JUDGMENT H.N. Setb, A.C.J. 1. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in not admitting him to B. Tech. Course of the Allahabad University for the Session 1984-85, Petitioner Surendra Pal has approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. For the year 1984-85 there were 30 seats in the B. Tech. Course run by the Allahabad University. According to the criteria laid down by the Admission Committee, admissions to the said Course were to be made on the basis of comparative merit as disclosed by the marks obtained by various candidates in their B.Sc. examinations. The University invited applications for admission to the said B. Tech. Course by 18.3.1985. Petitioner Surendra Pal who had secured 581 marks in his B. Sc. examination also made an application for admission to the said B. Tech. Course. On 1.3.1985 Major S.S. Roy Chowdhury of 4 Infantry Division addressed a letter to the Vice-chancellor of the Allahabad University forwarding therewith the application received by him from Sub-Maj. T.R. Verma, father of the Petitioner, regarding weighiage being given to the sons of Army personnels in the matter of admission to B.Tech. Course of the University. The Vice-Chancellor forwarded the letter received by him from Maj. Chowdhury to Prof. S.R. Sinha, Chairman of the Admission Committee on 2.3.1985 after making following endorsement thereon: It appears to me that some weightage for wards of Defence personnel will be in order. This is being done in all Indian Universities. You may like to bring this matter before the Admission Committee. Prof. S.R. Sinha, Chairman of the Admission Committee, appeared to agree with the Vice-chancellor. Accordingly on 15.3.1985 he made the following note on the letter of Maj. Chowdhury: I suggest that 5% weightage on the standardised marks of the category of candidates be given. You may, if you think it proper, approve of this and I may be allowed to report the matter to the Admission Committee in its next meeting. It appears that before the matter could be placed before the Admission Committee in its next meeting which took place on 26.3.1985, the Admission Committee released a list of 28 candidates selected for admission to the said B. Tech. Course on 18.3.1985. The said list indicated that the candidates securing 601 marks and above in their B.Sc. Examinations had been admitted. 3. Course on 18.3.1985. The said list indicated that the candidates securing 601 marks and above in their B.Sc. Examinations had been admitted. 3. The Petitioner claims that a meeting of the Admission Committee took place on 26.3.1985 and in that meeting the Committee passed a resolution for giving 5% weightage to the wards of army personnel. In support of this plea learned Counsel for the Petitioner strongly relied upon the following endorsement made by Prof. S.R. Sinha, Chairman of the Admission Committee on the letter from Maj. Chowdhury: Weightage approved by the Admission Committee on 26.3.1985. Sd. S.R. Sinha 26.3.1985. Subsequently the Admission Committee released a further list of three more candidates admitting them to the said B. Tech. Course on 1-4-1985. These three candidates had received 653, 625 and 604 marks respectively in their B.Sc. Examinations. 4. The stand taken by the Petitioner is that he was, being the son of army personnel, entitled to 5% weightage as per resolution of the Admission Committee dated 26.3.1985. Taking into account the said weightage the merit of the Petitioner for the purpose of admission to B.Tech. Course had to be judged on the basis that he had secured 610 marks in the B. Sc. Examination (581 + 5% weightage thereof). According to the Petitioner, the University had made admissions to the B. Tech. Course arbitrarily by leaving out persons securing higher marks in the B. Sc. Examinations and admitting persons who bad secured higher marks in their respective B.Sc. Examinations. In as much as the persons securing less than 610 marks in the B.Sc. Examinations had been admitted by the University to its B.Tech. Course, the Petitioner was also entitled to be so admitted. 5. On behalf of the University it is seriously disputed that the Admission Committee passed any resolution giving, in the matter of admission to B. Tech. Course, 5% weightage to the wards of army personnel. Despite the endorsement dated 26.3.1985 made by Professor S.R. Sinha (who unfortunately is now dead) on the letter of Maj. Chowdhury, to the effect that weightage had been approved by the Admission Committee on 26.3.1985 the stand taken by the University is that no such resolution was passed by the Admission Committee in its meeting which took place on 26.3.1985. Despite the endorsement dated 26.3.1985 made by Professor S.R. Sinha (who unfortunately is now dead) on the letter of Maj. Chowdhury, to the effect that weightage had been approved by the Admission Committee on 26.3.1985 the stand taken