illickal – learned Standing Counsel for the College and Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the MG University. 4. Sri.Surin George Ipe began his submissions in support of Exts.P9 and P10, submitting that, as per the interim order of this Court dated 18.07.2022, an enquiry was conducted by his client, in which it was found that out of the 43 papers, the petitioner has disclosed marks of only 26, thus, suppressing the balance, in which her marks were lower. He asserted that this has given rise to a situation where the petitioner obtained an unfair advantage over another student and obtained admission. He added that, even going by the Prospectus, the marks of all the “core subjects” of the qualifying course ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner and if that had been done, she perhaps could not have been allotted the seat, since another with a higher mark would have stated a claim to it. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. Sri.Issac Kuruvilla Illickal – learned Standing Counsel for the College, however, submitted that since the qualifying course of the petitioner was done by her under the University of Bahrain, there was no proper method of comparison between it and the courses in Kerala or in India. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. Sri.Issac Kuruvilla Illickal – learned Standing Counsel for the College, however, submitted that since the qualifying course of the petitioner was done by her under the University of Bahrain, there was no proper method of comparison between it and the courses in Kerala or in India. He explained that since the Prospectus prescribes that the ''index mark is to be calculated on the basis of percentage marks secured for Part III core course/main'', his client acted bonafidely in accepting the petitioner's credentials as disclosed, since she informed that 26 papers were the “core subjects” in her qualifying examination. He concluded asserting that, therefore, no fault can be placed on his client for having committed any error; particularly because there was no other student who impelled a better claim which is manifest since no one has made any complaint thereafter, if being denied a seat. 6. In reply, Sri.D.Kishore – learned counsel for the petitioner, took my attention to Ext.P12, which is the Academic Plan of ''B.A in English Language and Literature'' of the University of Bahrain. He showed me that the subjects mentioned therein are divided into “University Requirement (UR)”, “College Requirement (CR)”, “Major Elective (ME)” and “Major Requirement (MR)”; and that out of the total credit of 128 in the program, “Major Requirement” takes is only 54 -corresponding to 26 papers, which his client had selected for the purpose of disclosure of her credentials before the College. He argued that, in any event, his client has not acted with any dishonest intention because she interpreted the prospectus to mean that only the marks of the ''core subjects'' were required to be disclosed and that as long as there is no complaint from any other candidate, it would be now completely unnecessary to oust her from the admission, because the seat would then go vacant, without any purpose. He concluded becheeing this Court to find in favour of the petitioner, in the background of the ambiguity in the manner in which the Prospectus can be interpreted, in juxtaposition with the Academic Plans of the University of Bahrain; and that the benefit of doubt be given to his client, she being thus saved from being ousted from the seat. 7. I have considered the afore dialectal submissions and have also gone through the various documents on record. 8. 7. I have considered the afore dialectal submissions and have also gone through the various documents on record. 8. I must say that I find substantial force in the contention of Sri.D.Kishore because, the petitioner was studying in Bahrain and wanted to relocate to Kerala, for certain reasons. She certainly could have continued in Bahrain if she wanted to and she perhaps could have opted for any other College/University in India, subject to her qualification. However, she chose Kerala and therefore, approached the College in question and disclosed her credentials in the manner which she interpreted in the Prospectus. 9. In such context, when one goes through the Prospectus, surely there appears to some degree of ambiguity as to how the ''Index Marks'' have to be calculated, based on the ''core course/main'' as provided therein, in comparison to Ext.P12 Academic Plan of ''B.A in English Language and Literature'' of the University of Bahrain. Even at a glance, the academic program would show that said University follows a completely different pattern, from what we are accustomed to in Kerala or even in India. The methodology adopted by the University of Bahrain splits the topics into “various requirements” and the question as to which among them are “core”, as per the Prospectus, certainly is a very uncertain one. This is limpid from the fact that, even in the pleadings filed before this Court by the M.G University, they do not say that “every requirement” under Ext.P12 is a “core subject”, but they take the stand that all the topics which fall under “University requirements”, “major requirement” and “major elective”, ought to have been taken into account by the petitioner; and viewed in that perspective, 17 such papers must be seen to have been excluded by her. 10. However, as I have already said above, the afore is only an ex post facto interpretation given by the MG University, without verifying the syllabus or structure of the Course of the University of Bahrain; and obviously, therefore, when the petitioner took those subjects which she thought was “core”, co-relating to those which are defined as “major requirement” in Ext.P12 Academic Plan of the University of Bahrain, I cannot find fault with her for having done so, nor can I conclude that she did so in order to obtain an unfair advantage. 11. 11. I am persuaded to the afore view also for the reason that there is not a single person on record, nor has any such person been even named by the M.G. University, who has been denied a seat on account of the fact that the petitioner has been admitted. 12. Therefore, as rightly argued by Sri.D.Kishore, if the petitioner is now thrown out, then certainly the seat would go vacant; and this would be unfair, particularly, in the absence of a firm opinion as to which among the papers in Ext.P12 Academic Plan of the University of Bahrain, ought and require to be treated as a 'core subject', under the Admission Prospectus of the M.G.University. 13. I am, therefore, of the sure view that the benefit of doubt should go to the petitioner, especially when her ouster would only cause her prejudice and obtain no advantage to anyone else. 14. To add to the afore, it is pertinent that M.G.University does not have a case – even whisperingly – that the petitioner is not qualified to have been allotted the seat, and their only case is that she may have stolen a march over another person, who may have had a better mark. 15. This is indubitably speculative and conjectural and not the basis on which this Court can find conclusively against the petitioner. 16. For the afore reasons, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P9 and P10; thus ordering that the petitioner will be allowed to complete her course as per law without any impediment in future. It goes without saying that the results of any examination which she may have taken by now shall also be declared. 17. After I dictated this part of judgment, Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned counsel for the petitioner, pleaded that liberty be reserved to the M.G.University to cause an enquiry to find whether the College had committed a deliberate act of misconduct in having admitted the petitioner. Though this is not an issue which is directly arising in this writ petition, I am certain that if the University is competent as per law to do so, it would not be necessary for this Court to interdict it.