JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions raise common questions for consideration and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. They relate to the introduction of a new education scheme in the State of Rajasthan which postulates education upto Higher Secondary level on 10+2 pattern followed by Three year Degree Course (TDC) of the various Universities in the State of Rajasthan, including the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the University' ). 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the Central Board) held in the year 1988. The Higher Secondary Course of the Central Board is on 10+2 pattern. Prior to the introduction of the new education scheme, the Higher Secondary Course conducted by the Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the "Rajasthan Board") was of 11 years on 10+1 pattern. Students after passing Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 basis were given admission in the first year TDC of the University. Students who passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Central Board on 10+2 pattern were given admission in the 2nd Year TDC of the University. As a result of the introduction of the new education scheme, the petitioners and other students who passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Central Board on the 10+2 pattern will be given admission to First Year TDC of the University, whereas the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 and joined the First Year TDC of the University will be admitted to Second Year TDC this year. The grievance of the petitioners is that under the new education scheme they and the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in the year 1988 have been placed at a disadvantage as compared to the students who passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in the year 1987. 3. The writ petitions have been contested by the University and a reply to the writ petitions has been filed on its behalf. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petitions and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the University. 5. 3. The writ petitions have been contested by the University and a reply to the writ petitions has been filed on its behalf. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petitions and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the University. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed before us the transitory provisions made by the University in order to give effect to the new education scheme. The said provisions have been added before Ordinance 202-A, 221 and 242-B of the Ordinance of the University. The transitory provisions which are relevant for the present writ petitions are as under : "1. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Ordinances, the First, Second and Final Year TDC Examinations of 10+1-1-3 pattern shall not be conducted by the University after the supplementary examinations of the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 respectively. 2. Only the candidates passing First Year TDC Examination (10+1+3 pattern) of this and other universities in Rajasthan shall be eligible for admission to the Second Year TDC class for the session 1988-89. The candidates passing the aforesaid examination from the Universities outside Rajasthan or the +2 examination of 10+2 scheme shall be eligible for admission to the BA /B.Sc./B. Com Part I Class as per rules for the said examination," 6. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that till 1990, the University will be conducting the Three-Year Degree Course under two schemes-the old scheme and the new scheme. The old scheme would be applicable to students who joined First Year TDC in the year 1987 and passed the First Year TDC Examination in the year 1988. These students shall be eligible for admission to the Second Year TDC in the 1988-89 session and they would be allowed to complete their studies for TCD till 1990 when the old scheme would be discontinued. The New Scheme is to commence from this academic year and it has been provided that students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 shall be admitted to First Year TDC under the New Scheme. The New Scheme is to commence from this academic year and it has been provided that students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 shall be admitted to First Year TDC under the New Scheme. With regard to the students who have passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1988, it has been provided that they would have to study for one more year for 12th Class (called Senior Secondary) in the school or in the pre-TDC in the University and they would be eligible for admission to the first year TDC under the New Scheme in the year 1989-90 session. 7. In the present case, we are only concerned with students who after passing 10th Class in 1986 joined 11th Class for Higher Secondary under the 10+2 pattern and have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in the year 1988, after completing two years' study after the 10th Class, Under the New Education Scheme, which has been brought into force this year, they can only be admitted to the First Year TDC They cannot seek admission to the Second Year TDC which facility was available to them prior to the introduction of the New Education Scheme. They would be completing their graduation on 10+2+3 pattern in 15 years. As compared to them, there are students who passed 10th Class in the year 1986 along with the petitioners and who joined the 11th Class for Higher Secondary Course of Rajasthan Board under the 10+1 pattern and after having passed the said examination in 1987, jointed the First Year TDC of the University in 1987 under the New Eduction Scheme, these students are entitled to continue their study for TDC by joining the Second Year TDC in 1988. These students would be able to complete their graduation on 10+1+3 pattern in 14 years. In other words, the students who have passed Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1984 have been placed at a disadvantage as compared to the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern inasmuch as the students falling in the first category will have to study for one more year for graduation. 