K. Sreedharan, C.J.When these case were heard by the Division Bench, correctness of the decision in Arvind Kataria and others v. Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh, CWP No. S694 of 1994, came up for consideration. The Division Bench found it difficult to agree with the view taken in that case to the effect that result of the supplementary examination taken by a student is to relate back to the main examination. Therefore, these cases were referred to a Full Bench. Thus, the entire matter in these writ petitions have come up before a Full Bench.

2. Issues arising for decision in these writ petitions are one and the same. So, we consider it advantageous to dispose of them by this common judgment.

3. Five petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 14903 of 1996 are students in D. Pharmacy Course. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are studying in Baba Ishar Singh College, Kot Isse Khan, District Faridkot third respondent in the writ petition. Fifth petitioner is a student of S.D. College, Barnala, District Sangrur, 4th respondent, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 15373 of 1996 is a student of Sant Kabir Pharmacy College, Fazilka, District Ferozepore. The main prayer made by the petitioners in these writ petitions is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training and Secretary to Government, Department of Technical Education, Punjab, respondents in these writ petitions to allow them to appear in the D. Pharmacy annual examination.

4. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows :- .

5. Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training issued information brochure-cum-application form for admission to Diploma in Pharmacy for the Session 1995-96. Eligibility for admission to diploma course was fixed as pass in Intermediate examination in Science, pass in first year of the three year degree course in Science or pass in 10+2 Examination (academic stream) in Science, pass in Pre-degree examination or pass in any other qualification approved by Pharmacy Council of India as equivalent to any of the above examinations. Admission of candidates was to be on the basis of relative merit in the aggregate marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the Qualifying Examination. Last date for receipt of application was fixed as 8.8.1995. A candidate awaiting the result of the qualifying examination was also allowed to apply for admission, but, he was to produce the result of the examination at the time of interview. Brochure further stated that application forms not received on the due date and those in which entries are incomplete, are liable to be rejected. It is further provided therein that admission if granted by the Admission Committee will be provisional and subject to confirmation by the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, hereinafter referred to as the Board.

6. Last date for receipt of application which was fixed as 8.8.1995 in the brochure, was subsequently extended to 31.8.1995, 3.9.1995, 24.9.1995 and 22.11.1995. These extensions were not notified in the media or in the Notice Board of the Board. Petitioners herein were in compartment in 10+2 examination taken by them in March/April, 1995. For completing the subject in which they were in compartment, they appeared in supplementary examinations held in September, 1995. Result of the supplementary examination taken by them was published in December, 1995 only. On the last date fixed for receipt of the applications namely; 22.11.1995, none of the petitioners had completed 10+2 examination by passing the subject in which he was placed in compartment. Even so, they applied for admission to the respective colleges. Writ petitioners in CWP No. 14903 of 1996 applied on 17.11.1995, 9.11.1995, 22.11.1995 and 6.11.1995 respectively. Petitioner in CWP No. 15373/1996 applied for admission somewhere in November 1995. On the above dates, none of them had passed 10+2 examina- tion. The result of the supplementary examination taken by them in September 1995 was declared on 22.12.1995. Thus, petitioners were not having the minimum qualifications for admission to Diploma Course in Pharmacy on 22.11.1995 i.e. the last date for submitting the applications for admission to the said course.

7. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that petitioners took the Supplementary examination in September, 1995. Its result was published on 22.12.1995. The result so published must relate back to the date of Supplementary examination in September 1995. In this view, it is submitted that petitioners were fully qualified to seek admission to the said Course for the Session 1995-96. Contrary view taken by the respondents and refusal to permit the petitioners to take the examination, is illegal.

8. As per the information brochure, as stated earlier, eligibility for admission to diploma course depends on pass in the qualifying examination. A candidate who has taken the qualifying examination, the result of which has not been published can also apply for admission subject to the condition that he will be required to produce evidence to show that he passed the examination at the time of joint admission interview. Thus, it is crystal clear that a candidate can seek admission only if he shows that he has in fact secured pass in the qualifying examination on the date of interview or the last date of filing the application. It is settled law that prospectus or information brochure in relation to admission to any course has got the force of law. Consequently, admission to the course should be in strict compliance with the provisions contained in the prospectus or information brochure as the case may be.

9. A student who took the supplementary examination on reappear or in compartment can claim to have passed in those examinations before the result is declared. So, if the result was not published on the last fixed for receipt of application, he is not one who passed the qualifying examination on that date. Such a candidate is not having the eligibility to apply for admission.

