Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.:— These are two writ petitions and two petitioners, both claiming the one seat available for admission to the Post Graduate Course in Dentistry, leading to the Degree of Master of Dental Science (M.D.S). Dr. Sajish Kuriakose (Dr. Sajish for short) is the petitioner in O.P No. 5819 of 1987 and Dr. Varghese the petitioner in O.P No. 5772 of 1987.

2. The Prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Courses in the Dental College attached to the Medical College, Trivandrum, was published in the Kerala Gazette on 17th Mar., 1987. Nineteen seats were available to six specialities in the Dental College. On 20-4-1987, the Commissioner for Government Examinations invited applications for admission to all the courses. Both the petitioners applied for admission to the M.D.S course in Oral and Maxillafacial Surgery within the prescribed time, the last date for receipt of applications being 16th May, 1987. Admission to the course was on the basis of an entrance examination. Both the petitioners sat for the entrance test and Dr. Varghese obtained the first rank and Dr. Sajish, the third. Dr. Varghese was a Graduate in Dental Surgery (B.D.S) from the Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu while Dr. Sajish was a B.D.S from the Kerala University. Dr. Varghese obtained his Degree in Aug. 1985 and Dr. Sajish in Jan., 1983. The B.D.S of the Annamalai University was, however, not recognised by the Kerala University. The selection committee met on 6th July, 1987 decided that the admission of candidates who have passed out from Universities outside Kerala will be subject to recognition of their degrees by the Kerala University. The Committee prepared a select and wait list to be published on 7th July, 1987, inviting objections to be filed before the 17th July. Dr. Varghese was provisionally included in the select list and Dr. Sajish was included in the wait list. Dr. Sajish objected to Dr. Varghese being admitted to the course on the ground that his degree from the Annamalai University was not recognised by the Kerala University. Dr. Varghese was, therefore, directed to produce the “certificate of recognition of his B.D.S Degree as equivalent to the B.D.S Degree of the Universities in Kerala on or before 20-7-1987” and he was informed that on his failure to produce the certificate, the provisional selection would be cancelled. He was given time till 28-7-1987. Dr. Varghese seems to have applied to the Kerala University for recognition of his Degree on 15-7-1987 and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor issued an order on 22-7-1987 reading thus:

“Sanction has been accorded by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor subject to ratification by the Vice-Chancellor to the B.D.S Degree awarded by the Annamalai University Annamalainagar being recognised as equivalent to the B.D.S Degree of the University of Kerala on a reciprocal basis.

The University Order is issued subject to ratification by the Academic Council.”

3. The selection committee met again on 28-7-1987 and on the basis of the recognition given by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor on 22-7-1987, declared that Dr. Varghese was eligible for selection for the M.D.S course. The provisional selection made earlier was “approved as final”. But on 17th July, 1987, Dr. Sajish preempted the admission of Dr. Varghese by moving this Court in O.P No. 5819 of 1987 challenging the selection of Dr. Varghese and claiming that he should be admitted. Interim orders were obtained and Dr. Varghese has not so far been admitted.

4. On the same date Dr. Varghese also came to this Court in O.P No. 5772 of 1987 for a declaration that he was eligible to be admitted to the course and for consequential reliefs.

5. Subsequently the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University ratified the action of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and issued an order on 29-7-1987 reading thus:—

“The Vice-Chancellor has ratified the action taken by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor in having granted recognition as per the U.O read as Second Paper above to the B.D.S Degree a warded by the Annamalai University as equivalent to the B.D.S Degree of the Kerala University on a reciprocal basis.

The U.O is issued subject to ratification by the Academic Council.”

6. Dr. Sajish has challenged this order also by amending the writ petition. These two writ petitions referred to a Division Bench are, therefore, heard together. We have heard counsel on both sides.

7. The short question, therefore, is whether Dr. Varghese is eligible for admission. If he is eligible, he is entitled to be admitted to the course, as he has secured the first rank in the entrance examination. If he is not eligible, it is agreed on all sides that Dr. Sajish has to be admitted to the remaining seat, the person securing the second rank, having already gained admission.

8. We shall, therefore, proceed to consider whether Dr. Varghese was eligible to be admitted. Two aspects require consideration for a decision regarding the eligibility for admission to the M.D.S course; (1) the qualifications for eligibility; and (ii) the material date for assessing eligibility. We shall, therefore, address ourselves to these vital aspects.

9. The Prospectus in para 2 referring to “eligibility for admission”, stated thus:—

“2. Eligibility for Admission.— (a) A candidate for admission to the M.D.S Course shall be required to have taken the Degree of Bachelor of Dentistry of Kerala University or any other University recognised by the Kerala University as equivalent thereto and have passed the B.D.S Degree or equivalent qualification with not less than one year's experience in clinical/teaching including House Surgeoncy/Senior House Surgeoncy. Those who have no such experience should have passed B.D.S not less than two years previous to the date of the notification inviting applications appearing in the Gazette. Those who complete house surgeoncy by May, June 1987 will also be permitted to appear for the entrance examination.”

