K. C. AGRAWAL, J. These two petitions raise common questions of law and are thus being decided by a single judgment. For admission in M. D. Course in pediatrics, applications were invited by the Principal of the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Medical College, Kanpur. Out of six seats four were reserved, which was 75 per cent of the total for the students of the said Medical College whereas 25 per cent seats were meant for outsiders. This reservation of seats had been made in pursuance of an order of the State Government which lays down as under: "in every speciality seventy five per cent seats in a particular Medical College shall be reserved for the candidates who have passed the M. B. B. S. Examination from that college and against the remaining twenty-five per cent seats candidates who have passed M. B. B. S. examina tion from other medical colleges and are bona fide residents of Uttar Pradesh shall be ebligible for admission on the basis of the merit along with candidates who have passed the M. B. B. S. examination from that very college. " The comparative Chart of the students who applied for admission is given below j "1. Dr. Sanjai Sur 67. 06% 2. Dr. Nita Srivastava (there is no applicant as Dr. Kumari M. Srivastava ). 64. 65% 3. Dr. Sanjai Rohatgi 64. 25% 4. Dr. Rakesh Mittal 60. 96% 5. Dr. Niraj Srivastava 60. 05% 6. Dr. Brijendra Kumar 55. 46% 7. Dr. G. K. Nigam 62. 81% (He was sent information, but did not join.) 8. Dr. Sunil Taneja 61. 75% 9. Dr. Vijai Kumar 58. 56% Dr. Sunil Taneja, who is mentioned at serial No. 8 had secured 61. 75% marks. He was an outsider, having passed M. B. B. S. examination from the Wardha Medical College, Nagpur. He had applied for admission as against the two seats which were 25% of the total seats. For the said purpose, the petitioner was required to establish that he was an outsider and bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh. The requirement in this regard was- "such outside candidates must be bona fide residents of Uttar Pradesh Bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh on production of a certificate to this effect from the District Magistrate of the district concerned. The requirement in this regard was- "such outside candidates must be bona fide residents of Uttar Pradesh Bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh on production of a certificate to this effect from the District Magistrate of the district concerned. " The further requirement in this connection was:- "the candidates must have done one Years Horsemanship preferably in the same subject or at least six months in the same department and the remaining six months in an allied department. " After considering the applications of the two petitioners and others, the Medical College admitted the students mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 6. Challenging their admission, learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. Sunil Taneja urged that since Dr. Sunil Taneja had secured higher marks than Dr. Neeraj Srivastava, he ought to have been taken in his place. His submission, in the alterantive, was that in any view of the matter. Dr. Brijendra Kumar, who had obtained 55. 46% marks, could not be admitted, and that the said seat ought to have been given to Dr. Sunil Taneja. The argument of the counsel for Dr. Teneja appears to be well founded. It is true that the selection as against the 25% seats had to be done on comparative merits from amongst the students of the same Medical College and who passed M. B. B. S. from other Medical College. On a comparison, it would be found that Dr. Sunil Taneja had secured 61. 75% marks whereas the percentage of marks secured by Dr. Neeraj Srivastava was 60. 05%. Dr. Brijendra Kumar, as stated above had secured only 55. 46% marks. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Medical College by the standing counsel defending the admission of Dr. Neerai Srivastava and Dr. Brijendra Kumar. The pleas taken against Dr. Sunil Taneja were that Dr. Taneja had not filed a certificate of the District Magistrate showing that (1) he was a bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh (2) that he had not done one years Housemanship, and (3) that he was doing Diploma in Child Speciality. We were taken through the writ petitions and the affidavits exchanged between the parties. From these affidavits, it appears that the plea that the petitioner Dr. Sunil Taneja had not brought evidence of his being a bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh, is not correct. We were taken through the writ petitions and the affidavits exchanged between the parties. From these affidavits, it appears that the plea that the petitioner Dr. Sunil Taneja had not brought evidence of his being a bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh, is not correct. The petitioner averred that the evidence requirement by the Government Order had been filed by him. He has further stated in the rejoinder-affidavit that he had never been appraised of the grounds on which his admission had been refused. These grounds which have been stated in the counter-affidavit for not admitting Dr. Sunil Taneja to the M. D. Course ought to have been intimated to him and he should have been given a chance to remove the defects or bring evidence before the principal that he was qualified and could not be refused admission. These were not the matters to which strict rule could be applied. Moreover, from the writ petition, it appears that Dr. Sunil taneja had filed the certificate showing his permanent residence in Uttar Pradesh and also that he had done Housemanship for six months each in pediatrics and Medicine. The third ground that since Dr. Sunil Taneja had joined the speciality in Child Diseases he could not be considered for being admitted to M. D. Course does not appeal to us. Dr. Taneja joined this specialty only when he was refused the admission in M. D. course. His joining to the aforesaid speciality could not disentitle him to get admission in M. D. course. From what he have said above we find that the petitioner Dr. Sunil Taneja had a better claim than Dr. Neeraj Srivastava and Dr. Brijendra Kumar. The Medical College was wrong in not acting in accordance, with the Government Order and admitting Dr. Taneja. He is entitled to Mandamus being issued to the principal for consideration of his application afresh and being given admission on one of the seats reserved for outside. So far as Dr. Vijay Kumar, the petitioner of writ petition No. 8035 of 1081 is concerned, he admittedly was an outsider and had secured 58. 