10. As per the information brochure selecting candidates should be on the basis of relative merit in the aggregate marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as the case may be in the qualifying Examination. In the case of candidates who have appeared in the Supplementary Exam, in any of the above subjects may not have the marks in those subjects if the result has not been published when the comparative merit is to be assessed. So, one who took supplementary examination can be considered for admission only if he has got the result known and marks obtained.

11. Some of the students who sought admission to first year D. Pharmacy Course 1995-96, did not have the result of the Supplementary examination taken by them known on the last date of application namely 22.11.1995, approached this Court by filing CWP No. 8694 of 1996 inter alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to allot registration number so that they are able to appear in the annual examination commencing on 11.6.1996. In their case also, result of the supplementary examination taken in the qualifying course was declared in December 1995. Division Bench took the view that petitioners who are fulfilling the eligibility conditions on the dale when the result of the compartment cases or re-appear cases in which they had appeared, have been declared, are eligible to take the annual examination. Their result in the supplementary examination will decide the eligibility criteria for finding out whether the said candidate was entitled to admission and that Authorities are not to insist on their eligibility with reference to 22.11.1995. According to the Bench, passing an examination at the Supplementary examination would be taken as passing the examination in the academic year itself. Their Lordships went on to state that passing of supplementary examination would by necessary implications relate back to the date of passing the annual examination; word supplementary itself denotes supplementary to or in continuation of the annual examination.

12. Punjab State Board of Technical Education filed Review Application No. 182 of 1996 in CWP No. 8694 of 1996 on the ground that the Board had not given admission to the petitioners and that petitioners who were admitted by the Colleges itself discarding the provisions contained in the information brochure, are not entitled to be allowed to continue the course. That was disposed of by the Division Bench on 30.8.1996 observing:

"Conclusion recorded was arrived at in view on the fact that the petitioners were either re-appear cases or compartment cases. They were required to clear compartment cases or re-appear cases as the case may be upto 22.11.1995. Their result in compartment cases or re-appear cases was declared after 22.11.1995. They had appeared at supplementary examination either in re-appear or compartment cases and their result was declared after 22.11.1995. We had held that passing at supplementary examination would relate back to the date of passing of annual examination as the word supplementary itself denotes supplementing to or in continuation of the annual examination. On taking this view, we regularised the admission of the petitioners to Diploma in Pharmacy Course Part I".

After expressing the opinion as above, the Bench also observed that the benefit of the judgment dated 9.7.1996 will accrue to the writ petitioners and to all those who had appeared at supplementary examination either in re-appear or in compartment and who had been given admission by the College Management, and whose results were declared after the cut off date.

13. Result of the decision in CWP No. 8694 of 1996 and Review Application No. 182 of 1996 is that when a candidate takes supplementary examination either in re-appear cases or in compartment subjects, the result of that examination will relate back to the date of annual examination. In the instant case, if this principle is adopted, the result will be as follows :-

14. Petitioners took the annual examination in 10+2 in March/April 1995. They got re-appear or compartment in some subjects. Only on passing examination in those subjects, they could clear 10+2 examination. For clearing that 10+2 examination, they took the supplementary examination in September 1995. Result of that examination was declared in December, 1995. They passed in the subjects in which they took the supplementary examination. The result thereof according to the Bench should relate back to the date of passing the annual examination. As a result of this, petitioners were to be deemed to have passed the qualifying examination on the last date fixed for submitting the application namely; 22.11.1995.

15. Eligibility for admission to the course as per the brochure, depends upon passing the qualifying examination. A candidate who has taken the qualifying examination and is awaiting the result, can apply, but he was required to produce the result of the examination at the time of joining admission/interview. The said provision in the information brochure is indicative of the mandatory character of the requirement namely pass in the qualifying examination on the date of interview. In other words, a candidate must not only have been qualified to take the examination, but he should have been possessed of it on the date of the interview or the last date of the application. In the light of the specific provision contained in the information brochure, the date of possessing the eligibility criteria namely pass in the qualifying examination, cannot be the date of passing the supplementary examination. Acceptance of such a construction would result in altering the provisions of the information brochure. If it is so read, the provision in the brochure that if the entries are incomplete, the application forms shall be rejected, will become redundant and meaningless. Fulfilment of the eligibility conditions namely; pass in the qualifying examination on the last date was mandatory. The former cannot be waived.

