ORDER Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The petitioner applied for admission to M.Sc. (Zoology) Course in the Presidency College (Autonomous), Madras 5, for the academic year 1988-89 and received the acknowledgement card dated 29.6.1988 for the receipt and registration of his application. He was assigned the Registration Number Z-45. 2. For the admission to 1988-89 academic year, the Presidency College, Madras, issued prospectus for M.A., M.Sc., M.Com., M.Phil., etc., mentioning the eligibility qualifications, etc. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to apply for the course. It may be stated at this stage that there are only 18 seats for the I year M.Sc., (Zoology). The first selection list was published on 9.7.1988 and ten out of eighteen students seem to have joined the course after the interview on 19.7.1988. A Waiting List was also published on 19.7.1988 mentioning eighteen other names and six from this list joined after attending the interview on 20.7.1988. A second Waiting List was prepared on 29.7.1988 to fill up the remaining two vacancies and the petitioner's name was not considered. On 30.7.1988 respondents 4 and 5, who appear in person today before this Court, and who admittedly got lesser marks than the petitioner were given admission. It is an admission of fact that the names of neither the petitioner nor respondents 4 and 5 found a place in the main list or in the waiting list published on 9.7.1988. The petitioner waited for a reply from the College and approached the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Madras, personally and he also sent a petition to him on 1.8.1988 by registered post. It seems respondents 4 and 5 were admitted on the spot by issue of slips on 29.7.1988. 3. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that his non-selection to the M.Sc., Course is illegal and against all canons of law. He further alleges that he has been singled out and respondents 4 and 5 who have secured lesser marks have been admitted to the course without any interview. He further states that there is no rule or regulation prescribed either in the prospectus or anywhere in respect of the slip system for selection, apart from the waiting list. He further alleges that he has been singled out and respondents 4 and 5 who have secured lesser marks have been admitted to the course without any interview. He further states that there is no rule or regulation prescribed either in the prospectus or anywhere in respect of the slip system for selection, apart from the waiting list. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for the issue of a writ of ceriorarified mandamus calling for the entire records of respondents 2 and 3 in selecting respondents 4 and 5 for admission to the M.Sc., (Zoology) Course 1988-89 in Presidency College, Madras-5, and to quash the same and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to admit the petitioner to the said course. 4. Notice of motion was ordered by Sivasubramaniam, J., on 9.8.1988. Respondents have entered appearance. Learned Government Advocate has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. By consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing today. 5. In the counter-affidavit, the main point stated is that the petitioner's application was not considered as per the resolution of the College Committee for Selection, consisting of the Principal and three Senior Professors, and formed as per Government Guidelines, to the effect that students who had joined and left other colleges in the middle of the academic course need not be considered for admission in the College during 1988-89. It is the admitted case that the petitioner joined the Madura Diraviyam Thayumanavar Hindu College, Tirunelveli, in M.A. (Tamil) during 1987-88 and left the college on 30.9.1987. The counter affidavit further states that since there were large number of fresh applicants, the repeaters could not be considered. With regard to the admission of respondents 4 and 5, it is stated that they were admitted only on merit on 30.7.1988. The counter-affidavit further states that the Selection Committee is responsible for admission and it can pass resolutions which are not against the guidelines prescribed by the Government and it is not contrary to University regulations. With regard to the admission of respondents 4 and 5, it is stated that they were admitted only on merit on 30.7.1988. The counter-affidavit further states that the Selection Committee is responsible for admission and it can pass resolutions which are not against the guidelines prescribed by the Government and it is not contrary to University regulations. It is categorically stated in the counter that the petitioner cannot be treated along with fresh candidates as he was given an opportunity to pursue higher studies, but failed to utilise the same, and as such he can be given a seat only when there is vacancy after considering the applications of fresh candidates In view of this, the counter proceeds to say that, the action of the respondents is not violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution. It further states that since no slip was received from the petitioner on 29.7.1988 along with others, the petitioner cannot complain of violation of natural justice, because slips were issued to fill up casual vacancies on the last date of admission, after making proper notification on 2717.1988 inviting applications. It further states that the spot admission is the procedure followed by all Government Colleges in the State to fill up casual vacancies on the last date of admission, as there is not enough time for communication. 6. I have heard Mr. Raghupathi, learned Counsel for petitioner, and Mrs. Saraswathi Prasad, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. After considering the arguments of either side, I am of the view that the reasoning given by respondents 1 to 3 cannot at all be sustained. 7. The main ground for refusing admission to the petitioner is that he is a repeater. I do not understand the meaning of the word 'repeater', especially when the student has not completed his studies earlier in a particular course joined in a different college and has come out in the middle of the year without any stigma on his part due to certain other reasons. It is true that the petitioner has not shown in the particular column in the application, the reason for his discontinuance of studies during 1987-88, but that alone will not be a reason for the respondents to deny him a seat, if he is otherwise fully qualified. Learned Government Advocate relies on the guidelines for the autonomous colleges. It is true that the petitioner has not shown in the particular column in the application, the reason for his discontinuance of studies during 1987-88, but that alone will not be a reason for the respondents to deny him a seat, if he is otherwise fully qualified. Learned Government Advocate relies on the guidelines for the autonomous colleges. Paragraph 10 of the communication from the University of Madras to the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 23.9.1987 provides that the Presidency College is empowered to set up various Committees, one of which is the Admission Committee. I do not see any guidelines prescribed for the Admission Committee to prescribe norms and regulations for admission. If the Selection Committee has prescribed norms and regulations, they should have been mentioned in the prospectus issued to the students who apply for admission. 