by the University is that no such resolution was passed by the Admission Committee in its meeting which took place on 26.3.1985. In support of this submission the University has along with an affidavit filed the minutes of the said meeting which do not mention anything about any weightage being given to the sons and wards of army personnel in the matter of admission to post-graduate courses. The genuineness of the said minutes has been seriously disputed by the Petitioner who also referred us to certain circumstances which indicated that the University was in the matter of admissions treating the sons and wards of army personnel in a special category entitled to some preferential treatment over the general candidates. However, in the view which we are going to take, in this case it, is not necessary for us to resolve this controversy. For our purposes we shall assume that the Admission Committee had in its meeting on 26.3.1985, decided that in the matter of admission to B. Tech. Course 5% weightage should be given to the sons and wards of defence personnel. The main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether in such circumstances the Petitioner can derive any advantage from the said resolution in so far as the question of his admission to 1984-85 B. Tech. Course is concerned. 6. It is not disputed before us that it is the Admission Committee appointed for the purpose which is to make admissions to various courses run by the University. Further it is for the Admission Committee itself to lay down the criteria for selecting candidates for admission to various courses in the University. It is not disputed that the criteria laid down by the Admission Committee for admission to the B. Tech. Course for the 1984-85 Session was comparative merit of the candidates computed on the basis of marks obtained by them in their respective B. Sc. Examination. There is no controversy that up to 26.3.1985 there was no resolution of the Admission Committee giving weight age to the wards of defence personnel. Course for the 1984-85 Session was comparative merit of the candidates computed on the basis of marks obtained by them in their respective B. Sc. Examination. There is no controversy that up to 26.3.1985 there was no resolution of the Admission Committee giving weight age to the wards of defence personnel. Averments made in various affidavits bring out that the University had fixed 18.3.1985 as the last date for receiving applications for admission to B. Tech. Course. On the same day the Admission Committee released a list of 28 candidates selected by it for admission to the B.Tech. Course. In that list the names of the candidates who had secured 601 marks and above in their B.Sc. Examinations had been included. Inasmuch as the Admission Committee had, by 18.3.1985, when it was making admission for the said B. Tech. Course, not decided to give any weight age to the wards of defence personnel, these was absolutely no question of giving preference to the Petitioner in the matter of admission to B.Tech. Course over any of the twenty eight candidates who had been selected for admission to B.Tech. Course on 18.3.1985. Whereas the Petitioner had secured only 581 marks in his B. Sc. Examination the names of the candidates securing 601 marks and above alone had been included in the list of selected candidates. 7. The case of the Petitioner, however, is that the Admission Committee released the second list on 1.4.1985. Before that date the resolution of the Admission Committee giving 5% weightage to the wards of defence service personnel had become effective. The three candidates who have been admitted under the list released on 1.4.1985 had secured 653, 615 and 604 marks respectively in their B.Sc. examinations. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the University has strongly refuted aforesaid submission made on behalf of the Petitioner. According to the University the admissions to fill all the thirty seats in B.Tech. Course was to be made on 18.3.1985. The Admission Committee had accordingly prepared a list of first 30 candidates who had secured the highest marks in their B. Sc. Examinations. The first two candidates mentioned in the first released on 1.4.1985 who had secured 653 and 615 marks in their respective B.Sc. examinations were entitled to be selected for admission to B. Tech. Course. The Admission Committee had accordingly prepared a list of first 30 candidates who had secured the highest marks in their B. Sc. Examinations. The first two candidates mentioned in the first released on 1.4.1985 who had secured 653 and 615 marks in their respective B.Sc. examinations were entitled to be selected for admission to B. Tech. Course. But due to certain reasons it was not possible for the Admission Committee to declare their admission on 18.3.1985; that is why the admission oc 28 candidates alone was announced and