JUDGMENT B.K Singh, J. - The petitioner baa preferred the instant writ petition for seeking issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties to grant him admission in the Master of Computer Application Course-1992 (hereinafter M.C.A.C.) and to let him pursue his studies in Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad. 2. At the outset, 1 am constrained to say that it is a sad case where a bright young man who has stood VIH in order of merit in All India Entrance Examination held for selecting candidates for the said course has been denied admission because of a technical and pedantic interpretation of an eligibility rule for admission contained in Information Brochure. 3. Now some relevant facts alleged by tho petitioner in his writ petition are recounted. Petitioner is resident of Calcutta [West Bengal). His educational qualifications are as under : - I.C.S.E. in 1987 From St. Thomas Boys School Calcutta. Succeeded having secured 77.67% marks I.S.C. in 1989 From St. Joaheph's College, Calcutta. 68.83% marks B.Sc. (Hons.) in 1992 Presidency College, Calcutta. 4. The petitioner, in response to the advertisement for admission to M.C.A.C. submitted application. He appeared in the All India Entrance Examination and was placed in VIII position in the merit list (OSGE Category). The petitioner was permitted to deposited admission fee. He did so on 9th August, 1992. Same day his marksheet and relevant documents were examined by the Chairman, Admission Committee. An endorsement was made on petitioner's file that as he had secured more than sixty per cent marks in the aggregate of Part I and Part II examination of B. Sc. (Honours) be was eligible for counselling interview. 5. The petitioner, on 11th August, 1992 participated in counselling interview. The Admission Committee, thereafter rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that as petitioner's marksheet of B.Sc. (Honours) Part II mentions 'Second Class' so he was not eligible for admission as per the stipulation of eligibility criteria contained in Clause 3.1 of the Information Brochure. The said clause is quoted below Clause 3. The Admission Committee, thereafter rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that as petitioner's marksheet of B.Sc. (Honours) Part II mentions 'Second Class' so he was not eligible for admission as per the stipulation of eligibility criteria contained in Clause 3.1 of the Information Brochure. The said clause is quoted below Clause 3. Eligibility Requirements : "3.1 Any candidate who has passed a three years Bachelor's degree or 2 years Bachelor's degree with Bridge Course with Mathematics and/or Statistics as subject, in first division at the time of filling the application form is eligible for admission, In case a class or division is not awarded in the qualifying degree examination, sixty per cent marks in all the examination of the course will be considered in lieu of first division. 3.2 Not relevant." 6. The petitioner's division mentioned in the Marksheet of Part II of his Honours subjects as Second Class is being taken as the cause and reason for bis rejection as a candidate. That petitioner secured VI'I position in All India Entrance Examination is thus in the estimate of Admission Committee, of no consequence. The petitioner although has scoured sixty per cent marks in all the examination of the course in being denied opportunity to pursue a course of bis choice. In these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decision of the Admission Committee. He prays that the decision of the Admission Committee be quashed and tho opposite parties be directed to grant him admission. 7. Sri Asbish Narain Trivedi, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Narain Trivedi. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the purpose or the object for laying down the criteria in the eligibility clause is to select better candidates for admission to the M.C.A.C. course. The eligibility clause in petitioner's case has not been applied objectively. The criteria should have a reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved for the purpose for which it is framed He has submitted that in case, it is found that eligibility clause does not satisfy the said object then decision based on it is liable to be struck down. The learned Counsel has stated that in the present case the eligibility requirement in B. So. The learned Counsel has stated that in the present case the eligibility requirement in B. So. two years Course with Bridge Course with Mathematics or Statistics in first dags, and in case no division or class is mentioned in the marksheet then sixty per cent aggregate marks in all the examinations of the B. Sc. course. Thus, a student who has secured sixty per cent aggregate marks in B. Sc. Part I and Part II and his class is not mentioned in Mark-sheet is eligible. When this is the criteria then in case the petitioner's division in final year's marksheet of B. So. (Honours) subject indicate that he has been successful in second clause only it should not be treated as a disqualification. It is because this condition in Clause 3.1 of Information Brochure has no reasonable nexus with the object of electing the best available candidates. Here the petitioner has undisputedly secured sixty par cent marks in the aggregate of his B.Sc. (Honours) Part land Part II. This condition having been fulfilled the petitioner should have been declared eligible. The Counsel has further submitted that if the criteria of class or division it applied in some oases and in other cases the of sixty per cent aggregate marks of all the examinations in the qualifying examination of B.Sc. examination is applied, the same shall lead to discrimination Which would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that the eligibility criteria appears to have been laid down on the basis of similar course of Lucknow University. In Lucknow University division or class in B. Sc. is awarded on the basis at aggregate of marks obtained in B.Sc. Parts I, II and III. As against this in Calcutta University the division or class appears to be mentioned in marksheet on the basis of result of B. So. Part II (Honours) subject only. Thus, if the candidature of the petitioner is rejected Only on the basis of class mentioned in his marksheet of B So. Part II, the same decision will amount to hostile discrimination. As such the learned Counsel has prayed that suitable direction be issued to the opposite parties to consider the petitioner's candidature irrespective of the class or division mentioned in his marksheet of B Sc. Part 11. Part II, the same decision will amount to hostile discrimination. As such the learned Counsel has prayed that suitable direction be issued to the opposite parties to consider the petitioner's candidature irrespective of the class or division mentioned in his marksheet of B Sc. Part 11. The eligibility in tho petitioner's case should be considered on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by him in B.Sc. Parts I and II. 9. Sri Ashish Narain Triveui, Advocate has submitted that the eligibility criteria provided in tho Information Brochure is reasonable and does not lead to any discrimination. He has further submitted that a candidate in order to fulfil the condition of eligibility clause must have scored more than sixty per cent marks and should have been declared successful in First Division. He has thus Justified the decision of the admission Committee. 