JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit him to LL.B. First year class of the Allahabad University, Allahabad or in the alternative for a direction to respondent 2 to decide his representation dated 1st July 1984 at an early date. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner passed B.A. examination of the Allahabad University in the year 1982 in Second Division. He obtained 414 marks. On 26th April. 1982 he applied for admission to LL.B. First Year class of the Session 1982-83. Before the admissions for the Session 1982-83 could be taken up, the result of B.A. examination 1983 was also declared. Applications were invited for the LL.B. First Year class of the Session of 1983-84 also. On 20th June 1984 a notice was published in the Northern India Patrika in the name of the Chairman, Law Admissions Committee for- LL.B. First year class of the Session 1983-84. Candidates who had obtained 414 marks in the examination conducted by the Allahabad University were directed to contact the Chairman for their admissions to LL.B. First year class. On 20th June 1984 the petitioner met the Chairman, Law Admissions Committee and also submitted an application requesting for admission to the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1983-84. The petitioner was not admitted to the LL.B. First year class. On Ist July 1984 the petitioner made a representation to respondent 2. No order was passed on this also. 3. The petitioner's case was that there were 1200 seats in LL.B. First year class and only 1000 candidates had applied. It was said that the Chairman, Law Admissions Committee declined to admit him on the ground that he passed his B.A. examination in 1982 and as such 5% marks had to be deducted from the total marks obtained by him. It was alleged that there is no such Statute or Ordinance or Regulation empowering the Admissions -Committee to deduct 5%, marks. The petitioner's grievance was that the act and omission on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. The respondents denied that the Admissions Committee discriminated against the petitioner or arbitrarily refused admission to him. It was also denied that 5% marks were deducted on account of his having passed B.A. examination in the year 1982. 4. The respondents denied that the Admissions Committee discriminated against the petitioner or arbitrarily refused admission to him. It was also denied that 5% marks were deducted on account of his having passed B.A. examination in the year 1982. It was said that 900 students were admitted to LL.B. First year class of the Session 1982-83 and the last candidate admitted had 423 marks. 750 candidates were admitted to LL.B. First year class of the Session 1983-84 and the last candidate admitted had 414 marks. The Admissions Committee had decided to admit 900 candidates for the Session 1982-83 and 750 candidates for the Session 1983-84 and there was no vacancy. As far as the notice dated 20th June 1984 is concerned, it was said that the same was issued by the Chairman, Law Admissions Committee for the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1983-84. The petitioner had applied for admission to LL.B. First year class of the Session 1982-83 and be could not be entitled for admission to LL.B. first year class of the Session 1983-84 on the ground that he had secured 414 marks. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit in which he alleged that there were 1200 seats for the LL.B. First year class at the time he gave the application and the total number of candidates was only 1000. He also reiterated assurances given to him by the officers and the teachers of the University. 6. We may refer to Principal, Patna College, Patna v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman, AIR 1966 SC 707 at p. 713. The Supreme Court held that : "It is hardly necessary to emphasise that in dealing with matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions u rider Article 226 of Constitution, the High Court should normally be very slow to pass ex parte interim orders, because matters falling within the jurisdiction of the educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice." 7. In AIR 1.984 SC 1543, Maharashtra Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh in para 20, page 1550, the Supreme Court observed : "As has been repeatedly pointed out b y this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day- to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable by practice." 8. Sri V. P. Misra. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Admissions Committee had no power to reduce the number of seats from 1200. The learned counsel for the respondents rew our attention to the report of the meeting of the Admissions Committee held on 22nd Sept. 1982. It was decided that 1172 students should be admitted to the LL.B. First year class for the session 1982-83. Annexure S.C.A. A1 is the report of the meeting of the Admissions Committee held on 3rd and 12th April 1984. It was decided that 600 students would he admitted to the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1982-82 and that a similar number of students would he admitted to the LL.B. First class of the Session 1983-84. Annexure S.C.A.A2 is a report of the Admissions Committee held on 4th May 1984 and 6th May 1984. In this meeting it was decided to admit 1200 students to the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1982-83 and 750 students to the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1983-84. It was submitted that the Admissions Committee had earl,e.t decided to admit 1172 students for the Session 1982- 83, but it revised the decision when admissions for two sessions had to be made in one academic year. It was submitted that the Admissions Committee had earl,e.t decided to admit 1172 students for the Session 1982- 83, but it revised the decision when admissions for two sessions had to be made in one academic year. It was urged that the Admissions Committee was competent to fix the number of student to be admitted. 9. Section 22 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1972 provides as below : 22. Admissions Committee - (1) There shall be an Admission Committee of the University, the constitution of which shall be such as may be provided for in the Ordinance. (2) The Admissions Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub committees as it thinks fit. (3) Subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council and to the provisions of sub-sec. (5), the Admissions Committee shall lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University, and may also nominate a person or a sub-committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an Institute ora constituent college maintained by the University. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (5) the committee may issue any direction as respects criteria or method of admissions including the number of students to be admitted to constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and affiliated or associated colleges, and such directions shall be binding on such colleges. (5) Admission to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education including the number of students to be admitted shall be regulated by such orders as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make in that behalf. (6) No student admitted to any college in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University, and the Vice- Chancellor shall have the power to cancel any admission made in such contravention. The words 'including the number of students to be admitted' in sub-ss. (4) and (5) 'were inserted by U. P. Act No. 21 of 1975... 