JUDGMENT 1. - Both these writ petitions can be decided by one common order as the question involved is identical, namely, whether the weight age could be given to the students for admission to LL.B. Ist year class on the basis of the certificates submitted by them. The petitioners submitted the certificate issued by Maharashtra Net Ball Association recognised by Maharashtra State Sports Council that they participated in the 16th junior and 10th Senior National N:i Ball Championship, 1987 organised by the aforesaid Association. According to the University statute the students could get admission provided they had secured 45% marks in the IIIrd Years Degree Course for faculty of Law. However a Proviso was made for S.C. and S.T. Candidates where the percentage was reduced as an exception to the general rules as per Ordinance 81(3). Concession/weight age was granted for the purpose of admissions on various counts specified therein and as per clause (d) weightage with marks of the candidates taking part in co-curriculum activities was to be granted and as per Ministry of Education and Social Welfare games is one of the co-curriculum activity for which the weightage is given. However in the notes below the Ordinance it h, -,s been mentioned that, "For the purpose of this Ordinance only the following sports/games shall be recognised, Certified copies should be attached with the application form for admission and shall not be entertained subsequently". Twenty games and sports have been mentioned for the men and 16 for the women. Net Ball does not find place anywhere in both the lists. Thus the petitioners were not eligible for having weightage as permissible by Ordinance 81. The University Authorities therefore, as soon as the forms reached then, informed the College Authorities wherein regarding the two petitioners it was observed as under : "As regards to the certificate in respect of Shri Sattyesh Roop Soni and Shri Naved Quaiser. it is stated that the net ball game has not been enlisted in the list' appended below to the Order 81(3), as such admissions of all the above candidates have not been found in order and stand liable to be cancelled." 2. The petitioners' case is that the college authorities again wrote to the petitioner recommending their cases for declaration of the results as meanwhile: they had already appeared in the examination. The petitioners' case is that the college authorities again wrote to the petitioner recommending their cases for declaration of the results as meanwhile: they had already appeared in the examination. The stand of the University is that the result cannot be pronounced as the admission ab-initio was illegal and they were not exigible to be admitted on the basis of the Ordinance as they had neither secure] 45% marks nor were entitled to weightage which was to be given to them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, then submitted that from the Session 1991-92 minimum percentage of marks has been reduced from 45%, to 40% and in that respect University has also issued necessary circular on 9th January, 1992. In accordance with that those students have already been admitted who have received more than 45% marks. It is not disputed before that in case the petitioner would have made application for admission in the academic session 1991-92 their forms could not have been rejected an the ground of having lesser marks because admittedly they had secured more than 40% marks in their qualifying examination. It is contended that since the last date for completing the admission was 15th January, 1992 and the petitioners for the pendency of this writ petition could not apply for admission. In case, the writ petition is dismissed they will lose another precious year and that there is no fault on their part as they had been given admission in the previous academic session year had the construction of the Ordinance by the College Authorities not been done. I am not accepting the contention of equitable estoppel but at the same time there is equity in favour of the petitioners to the extent that they may be given opportunity to continue their studies in 1st year course in 1991-92 session, more particularly because they had already kept terms in the previous year and not only they had taken up the examination also had the opportunity of equitable estoppel would have been accepted they would have been permitted to appear in 2nd year provided they would have passed 1st year examination- But a great hardship would be caused to them in case they are not permitted now to continue their studies at least in 1st year. 4. 4. I would therefore, though not allow the writ petition on merit, yet in the interest of justice direct that as a special case admission will be given to the petitioners to the 1st year course provided they file an application form for admission within a period of a fortnight from today. 5. With the aforesaid observations the writ petitions are disposed of with no order as to cost.Petition Dismissed of Accordingly. *******