8. Before we deal with the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on merits, we may examine the contentions of the learned Addl. 8. Before we deal with the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on merits, we may examine the contentions of the learned Addl. Advocate General by way of preliminary submissions. The learned Addl. Advocate General has contended that in these writ petitions the petitioners are seeking to challenge the validity of the education policy which has been adopted by the University and it is a settled law that the court does not interfere in educational matters except in exceptional circumstances and that in the matters of policy the court does not substitute its views in place of the views of the expert bodies. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned Addl. Advocate General has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in (1) University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 (2) K.P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, AIR 1984 SC 186 (3) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1513 and (4) State of U.P. Vs D.K. Singh, AIR 1987 SC 190 . 9. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , the Supreme Court was dealing with the question as to the validity of appointment on the post of Research Reader in English. The Supreme Court observed that when recommendations made by the Boards of Appointments nominated by the Universities and the appointments following on them are challenged, before courts normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts and that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who arc more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. In that case, the Supreme Court has, however, stressed that what the High Court should have considered is whether the appointment made by the Chancellor on the recommendations of the Board had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance In other words according to the said decision, the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while considering the validity of appointment on a teaching post in a University, can and should examine as to whether the appointment has been made in contravention of and statutory or binding rule or ordinance. 10. 10. In K.P. Gangiily v. University of Lucknow, AIR 1984 SC 186 , the question which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was regarding admission to the post graduate medical course. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court could not have given a go by to the rules framed by the Admission Committee and that it was a matter for decision of the academic body and since the academic body had applied the rules in a bona fide manner to all the students equally there was no jurisdiction (Sic justification) whatsoever on the part of the High Court to interfere with the internal working of an academic institution concerned with imparting higher education in the field of post-graduate course in medicine. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the rules had been applied in a bona fide manner to all students equally; whereas in the present case, the grievance of the petitioners is that the new education policy is being implemented in a manner as to result in discrimination against them. 11. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543 , the Supreme Court was dealing with the validity of the regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education whereby it was provided that no re-valuation of the answer books or supplementary shall be done and no candidate shall claim or be entitled to claim a revaluation of his answer- books. Upholding the validity of the said regulation the Supreme Court observed that 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-today working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. 12. State of U.P. v. D.K. Singh, AIR 1987 SC 190 , related to admission to the post-graduate medical course. 12. State of U.P. v. D.K. Singh, AIR 1987 SC 190 , related to admission to the post-graduate medical course. The Supreme Court has observed that the question whether a course of study should commence in January or July o 4 year in a post-graduate medical institution is dependent upon a number of factors like availability seats, the availability of beds in the Hospital, the availability of teachers, laboratories and equipment and perhaps a host of other factors with which we are not familiar and that ordinarily, should be a matter best left to the University. 13. In this context, we may mention that the decision of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , has been noticed by the Supreme Court in (5) M. C. Gupta & Ors. v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, 1979 (2) SCC 339 , which related to the appointment to the post of Professor in a Medical college. The Supreme Court held that when selection is made by the Public Service Commission, aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching/research experience in technical subjects. the Courts should be show to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. At the same time, the Supreme Court observed that even such a body if it were to contravene rules and regulations binding upon it in making the selection and recommending the selectees for appointment, the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce rule of law, may interfere in a writ petition under Article 226. 14. Again, in 16) P.K. Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India, 1984 (2) SCC 141 , the Supreme Court, after referring to the observations made in Dr. M. C. Gupta v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, 1979 (2) SCC 339 , has observed: "However, the task of ushering a society based on rule of law is entrusted to this Court and it cannot abdicate its functions," 15. In the present case, the petitioners have not challenged the wisdom and propriety of the new education policy whereby 10+2+3 pattern of education is being introduced and this Court is not being called upon to go into the wisdom and propriety of the said policy. In the present case, the petitioners have not challenged the wisdom and propriety of the new education policy whereby 10+2+3 pattern of education is being introduced and this Court is not being called upon to go into the wisdom and propriety of the said policy. What is being questioned before us is the manner of implementation of the said policy to a limited extent in so far as it results in denial of equality and equal protection of laws to the petitioners. On this matter, the decision of the University authorities, in our view, cannot be treated as final and the said question has to be examined by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General urged be way of preliminary submission and will, now, proceed to the merits of the case. 17. The main contention that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that new education policy is being implemented in a manner that the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+! pattern in 1988 can secure admission only in First Year TDC under the New Scheme and that this results in discrimination and denial of equality to them vis- a-vis the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 and joined First Year TDC under the old Scheme in 1987 and having passed the First Year TDC in 1988 will now be joining the Second Year TDC under the old Scheme in 1988. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 and the students Who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 are similarly situated because they passed the 10th Class in the same year i.e. 1986 and that there is no basis for subjecting the petitioners to a discriminatory treatment in being required to undergo study for one additional year for completing their graduation as compared to the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1+1 pattern in 1987. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that since TDC under the Old Scheme is to be continued till 1990, there can be no difficulty in permitting the petitioners to pursue their studies for graduation under TDC (old scheme) by giving them admission to the second year of the said course. 18. The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand has urged that the petitioners and the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 and the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 and who were admit ed to First Year TDC in 1987 cannot be said to be the persons similarly situated and, therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the action of the University in the matter of implementation of the New Education Scheme whereby the petitioners and the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 are being required to join First Year TDC under the New Scheme. The learned Additional Advocate General has also urged that the number of students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination in 1988 on 10+2 pattern is very small and in the matter of change of policy and implementation of new scheme if any inconvenience is caused to a few persons it cannot be made the basis for striking down the scheme on the ground of violation of the right to equality guaranted under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is alto urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General that if the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern are permitted to join second year TDC tinder the Old Scheme, the result would be that there would be no students for the First Year TDC under the new scheme and the New Education Scheme would be completely frustrated. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (7) M.P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala AIR 1980 SC 838 , and (8) Mridula Avasthi & Ors. Vs University of Delhi 1988 (2) UJ (SC) 83 . 19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions We find ourselves unable to accept the contentions urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General. 20. Vs University of Delhi 1988 (2) UJ (SC) 83 . 19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions We find ourselves unable to accept the contentions urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General. 20. We will first examine the question whether the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 and the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 and had joined First Year of TDC of the University in 1987 can be said to be persons similarly situate. In this context, it may be said that prior to the introduction of the New Education Scheme whereby 10-1-2 pattern has been introduced for Higher Secondary Course in the State of Rajasthan, the Higher Secondary Course of the Rajasthan Board was of 11 years duration on 10+1 pattern and a student after passing the Higher Secondary on 10+1 pattern was entitled to join the first year TDC of the University. At that time, in some States Higher Secondary course on 10+2 pattern had been introduced and the Central Board was also holding Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern. The students who passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education on 10+2 pattern were being admitted to the Second Year TDC of the University. In other words, 12th class of the Higher Secondary Course of the Central Board on 10+2 pattern was treated as equivalent to first year TDC of the University. Consequently, a student after passing both Class could opt for Higher Secondary course of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern and after passing Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board he could join First Year TDC of the University and complete the graduation in 14 years. The student could also choose to persued his studies for Higher Secondary Course under 10+2 pattern of the Central Board and in that event after passing the Higher Secondary Examination he could join Second Year T.D.C. and he could also complete his graduation in 14 years. The student could also choose to persued his