ORDER V.S. Kokje, J. -- 1. The petitioner is a student, who had appeared in a common entrance test conducted by the Professional Examination Board of M.P. for admissions to the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Course as also the Bachelor of Dental Surgery. On the basis of the marks obtained by him, the petitioner was admitted in Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Course in the Veterinary College, Jabalpur, where he joined on 26.9.1989. The petitioner had also opted for B.D.S. Course and on 3rd March, 1990 he received a letter from the Directorate Medical Education, M.P. informing him that he had been selected for admission to the B.D.S. Course in the College of Dentistry at Indore. The last date for joining the course was given as 19.3.1990. As the petitioner felt that he would have a brighter future as a Dentist, he left the Veterinary Course after having been in that course from 26.9.1989 to 16.3.1990 and came to Indore to join the College of Dentistry on 19.3.1990. He was duly admitted in the college and he deposited the necessary fees also. On 10.4.1990 to the utter shock and despair of the petitioner he was informed that his admission to B.D.S. Course was cancelled. In tins letter dated 5.4.1990 (Annexure-6 to the petition), which was received by the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner had been granted admission to B.D.S. Course provisionally on the basis that he had secured 892 marks out of 1200 marks but as the Professional Examination Board had informed the college authorities that the petitioner had in fact secured 888 marks out of 1200 and not 892 marks out of 1200, the admission of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner has challenged this order in this petition. 2. On 3rd May, 1990 a show cause notice was directed to be issued to the respondents in this case as to why the petition be not admitted. On 17.5.1990 the learned Vacation Judge had ordered in this case that the respondents shall permit the petitioner to join the classes in the First Professional Year of B.D.S. Course in the College of Dentistry, Indore until further orders. 3. On 17.5.1990 the learned Vacation Judge had ordered in this case that the respondents shall permit the petitioner to join the classes in the First Professional Year of B.D.S. Course in the College of Dentistry, Indore until further orders. 3. In reply to the show cause notice, the Principal, College of Dentistry, Indore respondent No. 3 stated that since the petitioner had actually obtained 888 marks out of 1200 and not 892 marks out of 1200, he was not entitled to admission in accordance with the merit list. The Professional Examination Board respondent No. 4 filed return in the case and took a stand that the petitioner had secured 888 marks and not 892 marks and was not entitled to admission. The reduction of the marks of the petitioner was stated to be the result of correction of an error in the Chemistry paper by the Board. It was stated in the return that written representations of some of the candidates were received and the grievance made therein having been found factually correct, the result of the concerned candidates including the petitioner was revised. It is nowhere specified in the return as to what was the error and who was responsible for that. It was further stated at the Bar by the counsel for the respondent No.4 that the error was in the key answer, which was taken as the standard answer by the Board, which was found to be incorrect, because of this marks of all candidates had to be revised. In any case, it was not alleged before us that the petitioner was responsible for the error or had any hand in increasing his marks. 4. On 3rd September, 1990 an application was moved by the petitioner for amendment of the petition, bringing it on record that four vacancies were available in the Dentistry College and he could be adjusted against one of them and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the aforesaid application stating that in fact four vacancies exist at present in the B.D.S. Course because four of the candidates from the petitioner's batch have been selected for M.B.B.S. and they left the college for the course. 1, 2 and 3 to the aforesaid application stating that in fact four vacancies exist at present in the B.D.S. Course because four of the candidates from the petitioner's batch have been selected for M.B.B.S. and they left the college for the course. It is further contended that the vacancies have occurred in 1989-90 and under the rules after the P.M.T. Examination of 1990 was held a new list has been prepared but the vacancies of the earlier years lapsed and cannot be filled in. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner was invited to join the Course of B.D.S. and acting on that invitation he left Veterinary Course he was already pursuing. He had altered his position to his detriment on a representation made by the respondent to him that he has been granted admission to the B.D.S. Course. It is an admitted fact that if the admission in B.D.S. Course is now cancelled, the petitioner would not be able to get back admission in the Veterinary Course because the seat vacated by him might have been filled up now by a candidate of the waiting list prepared for that Course. In the situation, which has developed, the petitioner was not to be blamed at-all. His marks were reduced further by the Board not because of any mistake on his part but because of a mistake committed by the Officials of the Board themselves. In such a situation, the respondents have no right to punish the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner, but for a wrong committed by the respondents themselves. The argument that only a provisional admission was granted to the petitioner is also not tenable because the provisional admission was subject to verification of records and the petitioner fulfilling the requirement of conditions of admission to the Dentistry Course. This clearly meant that whatever representation the petitioner had made, on it being found correct, the provisional admission would be converted into a confirmed admission. It does not visualise a case in which the candidates marks were reduced for no fault of his like in the present case. 6. This clearly meant that whatever representation the petitioner had made, on it being found correct, the provisional admission would be converted into a confirmed admission. It does not visualise a case in which the candidates marks were reduced for no fault of his like in the present case. 6. Moreover, in the facts before us now, there are vacancies, in which the petitioner can be adjusted but the respondents are refusing to admit him, putting finger on a so-called rule that on holding the next year's examination, the waiting list for the earlier year lapses. Even assuming that there is any such rule framed by the respondents, it does not stand to reason, as to why admission cannot be given to a person despite such rule when he had already been admitted in the Course and was already prosecuting the Course under the orders of this Court. The case of such a candidate is clearly distinguishable and should not really be taken as a fresh admission after the earlier list has lapsed. 7. We, therefore, allow this petition, quash the order dated 5.4.1990 (Annexure-6 to the petition) and direct that the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in the B.D.S. Course, as if his admission was never cancelled. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.