10. This is slightly different from the Kerala University Statutes which prescribe the qualification for admission to the M.D.S Course thus:—

“3. Master of Dental Surgery.— Candidates for the Degree of Master of Dental Surgery (M.D.S) shall be required—

(i) to have taken the Degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery of this University or of any other University recognised by the University or its equivalent qualification and to have passed the B.D.S as equivalent examination not less than two years previous to admission to the M.D.S Course and

(ii) to have undergone the prescribed course of study for a period of not less than two years in a Medical or Dental College affiliated to this University and to have passed the prescribed examinations.”

11. We shall, for the present, proceed on the footing that Vice-Chancellor's decision on the 29th of July 1987 that the B.D.S Degree of the Annamalai University is recognised as equivalent to the B.D.S Degree of Kerala University is valid.

12. The Kerala University Statutes insist that where a person holds a B.D.S as equivalent examination, he should have passed that examination two years previous to the admission to the M.D.S Course. Dr. Varghese did not have a B.D.S of the Kerala University. He had only a B.D.S declared equivalent by the Kerala University. If so, he has to wait for two years after obtaining his degree to secure admission to the M.D.S course in this State. When the Academic body like the University prescribes the conditions for eligibility for admission to a Post-Graduate course, it would be wholly “inappropriate for the High Court to mitigate rigour of the rule by any interpretative device. When, therefore, the person who has to his credit only as equivalent Degree or qualification and the University insists that he becomes eligible only after two years of ‘maturity’, it is the mandate of an academic body, the demand of the University statutes. No person can gain admission to a postgraduate course in medicine or Dental Science unless he fulfils the conditions stipulated under the Univeristy Act, Statutes or Regulations.

13. Dr. Varghese admittedly does not satisfy the conditions stipulated by the Kerala University Statutes, as he passed the final Degree examination of the B.D.S Degree from the Annamalai University in Aug., 1985 and two years had not elapsed when he applied for admission on 5th May, 1987 or on 7th July, 1987 when the provisional select list was published or on 28th July, 1987 when the final list was approved.

14. But, contends counsel for Dr. Varghese that the eligibility clause in the Prospectus alone should apply and not the University Statutes. In other words, he submits that when admission is made by the Government to colleges under their control, and the Government prescribes the qualifications for eligibility for admission, a candidate need have only those qualifications and nothing more. The Prospectus is thus not controlled by the University Statutes. It is difficult to accept this contention either on principle or on precedents. Our task is easier because the Supreme Court has already laid down the law on the subject.

15. The Prospectus issued by the Government for admission to any course of instruction, in any educational institution is only an administrative communication, not a statutory directive. Qualifications for admission to the University Courses are prescribed by the University and its Statutes to maintain certain minimum standards. The Government cannot waive these minimum qualifications by administrative instructions and are therefore bound to retain the same criterion for eligibility for admission. Where, however, admission is to be made to educational institutions owned and controlled by the Government, the Government have wider powers to insist on higher standards and qualifications for purposes of eligibility for admission. The Government cannot thus dilute the qualifications prescribed by the University, though it can augment and supplement those qualifications. Ineligibility for admission under the University Statutes is not cured by any prescription of qualification in any administrative instruction. This position has been made clear by the Supreme Court in several decisions. We shall refer only to the decision in D.N Chanchala v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1762:—

“The Ordinances framed by the three universities are made under the different Universities Acts setting up those Universities and under the powers reserved to them under them. These Ordinances are made for the purposes set out in those Acts and for carrying out those purposes. One of such purposes would be the maintenance of certain academic standards in the various faculties taught in the colleges affiliated to the universities. For the purposes of maintaining such standards the universities lay down certain minimum qualifications for eligibility for entrance in those faculties. These Ordinances and regulations made under the Acts lay down the minimum qualifications required for eligibility and are not to be confused with rules for admission, A candidate may have the minimum qualification so as to make him eligible fort faculty, for, admission can only be commensurate with the number of available seats in such a faculty.

The medical colleges in question are not university colleges but have been set up and are being maintained by the State Government from out of public funds. Since they are affiliated to one or the other of the three universities, the Government cannot frame rules or act inconsistently with the ordinances or the regulations of the universities laying down standards of eligibility.”