56% marks. On comparison of the Marks secured by him with Dr. Neeraj Srivastava, we find that Dr. Neeraj Srivastava was entitled to the sixth seat in M. D. Course. Dr. Vijay Kumar had no claim over the same. 56% marks. On comparison of the Marks secured by him with Dr. Neeraj Srivastava, we find that Dr. Neeraj Srivastava was entitled to the sixth seat in M. D. Course. Dr. Vijay Kumar had no claim over the same. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government wherein the assertion made is that Dr. Neeraj Srivastava had been absorbed as against 75% seats exclusively meant for the students of the Medical College. This statement is due to inadvertent mistake and that Dr. Vijay Kumar cannot get any right on its basis. Dr. Neeraj, Srivastava had a claim better than Dr. Vijay Kumar. His selection, therefore cannot be quashed. On the basis of a decision of a Division Bench given in Writ petition No. 3775 of 1981, Dr. Vijay Narain Sinha v. State of U. P. and another, decided on August 14, 1981, the learned counsel for Dr. Vijay Kumar wanted us to give a direction to the principal of the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarihi Medical College Kanpur to admit Dr. Vijay Kumar to the M. D. Course in pediatrics forthwith. We are unable to accede to the request of the petitioners learned counsel. Admittedly there were only six seats meant for M. D. Course. The High Court cannot direct the Medical College to do something which may not be possible for them to comply with. The creation of seats in such a Course involves several considerations which cannot be comprehended by us. We, therefore, are not inclined to issue any direction in that regard. As said by De Smith in his Book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Third Edition, page 497 "mandamus will not, of course, lie to compel the performance of a duty that is not recognised by law and a fortiori, it will not lie to be done which is unlawful or which cannot be en forced by lawful means". The principal has no power to increase the seats created by the State Government. That being so, Mandamus cannot be issued to compel him to do what is impossible in law or in fact. In the same volume, at page 499 De. Smith says; "thus it will not issue an order for filling of an office that has already filled, or to require one who is functus officio to do what he was formerly obliged to do. In the same volume, at page 499 De. Smith says; "thus it will not issue an order for filling of an office that has already filled, or to require one who is functus officio to do what he was formerly obliged to do. " In view of the above, since we find that there is no practical possibility of enforcing obedience to our order, we would not be entitled to issue any writ. We cannot, therefore, issue any Mandamus to the principal of the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Medical College to admit Dr. Vijay Kumar. The Division Bench judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for Dr. Vijay Kumar, does not support his submission. That decision turns on its own facts and does not lay down any ratio which could be called out and be adopted in the present case. For what we have said above, we find that whereas the principal of the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Medical College and the admission body, if any, committed an error in refusing to admit Dr. Sunil Taneja. We do not find that any such error was committed in refusing to admit Dr. Vijay Kumar, As a result of the finding given by us above, the principal would be required to reconsider the case of Dr. Sunil Taneja afresh and to pass appropriate orders relating to him. We have been informed that the new session is going to commence from 1st October and that admission has to take place by 23rd September, 1981. In the circumstances mentioned above, we would expect the principal of the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Medical College, Kanpur to take all necessary steps which may be needed for consideration of the case of Dr. Sunil Taneja before the expiry of the date fixed for admission. At this place, we wish to mention that although we have found that the refusal to admit Dr. Sunil Taneja was on untenable grounds, we, however, do not want to replace our judgment in place of the authorities refusing to do so. It is correct that the authority was guided by irrelevant consideration in refusing to admit Dr. Sunil Taneja, but still we think that since the job of admission is that of the principal, it is he who should be directed to do so. For the reasons given above, writ petition No. 9899 of 1981 filed by Dr. Sunil Taneja is allowed. Sunil Taneja, but still we think that since the job of admission is that of the principal, it is he who should be directed to do so. For the reasons given above, writ petition No. 9899 of 1981 filed by Dr. Sunil Taneja is allowed. The principal of the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Medical College, Kanpur is directed to consider the case of Dr. Sunil Taneja afresh for admission in M. D. Course in pediatrics as against one of the two seats reserved for outsiders. Writ petition No. 8035 of 1981, filed by Dr. Vijay Kumar is dismissed. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. .