16. A person is said to have passed the examination only on coining to know of the result of the examination. Public Service Commission Jammu and Kashmir invited application from B.E. Degree-holders for appointment as Junior Engineer. Candidates whose result of B.E. Examination had not been declared on the date of the submission of their application applied and on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview, by which time the result in the B.E. examination was announced, were selected. Their selection was challenged. Government of Jammu and Kashmir wanted to support the selection of those candidates whose result in the B,E. examination was not published. Dealing with this issue, the Court took the view that only on getting the result declared, a candidate can be taken to have passed the examination. Those candidates whose results were not published on the last date of the application, were treated as not only not qualified, but were not entitled to apply. Their applications, according to their Lordships were not liable to be entertained. From this decision, it can safely be held that a candidate can be declared to have passed the examination only when Us result is declared. (Vide Ashok Kumar Sharma and another v. Chander Shekher and another, 1993(1) SLR 379:1993(2) SCT 208 (SC).

17. In Punjab School v. Harinder Kaur, 1990(2) RSJ 217, a Division Bench of this Court took the view that passing of examination in the supplementary examination would be taken as passing the examination in the academic year and will relate back to the date of passing annual examination. Student in that case took matriculation examination in March, 1986. She failed and successfully took the supplementary examination in September, 1986. She submitted her admission form for 10+1 examination. As the admission form was found to be in order, and the deficiency in the fee was made good, Authorities allowed her to take the examination in 10+1 in April 1987. Thereafter, the Board cancelled the candidature of the student on the ground that she having passed matriculation examination in September 1987, had violated the conditions of one years gap between two examinations. The order canceling her result in 10+1 was challenged. The order of cancellation was found unfair and arbitrary for the reason that it was not expected from the minor student to have known the conditions of a lapse of one year between her passing the matriculation examination and appearing in 10+1 examination. In that case, the student was given provisional admission in 10+1 subject to the confirmation of her eligibility to appear in the examination. Student passed the matriculation examination in September, 1986. It was not disputed before their Lordships that regular students in that case was given admission wherein she had stated that she was to complete the matriculation examination in compartment. Her admission forms were duly attested by the Principal of the Institution and accepted by the Punjab School Education Board, with respect to her eligibility after due scrutiny by its officer. In such a situation, their Lordships were of the view that it would be unfair and unjust on the part of the Board to cancel her candidature at a later point of time when she had successfully appeared in the next examination. This students case squarely falls within the principle of promissory estoppel accepted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others, 1991(3) SLR 29. So it was not necessary forthe court to go into the question whether the pass in the Supplementary examination related back to the date of main examination. In the case of Harinder Kaur, the student after verifying all documents was admitted to the course, underwent the studies for one year and took the 10+1 examination. The decision in that case is supportable on principle of promissory estoppel. The observation made by the Bench that passing of the examination would by necessary implication relate back to the date of the passing of the annual exami- nation, was not at all required in that case and that observation has to be understood with reference to the facts of the case. It cannot be of general application.

18. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that a candidate can be declared to have passed an examination only with effect from the date on which result of the examination is declared. The declaration of the result cannot relate back to the date of the examination unless otherwise specifically provided by any Act or rules as in service Jurisprudence. Nor can it legally be taken that by passing supplementary examination the result will relate back to the date of passing of the annual examination. We are firmly of the view that publication of the result of the examination cannot have any retrospective operation by projecting it backward to the date of the examination or to the date of the main examination. If such a course is adopted, we are clear in our mind that it will become impossible to decide the qualification of a particular candidate with reference to any date like last date of filing the application for any post or for admission to any course. While disposing of the review petition No. 182/96, the Bench went a step further and said that the benefit of the judgment will accrue to petitioners and to all those who had appeared in supplementary examination either in re-appear or in compartment and who have been given admission by the College-Management and whose results were declared after the cut off date. These observations made by the Bench are not correct statements of the law. We do not approve the same.

19. Learned counsel representing the Educational Institution advanced an argument that in view of the scheme adopted by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., , the Management was entitled to fill up the vacancy left out after admitting candidates selected by the Board in the manner they want. This is more so when it is seen that all the petitioners in these writ petitions were admitted against the vacancies as per Clause IX of the scheme adopted by their Lordships. Clause IX of that scheme inter-alia states that if any vacancy still remains after the date fixed for admitting the candidates by a competent authority, they are to be filled by the Management. In compliance with scheme, it is argued, petitioners have been admitted and their admission cannot be questioned by the Board. We are not impressed with this argument. Decision of the Supreme Court has in no way gone to allow the Management to admit candidates who are not qualified on the last date of the application. On the ground that payment seats were lying vacant and they are to be filled up by the management, they cannot be allowed to admit ineligible candidates and seek the help of Court to sustain the admission of those students. Such as attempt has to be rejected. Otherwise the courts will be approving the illegal admission given by the Management to unqualified students. The following observations made by the Supreme Court in Students Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalayn v. State of Maharashtra and others, SLP No. 2067 of 1991 is answer to the action of management :-