16. Dr. Varghese, was, therefore, ineligible under the Kerala University Statutes to be admitted to the Post-Graduate Course in M.D.S for the year 1986-1987, when he applied for admission in May 1987 and the select list was approved in July, 1987. He has a contention based on the theory of estoppel which we shall advert to later,

17. The second aspect to be considered is regarding the material date relevant for assessing eligibility. The question for consideration is whether the qualifications prescribed by the Kerala University Statutes is required to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the M.D.S course of studies, or whether, as contended on behalf of Dr. Varghese, it is enough, if that qualification is fulfilled on the date of the examination. This was practically the identical question posed for decision by the Supreme Court in Principal, K.G Medical College v. V.K Agarwal. (1984) 1 SCC 416 : (AIR 1984 SC 221). The Supreme Court considered the material provisions of the Lucknow University Ordinance, extracted below:—

“1. No candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination for the degree of Doctor of Medicine or Master of Surgery unless:

(a) he has obtained the degree of MBBS of the University of Lucknow…

(b) he has, after passing the MBBS examination, completed one year's compulsory rotating housemanship…

(c) he has, after full registration, done one year's housemanship or equivalent job:”

Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for the Bench observed that the contention that the material date for determining whether the conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is the date of examination and not the date of application, is difficult to accept and held thus:—

“…It is inarguable that a candidate who has not yet obtained the MBBS degree can apply for admission to the M.D course of studies in anticipation of or on the supposition that he will pass that examination before the M.D examination is held. He must hold the MBBS degree on the date on which he applies for admission to the course of studies leading to the M.D examination. Clause (d) requires that the candidate “has… completed” one year's compulsory rotating housemanship after passing the MBBS examination. As in the case of clause (a), this qualification must also be possessed by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the MX), course of studies. It is not enough that the candidate has completed one year's compulsory rotating housemanship after making the application and before the date of the examination.”

xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx

“Giving to those words their natural meaning, we are of the view that the requirement of every one of these clauses has to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the M.D or M.S course of studies. It is not sufficient that he fulfils the requirements of these clauses on the date of the examination.” and directed thus:—

“In all future cases the interpretation put by us on Ordinance 1 must hold good.”

To the same effect are the observations of justice Krishna Iver in Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, AIR 1980 SC 1230, wherein it was observed thus:—

“There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later.”

In the present case, Chap. 23 of the Kerala University Statutes provides that the candidates for the M.D.S shall be required to have taken Degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery of the Kerala University or of any other University recognised by the University. The Prospectus speaks of only one application for admission to the Post-Graduate course in Dentistry. On the basis of this application and on the particulars furnished therein, the candidate is admitted to sit for the entrance examination, provided he is eligible. The provisional decision admitting a candidate to sit for the examination is taken by the Commissioner of Government Examinations. After the results are published, the selection for admission is made by a Committee. This decision is thereafter approved and published. The basis for admission is, therefore, the application. It is on the basis of that application that his right to admission is decided. If he did not have the requisite qualifications on that date, he was not entitled to apply, not entitled to admission. It is to be noted that there is only one application for admission to the course and there is no independent separate application for the entrance test. It is, therefore, evident that on the date of the application the candidate has to fulfil the qualifications prescribed by the Kerala University Statutes. On that date, the degree obtained by Dr. Varghese was not recognised by the Kerala University. The degree was recognised by the Vice-Chancellor under the powers vested in him under S. 10(3) of the Kerala University Act only on 29-7-1987 after the selection was over. It is not the date of the entrance examination or the date of publication of the result or the date of actual admission to the college, that is material for assessing the eligibility of a candidate seeking admission to the post-graduate course. The eligibility has to be assessed as on the date on which the candidate applies for admission.

18. The Prospectus provided that the Degree obtained by a candidate from any outside University should be recognised by the Kerala University. As the Degree obtained by Dr. Varghese from the Annamalai University was not recognised by the Kerala University on 5th May, 1987, when he filed the application, he did not satisfy the eligibility clause in the prospectus itself. The contention that the material date is the date of the examination or the date of admission to the course cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above.

19. It is then contended that as the University has recognised the Annamalai B.D.S degree on 29-7-1987, as per the orders issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University, this recognition should be deemed to have been in force even on the date of the application for, recognition of that degree is not an acquisition of a new qualification but only proof of what was in existence earlier. Considerable reliance was, therefore, placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, AIR 1980 SC 1230, wherein Justice Krishna Iyer stated thus:—

“What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date, what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification”.

20. Recognition of a Degree is an academic exercise, not a mere administrative formality. Recognition is not a mere matter of form; but of substance. It demands an objective assessment by an expert academic body. It is the factum of recognition that matters; not its proof. In fact, there was no recognition by the Kerala University in May 1987, when Dr. Varghese submitted his application. Acquisition of a recognised Degree was an essential basic qualification. The qualification has to be adjudged as on the date of the application and on that date he did not have a Degree of B.D.S recognised by the Kerala University. The decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above, cannot, therefore, be of any help to Dr. Varghese.

