JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.—This judgment will be read along with the interim directions given at the time of the issue of the notice of the petition on October 20, 1987. 2. The petitioner was born on February 1, 1968. She passed the B. Sc. Part-III examination in April 1987 with 60.5% marks in the non-medical subjects. She sought admission in the Government College of Education, Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as "the College") in the academic session 1987-88, in order to prosecute further studies for obtaining the B. Ed, Degree. 3. The College is provisionally affiliated to the fourth respondent-University. It is subject to its regulatory control to the extent provided in the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, the First Statutes of the Himachal Pradesh University and the First Ordinances of the Himachal Pradesh University (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", "the Statutes" and "the Ordinances", respectively). 4. The admission in the B. Ed. Course in the College is governed by the conditions prescribed in the Handbook of Information issued by the State Government. Those instructions purport to prescribe, inter alia, the eligibility for admission. The eligibility clause number 13 purports to prescribe, inter alia, the minimum and maximum age of the candidates seeking admission and it reads as follows :— "Age Minimum age 20 years on 15th July, 1987 and Maximum 25 years relaxable in case of reserve categories as per State Rules." The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the denial of the admission to her in the B. Ed. Course on the basis of the prescription of the minimum age as aforesaid, since she had not attained the age of 20 years on July 15, 1987, has preferred the present writ petition, challenging the prescription of the minimum age as aforesaid and the consequential refusal of the admission. 5. Course on the basis of the prescription of the minimum age as aforesaid, since she had not attained the age of 20 years on July 15, 1987, has preferred the present writ petition, challenging the prescription of the minimum age as aforesaid and the consequential refusal of the admission. 5. Ordinance 38.5 (e) and Ordinance 3.3 contained in Chapter XXXVIII and III respectively of Volume-I, Part-1 of the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University read as follows :— "38.5 (e) that every affiliated college or institution shall observe the rules laid down by the University regarding admission to colleges or institutions, strength of students in a class or section and the residence and discipline of students." * * * "3.3 Except in the Correspondence Courses and the Evening Colleges or evening classes attached to College/Teaching Departments of the University, a student, who has attained the age of 20 years in case of Pre-University class, 21 years in the case of B. A. B. Sc. & B. Com Class, 24 years in the case of M. A., M. Sc. MBA. LL. B. and B. Ed. class on the 8th of July of the year concerned: Provided that in each the upper limit will be raised by three years for students belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, shall not be admitted to any college affiliated to or maintained by the University or in the classes attached to the University Department of Studies. Provided, however, that age bar shall not apply in the case of in service students, the State/Government of India nominees, Ex-Servicemen and war Widows." 6. As pointed out in the interim order dated October 20, 1987, it is apparent on a bare reading of the aforementioned Ordinance 3.3 that the eligibility clause number 13 prescribed in the Handbook of Information, in so far as it purports to prescribe the minimum age for admission in the B. Ed. Course, is not in accord with the said ordinance in more than one respect. What is material to be noticed for the present purposes, however, is that where Ordinance 3.3 does not prescribe any minimum age for admission, the eligibility clause number 13 purports to do so. The competent authority could not have prescribed such a condition in light of the provisions of Ordinance 3.3 read with Ordinance 38.5 (e). 7. What is material to be noticed for the present purposes, however, is that where Ordinance 3.3 does not prescribe any minimum age for admission, the eligibility clause number 13 purports to do so. The competent authority could not have prescribed such a condition in light of the provisions of Ordinance 3.3 read with Ordinance 38.5 (e). 7. The respondents were directed to file an affidavit-in-reply dealing, inter alia, with the question of the validity of the purported prescription of the minimum age limit in face of the provisions aforementioned contained in the ordinances of the respondent-University and setting out the plea in justification, if any, of the said eligibility qualification. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Director of Education on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 fails to make out any convincing plea in support of the validity, although it seeks to justify the prescription of such a condition on certain grounds. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the fourth respondent-University states in no uncertain terms that Ordinance 3.3 prescribes only the upper age limit and that all the Colleges, whether maintained by or affiliated to the respondent-University, are bound by the conditions and requirements contained in the relevant Ordinances of the University, According to the respondent-University, the affiliated Colleges cannot prescribe age for admission to a course or class which conflicts with the provisions of the relevant Ordinances and that, in the present case, 20 years as the minimum age for admission in the B, Ed. Course in the College is incapable of being prescribed legally and if so prescribed is not capable of being given effect to the detriment of a candidate seeking admission in the College. 8. There is no manner of doubt, therefore, that clause number 13 of the Handbook of Information, in so far as it prescribes 20 as the minimum age as on July 15, 1987, for a candidate seeking admission in the College, being ultra-vires Ordinance 3.3 is to that extent unenforceable. The petitioner could not, therefore, have been denied admission on the ground that she had not attained the age of 20 years on July 15, 1987, since she was otherwise eligible and entitled to admission on the basis of her merit. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned portion of condition number 13 prescribing the minimum age is struck down. The petitioner could not, therefore, have been denied admission on the ground that she had not attained the age of 20 years on July 15, 1987, since she was otherwise eligible and entitled to admission on the basis of her merit. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned portion of condition number 13 prescribing the minimum age is struck down. Respondent No. 1 to 3 will regularise the provisional admission granted to the petitioner pursuant to the interim order issued on October 2, 1987. An additional seat shall be created, if necessary, in order to comply with the writ. The deficiency, if any, in attending the classes shall also be condoned. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 20-10-1987. Present: — Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri I. S. Panta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Bhawani Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Notice returnable on November 13, 1987. The learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of the notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Bhawani Singh on behalf of respondent No. 4. Affidavit(s)-in-reply to be separately filed by and on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4, on or before November 9, 1987. Ordinance 38.5 (e) contained in Chapter XXXVIII (Affiliation and Recognition of Colleges and Institutions) of Volume-I, Part-I of the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinances") reads as follows:— "(e) that every affiliated college or institution shall observe the rules laid down by the University regarding admission to colleges or institutions, strength of students in a class or section and the residence and discipline of students." Ordinance 3.3 contained in Chapter III (Admission) of the Ordinances reads as follows: "3.3 Except in the Correspondence Courses and the Evening Colleges or evening classes attached to College Teaching Departments of the University, a student, who has attained the age of SO years in case of Pre-University class, 21 years in the case of B. A., B. Sc. & B. Com, class, 24 years in the case of M. A., M. Sc, MBA., LL. B. and B. Ed. & B. Com, class, 24 years in the case of M. A., M. Sc, MBA., LL. B. and B. Ed. class on the 8th of July of the year concerned; Provided that in each the upper limit will be raised by three years for students belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, shall not be admitted to any college affiliated to or maintained by the University or in the classes attached to the University Department of Studies. Provided, however, that age bar shall not apply in the case of in service students, the State Government of India nominees, Ex-Servicemen and War Widows. It is apparent, on a bare reading of the aforementioned Ordinance No, 3.3, that the eligibility clause 13 prescribed in the Handbook of Information for Government College of Education, Dharamshala, is not in accord with the said ordinance in more than one respect. What is material for the present purposes, however, is that whereas Ordinance 3.3 does not prescribe any minimum age for admission to the B. Ed. Course, the eligibility clause 13 purports to do so. Prima facie, the competent authority could not have prescribed such a condition in light of the provisions of Ordinance 3.3 read with Ordinance 38.5 (e). The affidavits-in-reply directed to be filed as aforesaid will specifically deal with this question and the plea in justification, if any, and validity, if any, of the disputed eligibility qualification will be precisely incorporated in the affidavits-in-reply. Rule made absolute. -