"We are coming across cases of this type very often where allegations are made that innocent students are admitted into unrecognised schools and are made to suffer. Some courts out of compassion occasionally interfere to relieve the hardships. We find that the result of this situation is total indiscipline in the field of regulation."

20. In the instant case, stand taken by the Management of the Colleges is that the Board allotted candidates to free seats and the entire payment seats were lying vacant. Without filling up those payment seats, colleges could not be run profitably. It was under such circumstances, according to the learned counsel representing the colleges, students were admitted to the course. As stated earlier, petitioners were not qualified to be admitted to the course as per the information brochure. Such unqualified candidates were not to be admitted by the Management for raising funds. If the Board had not allotted candidates against the payment seats, the Management should have taken appropriate steps, requiring the Board to allot candidates against the payment seats. Instead, they are not entitled to resort to the practice of admitting ineligible candidates,

21. In the State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundable and others, JT 1992(5) SC 175 [LQ/SC/1992/501] : 1992(3) SCT 478 (SC) their Lordships observed :-

"Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions of the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc."

In the instant case, if this Court (course ) is allowed the petitioners to take the examination and approve the action of the management in admitting the petitioners, this Court will be acting against the above warning given by the Apex Court.

22. When petitioners approached the Management for getting admission, Management took up the matter with the Board for late admission/regularisation of their admission. Registered letters were sent to the Board seeking Boards order for regularisation of admission and for permission to allow the students to take examination. The Board slept over the matter till the time of the issue of roll numbers for final examination. The delay caused by the Board is not properly explained. Had the Board informed the College Authorities about their inability to approve this action in admitting ineligible students, the students would not have paid the fee and wasted valuable long year. The action of the Board in allowing the Colleges to admit students without reference to it cannot in any circumstances be endorsed. The Board, in our considered view, failed to discharge the responsibilities and duties enjoined on them in making admission to the course. We directed the Board to properly control and monitor the admissions to the courses in strict compliance with the provisions contained in the information brochure.

23. In view of our above conclusions we hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Kataria and others (supra) does not lay down the correct law. We find it difficult to concur with the view expressed by the Bench with regard to the principle relating back. Furthermore, we are of the considered view that if any irregularities or illegalities have been committed by the administrative authorities or colleges, it will not be appropriate for the Courts to endorse such actions by judicial pronouncements. If such actions are brought before the Courts then they must be examined within the limited scope of judicial review and have to be scrutinsied in accordance with the settled canons of law and rules governing the issue. It has been repeatedly held that violation of rules vitiates the very action and must not be ignored. We are, therefore, unable to extend the benefit granted by the Division Bench in the writ petition as well as in its order dated 30.8.1996 passed on the review application, to the present petitioners. The candidates who were the petitioners in the writ petitions and were affected by the review order in Arvind Katarias case (supra), are not parties before us, as such we do not consider it appropriate to recall the relief granted to them by the administration in furtherance to the orders of the Division Bench. However, we leave it open for the authorities concerned to act in accordance with law.

24. College Authorities have admitted the petitioners knowing fully well that those students were not having the eligibility qualification on the last date of the application. It was an attempt or their part to appropriate huge fees from these students. The students have become victims of the avaricious management. They cannot be allowed to take advantage of such a situation. They should disgorge all the benefits they took from these petitioners. That is, the entire amount of fee received by the College from these students must be returned to them.

25. Petitioners have wasted their precious time in attending the classes. This was the result of irresponsible attitude on the part of the College Management. We cannot close our eyes to the inconvenience caused to these students. Therefore, we directed the College Authorities who are respondents before us to compensate each petitioner by paying them Rs. 25,000/- each as damages.

26. In the circumstances detailed above, we dispose to these petitions in the following terms : Petitioners prayer for permission to take final examination in D. Pharmacy course is declined. Petitioners are entitled to get back the entire fee paid by them to the colleges where they were undergoing the studies in D. Pharmacy Course. They are entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- from the respective colleges in which they were studying as compensation/damages. We make no order as to costs.

27. Orders accordingly.