JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College a respondent in these petitions, is affiliated to the Kanpur University, Kanpur. The College imparts education in among other subjects, Agriculture. The various petitioners herein applied for admission in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Part I of the aforesaid College for the session 1980-81. Admission into the various Colleges affiliated to the Kanpur University is regulated by Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act. Section 28 of the said Act provides for an Admission Committee which supervises admission of candidates to the University and Colleges affiliated thereto. Section 28 (4) of the same Act lays down that the Admission Committee may issue directions as respects the criteria for admission into the various affiliated or associated Colleges and that such directions shall be binding on such Colleges. 2. In pursuance of Section 28 (4) the Admission Committee laid down certain norms governing the-policy of admission to various courses of studies in the Kulbhaskar Ashram College. These norms include the preparation of what has been described as Index for each of the candidate applying for admission in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Part I. The prescribed norms lay down the basis on which these indecia are prepared in respect of the various candidates applying for admission. 3. It is not disputed that pursuant to the directions issued by the Admission Committee and in consonance with the norms laid down by the said Committee a list of the candidates applying for admission to M.Sc. (Part I) in the aforesaid College was prepared showing the index of the petitioners and all others, 74 seats were available for being filed. In accordance with the index determined in respect of each of the candidates, the first 74 were selected for admission for the session 1980-81. The petitioners were, however, not among them and they had no grievance at that stage. However, it appears that some of the disappointed candidates (not the petitioners) resorted to hunger strike and other pressure tactics demanding admission notwithstanding the fact that they did not fall within the norms prescribed by law. The College appears to have yielded to that pressure and agreed to a limit another batch of 74 students for the next session i.e. 1981-82 from amongst the striking students or those who were otherwise pressurising the College to admit them. The College appears to have yielded to that pressure and agreed to a limit another batch of 74 students for the next session i.e. 1981-82 from amongst the striking students or those who were otherwise pressurising the College to admit them. It appears that some correspondence ensued between the College and the University on the subject of admission another 74 candidates from amongst the applicants for admission. It is alleged in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent College that by means of a letter dated 27-2-1981 the Vice Chancellor of the Kanpur University desired the Principal of the College to submit a list of all the candidates who had applied for admission to the aforesaid course for the year 1980-81. The College prepared a list and submitted it to the Vice-Chancellor of Kanpur University for approval. The University had desired the College to prepare the list in accordance with the norms prescribed for admission. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, it is alleged that the second list submitted by the College was not prepared according to the prescribed norms, but purely on grounds of pressure and correction exercised by the Students upon the College authorities. This assertion appears to be true as is clear from the affidavits filed in these petitions by the parties. The University has also committed that the said list was not in accordance with the norms. Indeed in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed of the College a confession has been made to the effect that the list was prepared under duress. 4. After the receipt of the second list from the College, it appears that the Kanpur University prepared a list of its own. By letter dated 3-11-1982 the Registrar of the University wrote to the Principal of the College stating that the Vice-Chancellor desires that admissions to the M.Sc. Part I course in various subjects of agriculture for the Session 1981-82 be made in accordance with the enclosed list of candidates which had been prepared on merit. It was further stated that the classes for the two sessions, namely, 1980-81 and 1981-82 shall G.O. simultaneously. A true copy of the letter of the Registrar along with the list enclosed therewith has been filed with petition as annexure 3. 5. It was further stated that the classes for the two sessions, namely, 1980-81 and 1981-82 shall G.O. simultaneously. A true copy of the letter of the Registrar along with the list enclosed therewith has been filed with petition as annexure 3. 5. In pursuance of the list sent by the University, the College admitted another batch of 74 students for the sessions 1981-82. The petitioners names did not find place in this list of 74 candidates. The petitioners are aggrieved by this action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Their contention is that both the College and the University have violated the norms prescribed by law under Section 28(4) in not admitting the petitioners. Their assertion is that the index of each of the petitioners as determined by the mode prescribed by the Admission Committee itself was higher than that of the candidates including the private respondents, who were admitted in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the University. It is further asserted that the list prepared by the University does not disclose truely and correctly the index of the candidates and that the same is demonstrably erroneous and unsustainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel fop the parties we are clearly of the view that the above contentions are well founded. From the facts admitted and established on the record it seems clear to us that in admitting the fresh batch 9f 74 candidates both the College and the University have given a complete go by to the norms prescribed by law. 7. In paragraphs 23 to 25 of the Writ Petition No. 14325 of 1211 Daya Shankar v. Vice-Chancellor, details facts and figures have been given showing that the index of each of the petitioners was higher than the index of the respondents Nos. 3 to 10, who have been admitted. "26. That a persual of facts stated above would show that (i) The index shown in list (Annexure-3) has wrongly been prepared by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ; (ii) Those having lesser -index have been settled and admitted ignoring the petitioners whose index are much higher ; (iii) The admission of 74 students including respondents Nos. 3 to 13 were made on some extraneous reasons and not on the basis of merits of the students applicants." Similar assertions have been made in other paragraphs of that writ petition and other connected writ petitions. 