JUDGMENT : N.L. Ganguly, J. By this petition, the Petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to provide admission to the Petitioner in B. Ed, course at the Kanpur University for the year 1990-91. The entrance examination was held in the month of July, 1900. The Petitioner and large number of other candidates had appeared in the said entrance examination. The result of the candidates selected for admission to B. Ed. course for 1990-91 was published in the daily news paper Aaj, Kanpur on 25th September, 1990. The roll number allotted to the Petitioner was 9974 and the said roll number was shown in the list of selected candidates. Another list of students in the waiting list was also published in the said news paper. Inspite of the Petitioners' name in the list of selected candidates, the University Authorities refused to give admission to the Petitioner to B. Ed. course. The Petitioner, thus, filed the present writ petition. 2. The Petitioner has annexed copy of the Gazette dated 5th May 1987 prescribing rules, regulations for admission to B. Ed. course. The paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the said Gazette publication was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to indicate that the rules provided that after the entrance test for the admission to the B. Ed. course, a list was to be prepared by the University Authorities showing the names of such students selected and eligible according to merit for admission to the said course. It was shown that the rules provided that in two compulsory papers, minimum 40 per cent marks in each was necessary for admission in the B. Ed. course. 3. The Petitioner submitted that his name was shown in the list of selected candidates and a number of students, who had obtained lesser marks than the Petitioner, were given admission to the B. Ed. course and he was discriminated. At the initial stage, the court was pleased to issue interim direction on 23rd April 1991 to the Respondents for giving provisional admission to the Petitioner to B Ed. course and time was given to the learned Standing Counsel for the Kanpur University for filing the counter affidavit. Inspite of the interim direction, the Petitioner was not given the provisional admission to B. Ed. course. The counter affidavit was filed along with the application for vacating the interim order on 29-7-91. course and time was given to the learned Standing Counsel for the Kanpur University for filing the counter affidavit. Inspite of the interim direction, the Petitioner was not given the provisional admission to B. Ed. course. The counter affidavit was filed along with the application for vacating the interim order on 29-7-91. The rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 4. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, between the parties, I propose to decide the writ petition finally on merits, according to rules of court. 5. The learned Counsel for Kanpur University submitted that the Petitioner was not selected for admission to the B.Ed. course in pursuance of the examination held for the selection of candidates. He pointed out that the selected candidates and candidates for the waiting list published in the news paper Aaj dated 25th September 1990 was not the final list for selected candidates. It was merely a list showing the names of the candidates who had appeared in the examination and declared successful. This was not the list on merits showing the names of the students eligible and selected for admission according to merit and marks obtained by them. He denied that any student having lesser mark than the Petitioner was admitted in B. Ed. course. The thrust of the arguments on behalf of the Respondents is that mention of 'Chayanit Abhyarthi' do not mean selected candidates. He submitted that this list indicates candidates who appeared in the entrance examination and declared eligible for selection. This interpretation as put by the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The plain and simple meaning of 'Chayanit Abhyarthi' is nothing but selected candidates. The meaning now ascribed by the learned Counsel is neither proper nor acceptable. If such interpretation is accepted, then there was no necessity of giving another list as waiting list "Pratiksha Suchi". This other list of waiting list also shows that the list published above the waiting list was of selected candidates. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent although obtained more marks and 40 percent in the two compulsory papers but he was lower in merit. It was stated that the last candidate in the list who had been given admission had obtained 254 marks, whereas the Petitioner got only 229 marks in aggregate, after adding the weightage admissible to the candidate. It was stated that the last candidate in the list who had been given admission had obtained 254 marks, whereas the Petitioner got only 229 marks in aggregate, after adding the weightage admissible to the candidate. Thus, the Petitioner had lesser marks of merits as such he was not given the admission. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the interpretation put by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the list published in the news paper was of eligible candidates and not of selected candidates for admission of B Ed. course is not tenable at all. The Petitioner had appeared admittedly in the entrance test and was shown in the list of selected candidates published in the news piper. He was refused admission illegally. The defence set up by the Respondents is after thought. The Respondents never issued any corrigendum or notice that the news paper publication dated 25th July 1990 in Aaj was wrongly published to be result of list of selected candidates and it was merely a list of eligible candidates for admission to B. Ed. course. I have no hesitation in holding that Petitioner was illegally refused admission to B. Ed. course. Inspite of interim direction of this Court, the Petitioner was not given provisional admission and after about three months of the date of interim order, the application with the counter affidavit was filed. There was no fault of the Petitioner and he waited for being admitted for the session 1990-91. The session is now likely to be over and it would not be proper to direct to give admission in the current session. It would not be possible for him to complete the course in this session. He cannot be penalised for the mistake of the Respondents in not giving admission for the B. Ed. course for 1990-91. If the mistake was of the Respondents, they are to suffer. They should have complied with the order of this Court and should be given the provisional admission and could have saved one precious year of the Petitioner. They have not done so and the Petitioner had already suffered one year. In this view of the matter, it would just and proper that a direction be issued to the Respondents to admit the Petitioner in B. Ed. They have not done so and the Petitioner had already suffered one year. In this view of the matter, it would just and proper that a direction be issued to the Respondents to admit the Petitioner in B. Ed. course in Session 1991-92 without asking him to appear in the next examination for selection in 1991-92. The Petitioner shall be given admission as directed. 7. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.