fifth respondent, which is pending consideration. In the absence of any supporting material, the allegation of the petitioner that the certificate obtained by the fifth respondent is a fabricated one cannot be accepted. It is also to be seen that the first respondent university has also issued a notification referred to above, recognizing the certificate obtained by the petitioner as equivalent to a degree in engineering. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the I.M.E. certificate obtained by the fifth respondent is not equivalent to a degree in engineering, so as to get admission into M. Tech course. In any event, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed M. Tech course in March, 2006 and a provisional certificate has also been issued to him. If the petitioner doubts the genuineness of the certificate obtained by the fifth respondent, it is always open for the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the respondents; but in the absence of any adverse report against the fifth respondent, his certificate cannot be withheld even after his completing M. Tech course in March, 2006. In view of the letters addressed by the university to the fourth respondent institution, it also cannot be said that the first respondent has not taken any action. If any adverse remarks or material is received by the first respondent university against the fifth respondent, it is open for them to take steps in accordance with law. Having regard to the steps already taken by the respondents, the allegation of the petitioner that no action has been taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, in the absence of any adverse material against the fifth respondent, in order to grant the relief as prayed for.