8. While considering the term 'prospectus' with regard to education, a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. A. Rathinaswamy v. Director of Medical Education 1986 Writ L.R.207 held as under: A prospectus issued with regard to admission to educational courses is a declaration to the candidates that a field for development of educational potentialities is available for exploration and that there could be a chance of success....It is highly desirable that a summary or an essence of the relevant norms and rules governing such admissions are set out in the prospectus themselves or their existence at lease is indicated therein. But an omission to do so shall not be taken advantage of by anyone to negate and ignore the very norms and rules. In that case, the question about reservation came up for consideration and the only aspect argued before the Division Bench was that, the norms of reservation having not been expressed in the prospectus, they could not be implemented. The Government set out the norms with regard to reservation and it was not a case where a condition like the present one, which was made by the Selection Committee themselves, was questioned viz. repeater should not be considered for admission. 9. Learned Government Advocate relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Suganthi v. State of Tamil Nadu 1984 Writ L.R. 249, wherein Clause 7(1) of the prospectus issued by the Medical College was considered. repeater should not be considered for admission. 9. Learned Government Advocate relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Suganthi v. State of Tamil Nadu 1984 Writ L.R. 249, wherein Clause 7(1) of the prospectus issued by the Medical College was considered. Factually, in that case, candidates who have already joined other professional courses and who have undergone six months course therein, were banned from applying fro admission to M.B.B.S. Course. Though the Division Bench observed that the selection of best candidates for admission to available seats in different category in professional colleges, with an eye to restrict the number on some reasonable basis, since the colleges cannot hold beyond a particular number of students, is a power given to the authorities after evolving certain policies for the selection, one should not lose sight of the fact that the policy was clearly mentioned in Clause 7(1) of the prospectus in that case. This case is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 10. The Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati A.I.R. 1983 S.C.581, considered the duty of the Authorities regarding spot admissions and observed thus: It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set clown by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students who are wrongly or purposefully left out. In the instant case, admittedly respondents 4 and 5 have got lesser marks than the petitioner and their admission is irregular. The petitioner had no opportunity to take part in the spot admissions and it is not enough that the College Authorities put up a notice on their Board with regard to such spot admissions. As an autonomous College, the Authorities should have published about the vacancies and allowed all candidates, like that of the petitioner, to avail of the benefit. It cannot be said that spot admission in this case is on extraneous consideration, but surely the Authorities have not acted fairly and objectively. 11. As an autonomous College, the Authorities should have published about the vacancies and allowed all candidates, like that of the petitioner, to avail of the benefit. It cannot be said that spot admission in this case is on extraneous consideration, but surely the Authorities have not acted fairly and objectively. 11. It may be apt to refer in this context to the following observations of the Supreme Court in J.P. Kulahewarha v. Allahabad University : Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. (Italic is ours) 12. A note book containing the resolutions of the Selection Committee of Presidency College, Madras-5, was produced before me and, in that, On 20.6.1988, the following resolution is stated to have been passed: It is resolved that students who have left other Colleges in the middle of the academic course need not be considered for admission during the year 1988-89, as they have already been given an opportunity to further their studies. This resolution admittedly is after the issue of prospectus and receipt of applications for the course. If the College Committee wanted to have this type of ban, they should have published the same in the prospectus, so that unfortunate students like the petitioner would not have ventured to apply for the said course. The condition that a repeater should not be considered has no nexus with the policy of admission to a course of study. Surely if offends the fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. This condition will ruin the life of many unfortunate students. For example, a student may discontinue his studies due to poverty, ill-health or pressing family circumstances in a particular year. If the reason given by the Selection Committee is to be accepted, then unfortunate candidates like the petitioner will have no opportunity at all to further their studies later in their life. For example, a student may discontinue his studies due to poverty, ill-health or pressing family circumstances in a particular year. If the reason given by the Selection Committee is to be accepted, then unfortunate candidates like the petitioner will have no opportunity at all to further their studies later in their life. It is one thing to state that a student who has discontinued his studies on account of his misconduct or some disciplinary proceedings by a College, need not be considered for admission, but simply because a student has discontinued his studies in the previous year he should be prevented from continuing his studies next year and that too in a new course (in this case, M.Sc.-(Zoology) has no meaning at all. Actually, in the instant case, the petitioner had studied only M.A. (Tamil) the previous year and he had applied for M.Sc. (Zoology) this academic year and he cannot even be termed as a 'repeater' strictly. As such, I am of opinion that the respondents' action in not considering the petitioner for admission is wholly unjustified. I hold so, in the background that respondents 4 and 5, who have got lesser marks, have been given seat. 13. Though I hold that the unreasonable rejection of the petitioner's claim for admission has to be rectified by the third respondent, by allotting him a seat in the College, I do not want to disturb the admissions already granted to respondents 4 and 5, following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 581 wherein it has been observed thus: The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made. The authorities who made admissions by ignoring the rules of admission cannot be allowed to contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of Hence, I direct respondents 2 and 3 to get the approval of the University for an extra seat in M.Sc.(Zoology) for the academic year 1988-89 under these special circumstances. I am sure the university of Madras will consider this case and sanction an extra seat. 14. I am sure the university of Madras will consider this case and sanction an extra seat. 14. I do hope that the third respondent will give effect to the order within two weeks from the receipt of the order so that the petitioner will not lose his term days further. I may further observe that autonomous College does not mean that it can follow a procedure arbitrarily without having the fundamental principles of natural justice in mind, it is better, though the College is autonomous, to publish all conditions for admission in the prospectus itself, in future, so that cases like the present one is so glaringly unreasonable, this Court. It is true that in academic matters, this Court will be very slow in interfering with decisions of the Authorities, but when a condition like the present one is so glarisingly unreasonable, this Court has to extend its arm under Article 226 of the Constitution to the poor unfortunate student. 15. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.