3 to 13 were made on some extraneous reasons and not on the basis of merits of the students applicants." Similar assertions have been made in other paragraphs of that writ petition and other connected writ petitions. These positive and categorical assertions have not been specifically denied, not squarely met. So far as the College is concerned, it has taken the simple stand that it had no option but to go by the list prepared by the University as it had been directed to admit the students in accordance with that list. The College is not prepared to vouch for the correctness of that list. The University on the other hand in its counter-affidavit has equally evaded to give any clear or categorical reply to the positive.averments made by the petitioners. It has, for instance stated "that paragraphs 21 and 22" of the writ petition are matters of record and the same may be seen". In regard to paragraphs 23 and 24 the reply of the University is that it concerns the College and not the University. The reply to paragraph 26(1) is equally evasive and vague. In reply to paragraphs 26 (ii) and 26 (iii) again, the reply of the University is that they do not concern the University. 8. The assertions of the petitioners, therefore, that those candidates whose index was less than that of the petitioners have been admitted and that the index given in the list sent by the Government is incorrect and is demonstrably wrong, have remained controverted for the most part. The same picture of facts is projected by other connected petitions also except that of Radha Kant Singh, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13957 of 1981). In the case of Radh a Kant Singh even according to the list submitted by the University on 3-11-1981, he was entitled to be admitted. His case, therefore stands on a higher footing than that of others. 9. Having regard to the back-ground in which the list was prepared, it seems to us that the assertions of the petitioners that the list was prepared by the University in an artificial way and not strictly in accordance with the norms prescribed under Section 28(4) of the aforesaid Act with a view to meeting the situation arising out of the strike and pressures referred to above seems plausible and correct. Section 28(4) of the aforesaid Act, however, makes it obligatory for the authorities to admit only in accordance with the prescribed norms. Neither the College nor the University was free to admit on any other basis except that prescribed by law. The petitioners have, therefore, clearly made out a case for interference by this Court. 10. The question, however, is what relief should be given to the petitioners. They have prayed both for quashing of the list as well as for a writ of mandamus directing the College to admit them. Having given the matter a careful thought, it appears to us that it would neither be reasonable nor fair to the students who have already been admitted in pursuance of the directions of the University to cancel their admission at this stage. They should not be made to sutler for the mistakes of the University and College. However, on the facts admitted and established on the record the petitioners ha ;e certainly become entitled to the second relief claimed by them, namely, a direction asking the College to admit them. There is no manner of doubt that they have been excluded from consideration on account of the admissions having been made in violation of the directions issued under a statutory mandate contained in Section 28(4) of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent College, after consulting his clients, submitted that the College was prepared to admit the petitioners. The College, however, felt that the University might take exception to the number of admissions exceeding the limit of 74, which had been fixed by the University, The second apprehension expressed by the learned counsel was that the admission of the petitioners might create a bad precedent and problems for the College in, the future years. These apprehensions do not seem to have a sound basis, and, at any race, they are not sufficient to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate and valuable rights. So far as the possibility of objection from the University is concerned, in our view, the University can have no right to raise any such objection as the University is equally responsible for the situation which has arisen by ignoring the norms. So far as the possibility of objection from the University is concerned, in our view, the University can have no right to raise any such objection as the University is equally responsible for the situation which has arisen by ignoring the norms. As regards the fear that the admission the petitioners might create problems for the College in the future years, it is sufficient to say that so long as the admissions are made in consonance with the norms prescribed by statutes, the College will be within its right in limiting the admissions to those tailing within the prescribed criteria and norms. At any rate, on the peculiar facts and circumstances existing in the present case, the only way by which the interest of justice can be advanced and the rights of the petitioners protected is to direct the College to admit the petitioners in all these petitions to M.Sc. (Agriculture) Part I course for the session 1981-82. 12. For the reasons stated above, these petitions succeed and are allowed. The Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College, Allahabad is directed to admit all the petitioners in these connected petitions to the M.Sc. (Agriculture) Part 1 course for the session 1981-82 forthwith. There will, however, be no order as to the costs.