studies for Higher Secondary Course under 10+2 pattern of the Central Board and in that event after passing the Higher Secondary Examination he could join Second Year T.D.C. and he could also complete his graduation in 14 years. This means that upto 10th Class, the students were sailing in the same stream and after 10th Class there was a bifurcation-one branch consisting of those opting for Higher Secondary Course on 10+1 pattern of the Rajasthan Board and after completing one year study for the Higher Secondary Course and passing the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+1 pattern they joined First Year TDC. The other branch consisting of students opting for Higher Secondary Course of the Central Board on 10+2 pattern and after completing two years' study for the Higher Secondary Course and passing Higher Secondary Examination, they joined Second Year TDC. The branches which had been bifurcated after 10th Class would join again to form the mainstream in the Second Year TDC and thereafter on completion of two years' study in the University, students exercising either of the two options could complete their graduation. These students constituted one homogeneous unit upto the 10th Class and they formed one unit in Second year TDC. Merely because for two years, after passing l0th Class, some of them opted for one type of Higher Secondary Course on 10-1 pattern to the Rajasthan Board and some opted for other type of Higher Secondary Course on 10+2 pattern of the Central Board would nest mean that they were not similarly situate, because after two years they again joined together in Second Year TDC. We are, therefore, of the opinion that at the time of introduction of the New Education Scheme the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 and the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 and joined the First Year TDC of the University in 1987 were persons similarly situate. 21. 21. The next question which requires consideration is whether there is any rational basis for classifying these students who were similarly situate into two separate categories for the purpose of admission in the TDC while implementing the New Education Policy and whether the said basis for classification has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the new education policy. In this regard, it may be mentioned that prior to the introduction of the new education policy 12th Class of the Higher Secondary Course on 10+2 pattern was being treated as equivalent to First Year TDC of the University and there was parity between the two courses of study based on 10+2 pattern and 10+1 pattern. In view of this parity, we have been unable to had any rational justification for classifying the students into two categories merely on the ground that after passing the 10th Class in 1986 some those the Higher Secondary Course of Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern and some those the Higher Secondary Course of the Central Board on 10+2 pattern. At the time when this choice was made in 1986 the students know that choosing either of the two courses of study was not of any material significance in their future educational career. Such a fortuitous circumstance of choice of the Higher Secondary Course in 1986 by a student cannot afford a rational basis for classifying the students who were similarly situate into separate categories for the purpose of giving admission to the TDC. 22. Even if it be assumed that the students can be classified into two categories on the basis of the pattern of Higher Secondary course studied by them we are unable to discern any nexus, what to say of a reasonable nexus, of the said basis of classification with the object sought to be achieved by the new education policy. It cannot be disputed that the object of the new education policy on the 10+2+3 pattern is to improve the standard of education at the Higher Secondary n the schools and at the under graduate level in the universities. It cannot be disputed that the object of the new education policy on the 10+2+3 pattern is to improve the standard of education at the Higher Secondary n the schools and at the under graduate level in the universities. This policy level in, is fulfilled at the Higher Secondary level in the case of the petitioners and the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1989 As regards the fulfilment of the policy at the University level we find that the policy is not being applied to students who joined First Year TDC in 1987 after passing the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987. Such students can complete the TDC under the old scheme, but if they want to go for post-graduation they will have to undergo a further one year bridge course. The purpose of this additional one year bridge course after graduation under the TDC (old scheme) is to bring the students who completed their graduation under the TDC (old scheme) at the same level as students who complete their graduation under the TDC (new scheme). The same object would he achieved in the case of students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 in giving them admission to Second Year TDC (old scheme) like the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 and joined the First Year TDC of the University in 1987. But there may be students who may not go for post-graduation after the TDC Such students, if they are denied admission to second Year TDC (old Scheme) would have to put in one additional year for completing their graduation. There appears to be no valid reason why among students who were similarly situate, the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+1 pattern in 1998 should be placed at a disadvantage in being required to complete their graduation in 15 years while students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in 1987 would be completing their graduation in 14 years. 23. 