JUDGMENT 1. 1. Some facts cannot be said to be disputed any longer and they are this. The petitioner submitted his application for Pre-Teacher Education Test (PTET), 1988, and in the proforma for use of computer centre in that test, in column no. 3 meant for name of the candidate, the petitioner gave out Mrs. Kamlesh Kumar Jain. For female candidates, it was either Miss or Mrs. So far as the petitioner is concerned he erased the word Miss. There were 20% seats reserved for women category candidates and it appears that because there were thousands of applications, information was fed in the computer and as a result of the computer it was the petitioner himself who had filled the proforma under his signatures that the name of the petitioner appeared as a successful candidate in that category of candidates. We may state that though it is stated in the reply, that it is a computer mistake but it appears to be the mistake of the petitioner himself because in the proforma, he described himself as Mrs Be that as it may, as the name of the petitioner appeared in the merit list in that category and information was sent to the petitioner to report to Gandhi Teachers Training College, Bhilwara, when the petitioner reached there it is alleged that it was given out by the Principal that the petitioner is a male, whereas the candidate who has been admitted is a female candidate. According to the petitioner, representative of the University, who was present in the College, any how cleared the admission of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his fee in the month of October, 1988, joined the classes regularly from 25th Oct. to 21st Nov., 1988, when he received letter Annexure 7 informing him that the petitioner has been wrongly registered in female category instead of male category and his admission was cancelled. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid letter. 2. Notice was given to the non-petitioner, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that it was result of mistake of computer. The admission was provisional and in the district Bhilwara, the marks received by the petitioner were below the cut-out point and, therefore, he could not be admitted. The cut-out point in District Bhilwara was 436 for male category candidates, whereas the petitioner secured 349 marks, much below the cut-out point. The admission was provisional and in the district Bhilwara, the marks received by the petitioner were below the cut-out point and, therefore, he could not be admitted. The cut-out point in District Bhilwara was 436 for male category candidates, whereas the petitioner secured 349 marks, much below the cut-out point. Therefore, so far as the male-category candidates are concerned, none below a cut-out point viz. 436 was admitted in Bhilwara district. 3. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are : That once the petitioner had been admitted, may be that he was not eligible as a female category candidate, may be that he had secured marks much less the cut-out point for male category candidates and had thereafter also regularly attended the classes for about a month after depositing the fee, now his admission cannot be cancelled. It is also contended by learned counsel that as a result of the admission, the petitioner could not appear in the other competitive examinations because under the disciplinary rule;, while studying in that course he could not undertake any examination. He therefore was deprived of appearing in the competitive-examinations and, therefore, now if his admission is cancelled and he is not allowed to continue his studies, it will be very harsh to him. 4. We may state that the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before its a number of authorities in support of his submission that once he has been admitted, may be was not eligible for admission, his admission cannot be cancelled. Reliance has been placed on (1) AIR 1976 S. C 376, (2) 1984 WLN (UC) 534. (3) 1985 RLR 580 and (4) 1988 (1) RLR 601 . It may be stated that it is well- settled that the cases are decided on their own facts, and the ratio of the cases should only be read in the light of the facts of that case. In the instant case it may he stated that it was the fault of the petitioner himself that he gave wrong information in the proforma for use of computer centre by mentioning therein Mrs. Kamlesh Jain. That information was feed in the computer and the name of the petitioner appeared in the successful candidate in female category candidates. Even then the admission of the petitioner was made provisional as appears from the endorsement on this admission letter. Kamlesh Jain. That information was feed in the computer and the name of the petitioner appeared in the successful candidate in female category candidates. Even then the admission of the petitioner was made provisional as appears from the endorsement on this admission letter. It is the case of the petitioner himself that observer of the University, who was present in the College detected that the petitioner was a male and not a female whereas the roll number of the petitioner was having appeared only in the category of female candidates. The case of the petitioner is still he was allowed to deposit fee and thereafter allowed to regularly attend the classes. The result of the admission of the petitioner in Bhilwara when the petitioner had received marks much below the cut-out point i. e. 349 instead of 436, will be to deprive the other candidates belonging to male category and had secured more marks than the petitioner and that may give cause of action to them on the ground that the person who had lower percentage of marks had been admitted. It appears to be a case where the mistake occurred because the petitioner himself gave wrong information in the proforma meant for the use of computer centre and the person cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and mistake. Moreso, when the admission of the petitioner was made provisional, the petitioner had only studied regularly for less than month. In the circumstances when the mistake was detected, and it was detected because the petitioner gave wrong information, which was fed to the computer and the name of the petitioner appeared in the merit list for female category wrongly, the petitioner could not have any cause of grievance; the other side has always a right of detection of the mistake to correct the error. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to facts of the present case, they are cases decided on their own facts. 5. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to facts of the present case, they are cases decided on their own facts. 5. Coming to the other arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that disciplinary rules of the Gandhi T. T. College, Gulabpura, the petitioner could not have taken any other examinations and therefore, he could not appear in the Junior Accountant's Examination, 1988, as well as examinations held by R. S. E. B. for the post of computer, we may state that it does appear to be so as the examinations were to take place before 21st Nov., 1988 or after that. No doubt from Annexure 6, it appears that the programme of the examinations for the post of computer was fixed for 18th November, 1988, when the petitioner was still attending the B. Ed. Course, but the University cannot be held responsible for any rules of the institution. We have already said that the petitioner gave wrong information as a result of which the information fed to the computer, was not correct. The petitioner was a male candidate but gave his category as female category, was selected as female-category candidate and was not eligible to be appointed as a male-category candidate, his marks being much below, the cut-out-point in district Bhilwara. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own mistake and if his admission on detection of the mistake that he was eligible as a male category candidate and not a female category candidate and was not entitled for admission on the basis of merit in that category has been cancelled, no case for interference is made out. We hereby dismiss the writ petition and order the non-petitioner to refund the total fee to the respondent on she application of the petitioner. The fee be refunded within a period 15 days, on filing the application by the petitioner in that behalf.Petition Dismissed. *******