21. It was, however, contended by the counsel that Dr. Varghese applied pursuant to the particulars furnished in the prospectus and as he satisfied all the conditions stipulated therein and produced all the documents along with the application and as he was allowed to sit for the examination and eventually was selected for admission, the authorities are estopped by their conduct from denying him admission. The challenge to his admission is made at the threshold, even before he could secure admission to the college. The Prospectus was silent regarding the University Statutes. It did not, however, state expressly or impliedly that a candidate not possessing the qualifications prescribed by the University will be admitted to the course. If the petitioner was not aware of the statutory provision, he can only blame himself, not seek admission on that basis. In any case, this Court, exercising powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution, cannot give any relief to Dr. Varghese when he did not have the prescribed qualifications on the date when he submitted his application for admission.

22. A contention is advanced by the counsel for Dr. Sajish that the recognition of B.D.S Degree of the Annamalai University by the Pro-Vice Chancellor at the first instance and by the Vice-Chancellor later, is itself illegal and without jurisdiction. Under the Kerala University Act, the power to recognise Degrees of other Universities and declare them as equivalent to the Degrees of the Kerala University is vested in the Academic Council. It is contended that the Act does not confer this power on the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and therefore the initial recognition was patently illegal and that there cannot be a ratification of a void order and what is non est cannot be revived. It is also contended that the Vice-Chancellor can discharge the functions of the Academic Council only during an emergency and only if certain conditions stipulated in S. 10(13) of the University Act are fulfilled and in the present case those conditions did not exist for the exercise of recognising the Annamalai B.D.S Degree in such haste merely on the motion of Dr. Varghese. In the view we have taken on the claim for admission by Dr. Varghese that he was not eligible to be admitted to the course, it is unnecessary to pursue this point any further. But it has to be noted that even where the Vice-Chancellor acts under S. 10(13) of the Act and recognises a Degree as equivalent, it is his duty to place the matter before the Academic Council as early as possible. The standing counsel for the University undertakes that the Vice-Chancellor will place the matter before the Academic Council without delay. This undertaking is recorded.

23. If Dr. Varghese is ineligible to be admitted, Dr. Sajish automatically gets that seat, for, he is the first in the wait list and there is none in the select list to be admitted. There is no dispute that he is eligible to be admitted to the M.D.S course both under the University Statutes and under the Prospectus. He has obtained the B.D.S Degree of the Kerala University in 1983 and has undergone the relevant period of house surgeoncy. He has also obtained high rank in the entrance examination. He has, therefore, to be admitted to the course. His Original Petition has thus to be allowed to this extent.

24. In the result, O.P No. 5772 of 1987 filed by Dr. Varghese, has to be dismissed and O.P No. 5819 of 1987 filed by Dr. Sajish “is allowed directing respondents 2 and 3 to admit him to the M.D.S course. After the arguments were over, when we were convinced that Dr. Sajish was entitled to be admitted to the course, we had issued interim directions on 18th Aug. 1987. Those directions will therefore stand. No costs.

25. We think it necessary to make certain observations before we leave the case. The Prospectus for M.D.S course now published bristles with inaccuracies and patent errors. Paragraph 2 therein is very important in that it contains the eligibility clause. Apart from the spelling mistake of the word ‘Dentistry’ which is typed as “Densitry”, this paragraph does not make sense having either omitted necessary words or added unnecessary ones. We do feel that better attention is bestowed to the preparaton of a Prospectus for admission to the University courses of study. The prospectus should state in clear terms the provisions of the University Statutes relating to eligibility for admission to the course. If, over and above the statutory prescription, the Government propose to prescribe some additional qualifications for admission to the colleges owned by the State, they also should be shown separately. Thus the qualifications required by the Statutes and by the Government for ensuring admission have to be clearly shown in the prospectus itself. Similarly the provisions regarding the conduct of the entrance examinations, the mode of selection, preparation and publication of provisional and final lists etc. have also to find a place in the prospectus itself. It should also mention that the material date for assessing the eligibility for admission is the last date fixed for the receipt of applications so that the candidates know the date in advance and there can be no arbitrariness in the choice of a date later. As the qualifications for admission include Degrees recognised by the Universities in Kerala as equivalent to their own Degrees, it is better that the Government obtain from the Universities well in advance before the publication of the Prospectus, a complete list of the Degrees, Diplomas etc., which the Universities in Kerala have recognised. The Universities in Kerala will do well to inform the Secretary, Higher Education Department, a complete list of the Degrees, Diplomas etc., recognised by these Universities from time to time.

26. No substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court arises for consideration in this case. Hence leave to appeal to Supreme Court prayed for is refused.

27. Let Photostat copies of the judgment be furnished to the petitioners' counsel on usual terms, tomorrow itself.

Order accordingly.