JUDGMENT 1. - This case comes up for disposal of the stay application moved on behalf of the petitioner as the learned counsel for the parties submitted before me that as the matter involved in the stay petition and the main petition are substantially the same looking to the nature of the urgency of the case the main petition should be disposed of finally. I have, therefore, at the request of both the counsels for the parties taken up the case for final hearing and now propose to disposed of finally. 2. The petitioner sought admission in M.Sc. Zoology/Chemistry but she has been denied admission on the ground that she has failed in pre-medical examination held by the Punjab University in the year 1973. The case of the petitioner is that she had not failed in the said examination on merits but as she had severe attack of appendicitis on the day when the examinations were taking place she had to get herself operated because it was a necessity. In this connection she had submitted Annexure I a certificate from the Professor of Clinical Surgery, Dayanand Medical College Hospital Ludhiyana. The certificate runs as follows:- "Certified that Miss Jatinder Paul d/o S. Swaran Singh aged 17 years female was admitted on 2.5.73 vide C.R. No. 99232 and operated for Acute Appendicitis. She was discharged on 10.5.1976. This operation was absolutely necessary and could not have been postponed." The petitioner has, therefore, contended in her writ application that it was on account of reasons beyond her control that she could not appear in the examination and, therefore, it cannot be said that she had failed in any of the subject merely on account of her absence which was caused on account of she being operated for appendicitis. 3. The reply on behalf of the non petitioners is that the petitioner is not entitled to admission in view of Rule 3 framed by the Government of Rajasthan under its administrative powers. My attention has been invited to Rule 3 which runs as follows:- "Students who have failed at any stage of T.D.C. examination in a subject should not be considered for admission to that subject in Post Graduate classes". 4. I have given my earnest consideration in the case. My attention has been invited to Rule 3 which runs as follows:- "Students who have failed at any stage of T.D.C. examination in a subject should not be considered for admission to that subject in Post Graduate classes". 4. I have given my earnest consideration in the case. Rule 3 has been framed by the Government in exercise of its administrative power and is not a statutory rule; whereas sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Rajasthan University Act authorities, the authorities of the University to frame conditions under which the student shall be admitted in the course of study and curricular and examination for degree and diplomas and other academic distinctions. There is Ordinance No. 234 in the Hand Book of University of Rajasthan Part II which runs as under:- "O.234. A candidate, who after obtaining the B.Sc. degree of the University of an Indian University recognised for the purpose by the Syndicate and obtaining at least 45 percent marks in the aggregate or in the subject which he wants to offer for his M.Sc. Examination has completed a regular course of study in an affiliated college for one academic year, shall be admitted to the Previous Examination for the degree of Master of Science. The matter of admission is to be governed by the provisions of the University Act and Ordinance framed thereunder. If one peruses Ordinance No. 234 there is no restriction as laid down under Rule 3 framed by the State Government in its administrative side. The Ordinance and the provisions of the Act shall take precedence in preference to the Administrative Rules framed by the State Government and there being no restriction for admission in the said Ordinance it is very difficult for me to endorse the stand taken on behalf of the non petitioner. Even there is room for contending that the petitioner had not failed on merits as she could not appear at the examination on account of serious trouble of acute appendicitis. Moreover there was no subject like zoology in premedical examination and therefore so far as the subject of zoology is concerned it is not even covered by Rule 3. Looking from either angle I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be met with evenhanded justice. The learned Additional Government Advocate however has contended before me that the admissions to M.Sc. Looking from either angle I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be met with evenhanded justice. The learned Additional Government Advocate however has contended before me that the admissions to M.Sc. classes have been closed and the examination forms for the first semester have been already filled up, but that by itself is not ground for turning down the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Additional Government Advocate has frankly conceded before me that the form can be still filed up on payment of late fee. Therefore,there cannot be insuperable difficulty in meeting the prayer of the petitioner. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that in view of the time having expired the University may take objection to the admission of the petitioner. The petitioner in my view was not at all at fault and if there was some mistake on the part of the administration the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer on account of the administrative error on the part of the college authority. Moreover, Mr. Kasliwal who has appeared before me on the side of the University has said that the University does not oppose this writ petition. In this view of the matter it is a fit case where a mandamus should go to the non petitioners. 6. I, therefore, direct the non petitioner to consider the case of the petitioner for admission in the light of the observations made above and give her relief according to the merits of the marks vis a vis the other candidate and grant her appropriate relief in the matter of admission, either in Chemistry or Zoology according to her merits. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******