23. The reason that has been put forth by the learned Additional Advocate General that if the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern are allowed to join the Second Year TDC (old Scheme), the new education policy would be frustrated because there would be no student to join the First Year TDC under the new scheme this year does not appeal to us. The mere fact that the classes for the First Year TDC under the new scheme cannot be started this year cannot be a justification for the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+1+2 pattern in 1984 being not permitted to join Second Year TDC (old scheme). The First Year TDC under the new scheme can be started from the next year after the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern this year complete their studies for one additional year in 12th Class (senior secondary) in the school or the pre-TDC in the University. 24. As regards the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the total number of students who have passed Higher Secondary Examination from the Central Board on 10+2 pattern is very small, we may mention that it was pointed out at the Bar that in the State of Rajasthan there are 25 schools who have been conducting studies for Higher Secondary Course of the Central Board on 10+2 pattern for the past few years and the total number of students who have passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Central Board on 10+2 pattern in the year 1988 are more than 2000. It cannot, therefore, be said that the number of such students is too small to be ignored in the matter of just implementation of the new education policy. 25. We may, now, refer to the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned Addl. Advocate General. In H. P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC 838 , the Supreme Court has upheld the classification of students for admission to medical college which was made University-wise and not territory-wise and after un-holding the said classification, the Supreme Court observed that once the University-wise allocation of seats is held to be valid the misfortune of the petitioner is damaum since injuria and that every adversity is not an injury. In our opinion, the aforesaid judgment does not have application to the present case because here we have found that in the matter of implementation of the new education policy and denial of admission to the students who passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Central Board on 10+2 pattern, the Second Year TDC under the old scheme has resulted in their being discriminated, vis-a-vis other students who are similarly situate. 26. In Mridula Avasthi & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Ors, 1988 (2) UJ (SC) 88 , relating to admission to post-graduate medical course, the Supreme Court has held that seniors and freshers belong to two different categories and cannot be said to be equals for the reasons that freshers had not done housemanship whereas seniors have already completed housemanship for one year. The said decision also has no application to the facts of the present case. 27. Before we conclude, we may mention that during the course of arguments it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the new education scheme implemented in the various universities in Rajasthan, students who joined First Year TDC in 1987 after passing the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+1 pattern can exercise the option to join the Second Year TDC (old scheme) or First Year TDC (new scheme) in 1988. The learned Addl. Advocate General has, however, submitted that in the University of Rajasthan the students who had passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+1 pattern in 1987 and who joined the first year TDC can only pursue their study according to 10+1+3 pattern under the old scheme and they have no option to switch over to TDC (new scheme) by joining the First Year of the said course in the 1988-89 session. The learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the guidelines issued by the Ajmer University. wherein such an option has been provided to such students to either take admission in the Second Year TDC under the old scheme or first year TDC under the new scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the guidelines issued by the Ajmer University. wherein such an option has been provided to such students to either take admission in the Second Year TDC under the old scheme or first year TDC under the new scheme. We do not propose to go into this controversy but would like to make it clear that in case a student who passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board on 10+1 pattern in the year 1987 and who joined First Year TDC under 10+1+3 pattern in 1987 has the option of joining the first year TDC under the new scheme in 1988, the students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern in 1988 would also be entitled to such an option. 28. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the directions contained in para 2 of the transitory provisions which have been made by the University of Ajmer for giving effect to the new scheme (10+2+3 pattern). whereby only the candidates passing first rear TDC Examination of 10+1+3 pattern have been made eligible for admission to the Second Year TDC Class in the academic session 1988-89 and, the candidates passing Higher Secondary Examination on 10+2 pattern have been made eligible for admission only to B.A/B.Sc/B.Com Pt. I Class is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution in so far as it prohibits the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination in 10+2 pattern from joining Second Year TDC Class under 10+1+3 pattern in the academic session 1988-89. It is declared that the students represented by the petitioners and other students who have passed Higher Secondary Examination in 10+2 pattern in 1989 are entitled to seek admission in the second year TDC Class under the 10+1+3 pattern (old scheme) for the session 1988-89. The University will grant admission to those students who want to join the second year TDC Class under 10+1+3 pattern on the basis of this order if they submit their applications for this purpose within a period of three weeks, from today.No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******