two seats were kept reserved for the aforementioned two candidates who had secured 653 and 615 marks in their respective B.Sc. Examinations, so that after requisite formalities were completed they could be accommodated for admission to the said B.Tech. Course. In the case of the third candidate in the list declared on 1.4.1985 it appears that it was by some mistake on the part of the Admission Committee that his name was not included in the list of candidates who were being admitted to the B. Tech. Course. When this mistake was discovered by the University and it found that persons securing lower marks than him had already been admitted to B. Tech. Course, the University admitted him as a special case, and that is how the names of three candidates were included in the list for admission to B. Tech. Course released on 1.4.1985. 9. We are impressed by the aforesaid explanation offered by the University. Having regard to the material brought on the resold by means of various affidavits, we have no hesitation in concluding that the admissions to B.Tech. Course for the Session 1984-85 had been made by the Admission Committee on 18.3.1985, on the basis of the criteria then prevailing. The announcement of admission in respect of the candidates whose names appeared in the list dated 1.4.1985 was delayed for the reasons already mentioned. All the thirty one candidates had thus been admitted to B. Tech. Course on the basis of the criteria as it prevailed on 18.3.1985. As already stated, on that date there was no question of, in the matter of admission, giving any weight age to the sons and wards of defence service personnel. All the thirty one candidates had thus been admitted to B. Tech. Course on the basis of the criteria as it prevailed on 18.3.1985. As already stated, on that date there was no question of, in the matter of admission, giving any weight age to the sons and wards of defence service personnel. Inasmuch as the Petitioner had secured marks lower than all the 31 candidates, who had been admitted to the B. Tech Course, he was, in the matter of admission, not entitled to claim any preference over any of them. 10. There is, however, one more aspect which has to be kept in mind for not accepting the Petitioner's case that while releasing the list of candidates selected for admission on 1.4.1985 the Admission Committee should have taken into consideration the resolution which was passed by it on 26.3.1985 giving 5% weight age to the wards of defennce personnel. 11. It cannot be doubted that so far as the 28 candidates whose names had been released for admission on 18.3.1985 had been properly selected on the basis of criteria for admission as prevailing on that date. Only two more seats remained to be filled. It is obvious that the admission to the said two seats could not be made by applying criteria different from that which was applied while making admission to first 28 seats. Application of different criteria for filling the remaining two seats would have led to an objectionable discrimination. In the circumstances, after making admission to 28 seats the admission to the remaining two seats had necessarily to be governed by that same criteria. Viewed in this light, any resolution passed by the Admission Committee on 26.3.1985 giving 5% weight age to the wards of defence service personnel could not be operative for admission to the 1984-85 B.Tech. Course. If at all, it would apply for admission to future course only. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that, as a matter of fact, the University for purposes of making admissions to the B. Tech. Course had acted arbitrarily inasmuch as ii had while issuing the list dated 18.3.198i selected certain candidates who had secured marks lower than the two candidates whose names appear at items No. 2 and 3 in the list released by them on 1.4.1985. Course had acted arbitrarily inasmuch as ii had while issuing the list dated 18.3.198i selected certain candidates who had secured marks lower than the two candidates whose names appear at items No. 2 and 3 in the list released by them on 1.4.1985. The circumstances in which the names of the candidates had been omitted from the list released on 18.3.1985 have already been mentioned above, and it cannot be said that the action or the Admission Committee in that regard was arbitrary. The Petitioner has not succeeded in showing that after ignoring the weight age which he claims and to which he is, according to not entitled, there is any candidate who has secured marks lower than him in his B. Sc. Examination who has been admitted to B. Tech. Course. 13. In the result the Petitioner has failed to convince us that he was entitled to be admitted to the B. Tech. Course for 1984-85 Session in preference to any of the candidates who had been so admitted by the University. 14. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.