JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - The petitioner Anupam Srivastava, claims to have passed his Intermediate Science Examination from the Government intermediate College. Allahabad, securing 66% marks. He also having secured a First Division in tie High School Examination asserts entitlement to 2% grace marks for admission to the B.Sc. First Year Agricultural Engineering Course run by the Allahabad Agriculture Institute (Respondent No. 1) hereinafter refined to as the Institute. 2. The petitioner applied for admission to the B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering Course at the Institute on the 26th June, 1979 for the academic session 1979-80 but was refused admission. By means of this petition h" prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Principal of the Institute to admit him to B Sc. Agricultural Engineering course and for issue of any other suitable writ order or direction as this court may deem if and proper in the circumstances of the case. The reliefs prayed for are primarily based on the contentions that the University of Allahabad, of which the Institute is an Associated College, had issued criteria for admission to the B.Sc Agriculture and B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering courses at the Institute in exercise of powers under Section 28(4) of the U. P. State Universities Act but in disregard of such instructions the institute had admitted many students who hid inherit as compared to the petitioners simply because they were Christians. The petitioner has filed a chart shewing the name and mark obtained by such candidates in the Intermediate class who were admitted though they had secured hers marks than him. The further contention of the petitioner is that the reservation of seats in favour of Indian Christians who were less meritorious than him and who had secured admission to the B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering course) by the Institute was in disregard to Article 29(2) of the Constitution. 3. It has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Institute that a number of Indian Christias have have admitted in preference to the petitioner though on merits they had secured less marks at the Intermediate Examination than the petitioner. Agricultural Engineering course) by the Institute was in disregard to Article 29(2) of the Constitution. 3. It has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Institute that a number of Indian Christias have have admitted in preference to the petitioner though on merits they had secured less marks at the Intermediate Examination than the petitioner. The petitioner's claims have been resisted on the pleas that the institute is a minority institution within the meaning of At tide 30(1) of the Constitution and it was entitled to regulate its procedure in the matter of admission of students in spite of the requirements of Article 29(2) of the Constitution It has further been contended on behalf of the Institute that the alleged criteria for admission of students to the University had no application to the students of the Institute and in any evert was received by it after the admission of the students for the academic session 1979-80 had been completed. A nun her of preliminary objectors have been raised by the learned counsel representing the Institute. It has been contended that, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. We shall first consider the preliminary objections raised because, in our opinion, some of them are sound and consequently the legal and constitutional questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not in the instant case, need any discussion. 4. In Suresh v. Vasant, (A.I.R. 1972 S. C. 1680) it was held that High Courts while granting relief were Article 226 of the Constitution should, inter alia, bear in mind that no writ should be issued which would be futile. The petitioner had, as already stated, applied in June 1979 for admission to the B Sc Agricultural Engineering course at the Institute. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Institute and the statement made at the Bar admissions to the course were completed by the 21st August, 1979 and the teaching programme of. the class commerced in September, 1979. The 1979 session was over and the teaching programme for that session was completed and dates for holding the examinations were also announced before the commencement of the summer vacations. On account of agitation launched by the students, however, the examination could not be held and had to be postponed. the class commerced in September, 1979. The 1979 session was over and the teaching programme for that session was completed and dates for holding the examinations were also announced before the commencement of the summer vacations. On account of agitation launched by the students, however, the examination could not be held and had to be postponed. It was further stated at the Bar that the postponed examinations programme had again been declared before the hearing of the petition commenced. The petitioner not having been admitted to the class and not having attended a single lecture either in theory papers or in the practical papers was not under the Ordinances framed by the University which were binding on the Institute entitled to appear at the examination even if this court were to allow this writ petition. Under the circumstances, it was urged that the admission of the petitioners if now ordered would be futile and of no assistance to him. 5. There is no doubt that the petitioner was refused admission before the last week of August 1979. The petitioner asserts that he protested to the Principal of the Institute against illegal refusal to. admit him to the B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering Course. This petition was presence in this court as late as the 27th February, 1983 by which time nearly half the academic session was over. The only explanation offered by the petitioner for the delayed presentation of this petition is that he mad - a number of representations to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Allahabad against, the alleged illegal act of the Institute in refusing him admission. The representations are alleged to have been made to the Vice-Chancellor under Section 28(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act which gives no right to students, who are disappointed at not having been admitted to a course of study by an associated college, to represent to the Vice Chancellor. There is thus no acceptable justification offered for the delay in moving this court by the petitioner for the reliefs he is seeking. 