JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mundamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear at the LL.B. Examination and not to interfere with his right to attend the LL.B. classes. 2. These are the facts. The petitioner made an application to the Agra College, Agra for admission in the LL.B. Course. Thereupon the petitioner was issued a form which he filled and latter he appeared before the selection committee appointed to select candidates for admission to the aforesaid course under Section 28 (6) of the State Universities Act. It appears that after the interviews the petitioner deposited the fees for the said class. Subsequently on coming to know that the petitioner had not been admitted to the said class, the petitioner was prevented from attending the classes. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the fact he was permitted to deposit fees for the class it must be assumed that the petitioner had been duly admitted to the class. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merits in this petition. Under Section 28 of the U.E. State Universities Act, there has to be an admission committee which, under the superintendence of the academic council lays down the principles and norms for admission of the students to the various courses of studies. The candidate applying for admission has, therefore, to be selected by a committee appointed for that purpose. In the counter affidavit it has been categorically asserted that though the petitioner was permitted to appear for his interview before the selection committee but in point of fact he was not admitted to the LL.B. Course. The mere fact that the petitioner was permitted to deposit fees could not by itself warrant the conclusion that the petitioner had been admitted to the LL B. class. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was in point of fact selected for admission to the LL.B. course. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made in the counter-affidavit that in point of fact the petitioner was not selected for admission to the LL.B. course. That being so, the petitioner was rightly refused admission to the LLB. class. 5. In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made in the counter-affidavit that in point of fact the petitioner was not selected for admission to the LL.B. course. That being so, the petitioner was rightly refused admission to the LLB. class. 5. In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.