JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Aggrieved by the action of the University of Allahabad in not admitting her to the L.L.B. course for 1984-85 Session, Petitioner Anamika Misra has approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. After the petition was presented on 29th of July, 1985, Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Counsel for the University, took time from this Court for obtaining instructions from the University and placing its point of view before the Court. Although the University has not filed any affidavit, it has given necessary instructions to Sri Gupta, who has placed its point of view before the Court. In as much as the petition can be disposed of on the basis of certain facts regarding which there is no dispute between the parties, we are, with the consent of parties, proceeding to pass final orders on the petition at the preliminary stage itself. 3. After the Petitioner passed her Intermediate examination in the year 1979, she joined the B.A. Part I year class of the University in the later part of that very year. In normal course, final examination for the said course should have taken place sometimes in the months of March/April, 1981, but due to certain reasons, holding of the said examination was delayed and it actually took place in the months of March/April, 1982. The Petitioner passed the said examination securing 527 marks out of 900 marks. Thereafter she joined M.A Philosophy course for the year 1981-82 Session, admission in respect whereof too had been delayed The final year examination for the said M.A. course, which should normally have taken place in the months of March/April, 1983, eventually took place in the month of January, 1985 and the result thereof was declared in the month of April, 1985. 4. After appearing in the M.A. (Final) Examination, the Petitioner applied for admission to the 1st year course of LL.B. for the year 1984-85 in the month of January, 1985. Admissions to the said course were to be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in their graduation degree examinations. Although the last candidate admitted to the said LL.B. course had merely secured 452 out of 900 marks in his B.A. examination, the University did not admit the Petitioner who had seemed 527/900 marks in her B.A. examination. 5. Although the last candidate admitted to the said LL.B. course had merely secured 452 out of 900 marks in his B.A. examination, the University did not admit the Petitioner who had seemed 527/900 marks in her B.A. examination. 5. On behalf of the University, it is not disputed that admissions to the LL.B. Examination course is made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in their Bachelor's Degree Examination subject, however, to Rule 27 of the Admission Rules, which runs thus: 27. For admission to any course/subject, preference shall be given to fresh graduates over graduates of previous years and to graduates of a particular year over graduates of the year preceding it. Provided that a candidate who has graduated one or more years prior to fresh graduates may be considered for admission subject to cumulative discount at the rate of 5 per cent of standardize total for each academic gear elapsing since the year of his graduation. It urged that the Petitioner was graduate of the academic year 1980-81, she was a fresh graduate in respect of admission to the LL.B. course for the academic year 1981-82 and for admission to that course could have been considered on the basis of the marks obtained by her in the B.A. examination. She sought admission to the 1982-83 LL.B. course her marks for the purpose would have been computed after deducting 5 per cent marks from out of the total marks secured by her. Likewise, a deduction of 10 per cent marks for her admission to 1983-84 course and that of 15 per cent marks for her admission to the 1984-85 LL.B. course had to be made. So computed, the Petitioner will be deemed to have secured 447.95 marks only. Inasmuch as the last of the candidates admitted to the said LL.B. comes had secured 452 marks, Petitioner's claim for admission on the basis of the marks obtained by her in her B.A. examination cannot be countenanced. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the University has misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of Rule 27 mentioned above and it has erred in computing, for purposes of admission to LL.B. course, the marks obtained by her in her B.A. examination. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the University has misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of Rule 27 mentioned above and it has erred in computing, for purposes of admission to LL.B. course, the marks obtained by her in her B.A. examination. According to her correctly computed, it will be found that she had secured more marks than that secured by the last candidate admitted by the University to the said LL.B. course and that in the circumstances, the University is not justified in refusing admission to her. 7. Rule 27, quoted above, clearly postulates that admission to Post Graduate courses, including law, are to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the bachelors degree examination but in the process fresh graduates are to be preferred to graduates of previous years and graduate of a particular year is to be preferred to a graduate of the year preceding the same. In the context the expression "fresh graduate " used in the Rule connotes those candidates who pass the bachelor's degree examination and thus become eligible For admission to the post graduate and LLB. courses after last admissions to the concerned post graduate or LL.B- courses were made, and the expression " academic year of graduation " means the academic year in which the concerned candidate has actually graduated. The method of giving such preference, laid divan in proviso to Rule 27 is that in cases of graduates who become eligible for seeking admission to the concerned Course during any academic year, prior to the academic year of fresh graduates, total marks obtained by them have to be reduced by 5 per cent for each such year elapsing after the academic year in respect of which they were entitled to be treated as fresh graduates within the meaning of the Rules. Intention of the rule clearly is that whereas in the case of fresh graduates, full marks obtained by them in the Bachelor's degree examination should be taken into consideration, in cases of candidates graduating during earlier academic years, the total marks obtained by them are to be reduced by 5 per cent in respect of each such academic year following the academic year in respect of which they are to be treated as fresh graduates in which they could have sought admission to the LL.B. 1st year course. In other words five per cent marks can be deducted only for those intervening academic year during which a candidate did not avail opportunity of seeking admission to a particular course after his graduation. Their cases for admission to the LL.B. course had therefore to be considered on the basis of the marks so computed. The stand of the University also is that the expression 4 academic year ' used in the rule means the period of 12 calendar months between 1st July of a calendar year to 30th of June of the following calendar year. 8. Even though the Petitioner was admitted to B.A. 1st year course in the year 1979 and in the normal course she would have appeared in the month of March/April, 1981, holding of such examination was actually delayed. The examination took place only in the months of March/April, 1982 i. e. during academic year 1981-82 and the Petitioner was declared successful therein. The Petitioner bad thus actually graduated during the academic year 1981-82 which, for the purposes of the rule, has to be treated as the academic year of her graduation. She was a fresh graduate in respect of the admission to the LL.B. courses made during the academic year 1982-83. Her request for admission to such courses, if made, had to be considered on the basis of the marks obtained by her in her B.A. examination without any deduction. Her request for admission to such course, if made during the academic year 1983-84 had to be considered after discounting 5 per cent marks from the total marks obtained by her in the B.A. examination and that made during the academic year 1984-85 by discounting only 10 per cent marks from the total marks obtained by her in the B.A. examination. As the Petitioner made the application for admission to the LL.B. course for the 1984-85 session in the month of January, 1985, i e. during the academic year 1984-85, the University was not justified in considering her request for admission to the said LL B. course after discounting 15 per cent marks from the total marks secured by her. In the circumstances it could discount the total marks obtained by the Petitioner in her B.A. examination at the most by 10 per cent only. In the circumstances it could discount the total marks obtained by the Petitioner in her B.A. examination at the most by 10 per cent only. So discounting the total mark obtained by the Petitioner in her B.A. its computed value, for purposes of admission to the 1984-83 LLB. course, comes to 464.3 (527-52.7). Since he total marks secured by the last candidate admitted to the said LL.B. course was only 452, the Petitioner ranked higher than him in merit and was clearly entitled to admission to the said course. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondent University is directed to arnica the Petitioner to the 1984-85 LI if course.