10. It may be mentioned here that no Counter-affidavit has been filed. Only an affidavit of Dr. Avadesh Kumar Khare, has been filed in support of an application for vacation of ex parte inhrlm older dated 12-8-1992 by which 1 had provided that one seat in Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, shall be kept unfilled. 11. I have considered the above submissions of the learned Counsel. It cannot be disputed that for admission to any course the authorities can lay down eligibility criteria for selection of candidates. The question, however, arise B whether the eligibility criteria kb contained in Clause 3.i of the Information Brochure can be Justified on the assumption that it objectively achieves the end for which it has been Lamed. Also whether if applied in petitioner's case it suffers from the of discrimination. 12. It is to be noted that the eligibility criteria contained in Clause 3.1, requires that the candidates should have secured first division but it is also said in the same clause that in case a class or division is not awarded in the qualifying degree examination, then sixty per cent marks in ail the examination of the course will be considered in lieu of the first division. In this view of the matter one has to objectively consider whether both tho conditions of class and aggregate of sixty per cent marks in all the examination of B So. course have any reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved for selecting meritorious candidates for the course in question. In this view of the matter one has to objectively consider whether both tho conditions of class and aggregate of sixty per cent marks in all the examination of B So. course have any reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved for selecting meritorious candidates for the course in question. If judged objectively only one condition appears reasonable. It is of aggregate of sixty per cent marks in alt the examination of B. Sc. course. If this condition it uniform ally applied then there would be no once of discrimination. It is said because in different Universities of the country there may be different norms for awarding class or division. Let us, for example, take the case of petitioner himself. From bis mark-sheet of Calcutta University, it appear that criteria for awarding class is not on the basis of aggregate of sixty percent marks in all the examination of the course (B.Sc.). It is the percent of marks of Part II examination of Honours subject on the basis of which class or Division is awarded there. Had aggregate of marks of all the examinations of B. Sc. been taken for determination of class in petitioner's case then be must have been declared successful in First Division. Such unseen anomalies are bound to crop up when an examination on all India basis is held. As such we must take a pragmatic and not a pedantic view in considering the objective behind the eligibility criteria. I such a view is taken and it is found that petitioner's aggregate marks of all the examination of the course (B.Sc.) exceed t0% then he qualifies and he cannot be rejected oo the ground that as in his B. Sc. Part II marksheet second class is mentioned, so ho bees not fulfil the eligibility criteria. 13. Let us now examine another possibility. Tho petitioner, in para 23 of the writ petition has stated that a number of students who have passed their B. So. examination from Delhi University had submitted their marksheet of Mathematics subject only and their mark-sheets indicated that they have secured Fir^t Division. Although the result is of Mathematics only yet the Admission Committee has granted them admission. There is no denial of this fact. This amounts to applying two different yardstick to similarly placed persons. Thus, it is clearly an instance where discrimination between similarly situated person) has taken place. Although the result is of Mathematics only yet the Admission Committee has granted them admission. There is no denial of this fact. This amounts to applying two different yardstick to similarly placed persons. Thus, it is clearly an instance where discrimination between similarly situated person) has taken place. 14. The directive in terms of eligibility criteria as contained in Clause 3.1 of the information Brochure should also be judged in the light of the fAct that here the candidates had appeared in All India Entrance Examination. In Case Clause 3 of the criteria alone is made an index of judging the merit of the candidates then the remit of the entrance examination and the. petitioner's merit of securing VIII position becomes inconsequential. Thus the interpretation of eligibility clause as * being done by tho Admission Committee is wholly pragmatic. 15. Judging the decision of the Admission Committee in the light of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the interpretation given by it to the eligibility Clause is wholly arbitrary. It also, amongst the various candidates, has led to discrimination. The aim and the purpose of the eligibility criteria in the circumstances of the case should be be interpreted that the petitioner who has been merit wise successful in qualifying examination and having secured aggregate of sixty per cent marks in all the examination of course meets the condition of eligibility clause. The petitioner having met the maid part of the eligibility criteria of securing the minimum percentage of sixty per cent of macks in aggregate, could not have been rejected on the other part of the criteria that in his marksheet not first class but second class is mentioned. It is because the main aim and object of the eligibility criteria is clearly met. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The decision of the Admission Committee rejecting the petitioner's candidature is hereby set aside and a direction is issued to the opposite parties to admit the petitioner to Master of Computer Application Course-1992. He shall be given admission within a period of one week from the date a certified copy of this judgment is given to the opposite party No. 5 in Moti Lal Regional Engineering College, Allahabad. 17. Under the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.