6. Ordinance 10 as published in the prospectus issued by the University of Allahabad, of which, admittedly the Institute is an Associated College, at page 7 thereof to the extent relevant is in the following terms:- "10. There is thus no acceptable justification offered for the delay in moving this court by the petitioner for the reliefs he is seeking. 6. Ordinance 10 as published in the prospectus issued by the University of Allahabad, of which, admittedly the Institute is an Associated College, at page 7 thereof to the extent relevant is in the following terms:- "10. No student of the University shall be allowed lo appear at a University Examination unless he or she has attended 75% of the lectures and the tutorial classes separately in each subject during the course of instruction for the examination. In the case of students studying a science subject or a subject where practical classes are held 75% of a tendance during the course of practical work shall be required....... Provided that................. Provided also that a period of grace not exceeding 6% of the Lectures and Seminars Practicals delivered during the session (separately) in any subject may be allowed by the Dean and of an additional period not exceeding 9% of Lectures and Seminras/Practicals delivered during the session (separately) by the Vice-Chancellor in case of (I) serious and prolonged illness of the student when It is supported by a Medical Certificate submitted within a fortnight of this rejoining or (2) in very special cases for any other equally strong and sufficient cause. 7. The rules for promotion and Sessional Grades for B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering Course, according to the prospectus for the academic session 1979-80 of the Institute are to the extent relevant in the following terms ; - "In order to pass each examination of B Sc. Agricultural Engineering a candidate be required to obtain at least 35 (thirty five) per cent marks in each paper of written University examination (excluding the sessional with at least 40 (forty) per cent in each theory paper (written University examination and sessional combined and in each practical examination with an overall aggregate of 50 (fifty) per cent). 2. 40% of the maximum marks in each written paper and in each practical are assigned for sessional work as provided in the University Regulations. 4. The marks secured for sessional work are submitted to the University for each theory paper. The marks for sessional work in practical are submitted to the Examiner of the practical examination." 8. 2. 40% of the maximum marks in each written paper and in each practical are assigned for sessional work as provided in the University Regulations. 4. The marks secured for sessional work are submitted to the University for each theory paper. The marks for sessional work in practical are submitted to the Examiner of the practical examination." 8. If this petition were to be allowed and a mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner is issued it is obvious that he cannot possibly comply with the requirements of completing 75% of attendance to enable him to appear at the First Year Examination of the L.Sc. Agricultural Engineering class. Moreover, the petitioner not having attended a single class, either practical nor theory, his sessional work is nil. Thus even if the petitioner were to be admitted to the class no useful purpose at all can be served and grant of relief to him in these proceedings would he only of theoretical importance. This circumstances, in our opinion, is sufficient to justify refusal of reliefs to the petitioner in this petition. 9. There are other weighty reasons which lead us to the same conclusion. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Institute there were only 40 seats in the B.Sc. First Year Agricultural' Engineering class during the academic session 1979-80 out of which 20 seats were to be filled to from among it the students who had passed the Intermediate Science Examination and the remaining 20 seats were to be filled from amongst the students who had passed the Intermediate Agriculture group. It is stated that since recommendation of the Athletics Committee for one seat for the sport quota was received a bit late, it was, however, accepted and 41 students were selected for admission to the aforesaid course. Initially out of the students selected to the First Year B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering course at the Institute for admission all others except four trued up to the take their admission. On the 10th January, 1980 when Misc. Write Petition No. 6643 of 1979 Binai Kumar Singh and others v. University of Allahabad and others and connected petition were decided by a Bench of this court, there were four vacancies to be filled up to the aforesaid class. On the 10th January, 1980 when Misc. Write Petition No. 6643 of 1979 Binai Kumar Singh and others v. University of Allahabad and others and connected petition were decided by a Bench of this court, there were four vacancies to be filled up to the aforesaid class. In order to avoid controversy in the above mentioned writ petitions learned counsel then representing the Institute made a statement on its behalf that it would admit the four students who were petitioners in those writ petitions. In view of the concession made, the Bench which decided those writ petitions allowed partly the petitions and the four students, in respect of whom concession was made by counsel appearing for the Institute in those proceedings were admitted to a class. Thus, according to the Institute shortly alter the 10th January, 1980 all available seats in the class to which the petitioners sought admission had been filled in and there is no remaining vacancy on which the petitioner could be admitted unless the admission of some of those who have already been admitted to the class and have pursued their studies at considerable expense of time and money is cancelled. 10. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended the claim made by the Institute that it has a limited number of seats in the B.Sc. First year Agricultural Engineering class is incorrect and in the preceding year it has admitted as many as 52 students. The facts that in the academic session 1978-79 the Institute had admitted 52 student has not been controverted. An acceptable explanation has however been offered for this excessive admission in the preceding academic session. The counter affidavit re veils that larger number of students who applied for admission to the Institute also at the same time allied for admission to numerous other Agriculture college in the country. Quite a few of those to whom intimations for admission are issued simultaneously succeed in securing admission to other Agriculture Institute and choose to be admitted to such other institutions. In order to avoid complications and under enrolment of student 'the Institute as a matter of pratice issues admission intimations to more students than the number of seats available. Quite a few of those to whom intimations for admission are issued simultaneously succeed in securing admission to other Agriculture Institute and choose to be admitted to such other institutions. In order to avoid complications and under enrolment of student 'the Institute as a matter of pratice issues admission intimations to more students than the number of seats available. In the academic session 1978-79 since there was a strike at the Pantnagar Agriculture University many of the students whit would perhaps in the norm 11 course have chosen to join that University could not get admission there and since letters of intimation for admission had been issued to them in the expectation that many of such students would not turn up for admission to the Institute they chose to join the Institute. Since left ts of intimation for admission to the Institute had been issue to such students of the facts that the aching and library facilities etc. which it had available were short of the needs for teaching as many as 52 students. According to the counter-affidavit as a result of this ex essive admission made in the special circumstances for the academic session 1978-79 the Institute had been facing problems in providing for efficient teaching facilities to the students. 11. The Institute has a right bearing in mind the availability of library, equipments, staff and other teaching facilities to determine the number of students it could cope up with a particular course run by it so that the academic standard of the Institute does not suffer. We have no reason to hold that on the facilities available at the Institute it was wrong on its part to have determined to admit only 40 students to the class for the academic session 1979-30. We cannot justifiably, in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, compel the Institution to admit to a course of study students more than the number determined by it which might, hive the effect of lowering its academic standards to the detriment of students already admitted. 12. None of the students who according to the petitioner were less meritorious than him have been impleaded as opposite parties to this petition. 12. None of the students who according to the petitioner were less meritorious than him have been impleaded as opposite parties to this petition. It is evident that no order can be passed which might have the effect of requiring the Institute to cancel the admission of such students Those students have already completed the entire course of studies prescribed for the academic session. An order of the nature mentioned above would of highly unfair and u equitable to such students who might be adversely effected. When a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Institute that students who might be a aversely effected in the event of the petitioner's player being granted were not parties, an application was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for Impleading one Susam Cherian. The application was presented without service having been effected on the student who was sough to be impleaded. We were informed during the course of the hearing of the petition that since the Institute was closed Susan Cherian was not available for service. Under the circumstances we have declined to permit him/her being added as a party and no relief can be granted to the petitioner which may have an adverse effect on the student. 13. It may he further noticed that the petitioner had passed the Intermediate Science Examination when the applied for admission to the Inti-tut-. The Institute had allocated fixed number of seats to Intermediate Science students and those students who had passed the Intermediate Examination with agriculture as their subjects. That the Institute, beaming in mind its academic needs and requirements of fairness to- students who had passed Intermediate Examination from either group of subject,-had jurisdiction to allocate number of seats to candidates of cither groups has not been challenged. There is no allegations in the petition that Indian Christain students who are alleged to have admitted in spite of the fact that they had secured less percentage of marks than the petitioner belonged to the Intermediate Science group. 14. For the reasons given, we are not inclined in the proceedings to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is consequently dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.