10. Sri B. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under sub- s. (2) the Admissions Committee had powers to lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University. (4) and (5) 'were inserted by U. P. Act No. 21 of 1975... 10. Sri B. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under sub- s. (2) the Admissions Committee had powers to lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University. Under sub-s. (4) the Admissions Committee was empowered to issue directions as respect to criteria or methods of admission. The power in sub-sec. (3) was more comprehensive and as such the Legislature in its wisdom added the words 'including the number of students to be admitted' in sub-ss. (4) and (5) only. 11. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the omission to insert these words in sub-sec. (3) shows that the Legislature did not confer this power on the Admissions Committee. We are of the opinion that under sub-sec. (3) the Admissions Committee was empowered to law down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission. This was in terms wide enough to fix the number of students also. We accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that no amendment was considered necessary in sub- sec. (2) as the power already given was wide enough and included the power to fix then umber of students to be admitted. This power may have been specifically provided for in sub-sec. (4) which relates to constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and affiliated or associated colleges so that the latter could not challenge the authority of the Admissions Committee in this regard. It is inconceivable that the Admissions Committee should have powers to fix the number of students to be admitted to the constituent colleges maintained by the State Government or affiliated or associated colleges, but should have no power to fix the number of students to be admitted to various courses of studies in the University itself. There was a backlog of two years in making admissions to LL.B. First year classes commencing from 16th July 1984. It was, therefore, necessary for the Admissions Committee to prescribe the number of the students to be admitted for each Session. There was a backlog of two years in making admissions to LL.B. First year classes commencing from 16th July 1984. It was, therefore, necessary for the Admissions Committee to prescribe the number of the students to be admitted for each Session. We hold that the Admissions Committee was competent to decide that the number of students to be admitted for the Session 1982- 83 would not exceed 900 and the number of students to be admitted for the Session 1983- 84 would not exceed 750. 12. We are unable to accept that it was an unreasonable classification. The admissions had to be made for two Sessions. It was but necessary for the Admissions Committee to fix the number of students for the two sessions. With the same available accommodation and the same strength of teachers the Admissions Committee could not admit an unlimited number of students to either Session. If the University could normally cope with 1200 students in LL.B. First year class every year, the strength was increased to 1650 in view of the special difficulties. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act and omission on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no question,of any discrimination as no candidate having lesser marks than the petitioner was admitted in the LL.B. First year class for the Session 1982-83. 14. The petitioner obtained 414 marks and the last candidate admitted in the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1982-83 had 422 marks. The petitioner had not applied for admission to the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1983-84. The request made by him vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition for treating his application for admission for the LL.B. First year class of 1983-84 could not be accepted. He had only applied for admission to the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1982-83 and in the absence of any separate application for admission to the LL.B. First year class of the Session 1983-84, his application could not be treated as one for admission to the said class. The notice vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition was issued by the Chairman. Law Admissions Committee for the Session 1983-84. The notice vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition was issued by the Chairman. Law Admissions Committee for the Session 1983-84. It was not issued by the Chairman, Law Admissions Committee for the Session 1982-83 only 11 seats were vacant in the LL.B. First year class of the session 1983-84 and notice was issued in respect of these seats. The Committee could only consider those candidates who had applied for admission to the LL.B. First year. class of the Session 1983-84. The petitioner not being one of them could not justifiably claim to be considered for admission on the ground that he had also secured 414 marks. He could have a ground only if he had also applied for admission to the said Session. It is, therefore, obvious that there was no discrimination against the petitioner and we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel in this regard. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the respondents are responsible for the delay in the commencement of LL.B. First year class for the two Sessions and the petitioner should not stiffer on account of the same. He contended that if the seats had been 1200, all the 1000 students including the petitioner could have been admitted. The learned counsel for the respondents placed the responsibility for the delay squarely on the students who indulged in strike and other acts of indiscipline, which resulted in the closure of the University. We cannot apportion blame for the delay. The fact remains that admissions have been made for the two sessions in the same year. It is not reasonable to expect the University to admit 1200 students in each Session. The University has admitted 1650 students for both the Sessions and in view of the increase permitted by the respondents in the number of students to be admitted, it could only be said that the respondents have tried to accommodate as many students as possible. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the same number of lava teachers have to cope with the work. They will have lo make extra efforts to complete the course of studies of the increased number of students. It is unfortunate that there has been a delay of two years in the admission, but the respondents cannot be solely blamed for it. 16. The petition is dismissed. They will have lo make extra efforts to complete the course of studies of the increased number of students. It is unfortunate that there has been a delay of two years in the admission, but the respondents cannot be solely blamed for it. 16. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the costs shall be easy.