Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this application petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to them in LL. M. Part I course for the session 1988-89. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. Petitioner No.1 secured 920 marks out of 1800 marks and petitioner No 2 secured 943 marks out of 1800 marks in LL. B Course, Patna University issued a notice inviting application for admission in LL. M Part I course for the session 1988 89 which was published in hindustan Times, a news paper published from Patna on 12 10 1991 (Annexure-3) and pursuant thereto petitioners filed applications. According to petitioners, they were informed by Respondent No.3 that they were not found eligible for admission as the persons admitted in the College had obtained higher marks than the petitioners. However, allegedly on 23.5.1992, they were iuformed by Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah that on 23.5.1992 he has been admitted in the College pursuant to the order dated 20th May, 1992 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No.3894 of 1992. The said direction was given by this Court allegedly on the ground that the persons having lower marks to him has been admitted. 3. Petitioners have stated as follows in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the writ application : "that the petitioners were shocked when Mr. Ahsanuddin amanullah told them that persons having lower marks than they had been admitted. He also informed that the Dean, Faculty of Law, Patna University has also written a letter to respondent no.3 asking him to clarify about the alleged bunglings done by him in the matter of admission to the said course. That one very glaring example of discrimination by respondent No.3 towards the petitioners will be clear from the case of one Mr. Kamaldeo Prasad Singh who has secured 886 marks out of 1800 from Patna University while petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have secured 920 and 943 marks out of 1800 respectively. That it would be proper to mention here that the petitioners met respondent No.3 the same day, i e 23.5 1992 and requested to him to admit them, But the respondent No.3 angrily told them that they would not be admitted " 4. That it would be proper to mention here that the petitioners met respondent No.3 the same day, i e 23.5 1992 and requested to him to admit them, But the respondent No.3 angrily told them that they would not be admitted " 4. It was contended by the petitioners that out of only 20 seats, 37 students including the aforementioned Sri Ahsanuddin Amanullah have been admitted. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein, it has been contended as follows ;- "that the writ petitioners have deliberately suppressed many relevant facts, which are necessary for proper appraisal of the case. The notice inviting the applications for admission in LL. M. Part-1 course of 1988-89 session was published on 12.10.1991. The admission process was started from 18 11.1991. The classes of ll. M. Part-1 course of 1988-89 session, were started from 6.12.1991. That the petitioners also submitted their application forms for admission in LL. M. Part-I course but they could not be admitted, as they were below in the merit list and not a single student having lesser marks than the petitioners were admitted then in general category to which these petitioners belong It would be relevant to state here that in general category, the candidates having 57% marks were admitted. Admittedly, both the petitioners have secured much less than 57% marks. That, subsequently, it was found that some students have secured admission by manipulating in their marks sheets. Therefore, after enquiry and show cause etc. admission of four students were cancelled vide order dated 2.1.1992. The eight students were dropped as they had not attended single class and, therefore, the Head of the Department decided to to take admission of eight more students, so that maximum number of students could be accommodated. Those eight vacancies were also treated as casual vacancies and jointly notified on the Notice Board of the Department. That clause-7 of the General Ordinance for admission of Patna university provides that the casual vacancies shall be notified in the college or Departments on the Motice Board inviting applications tor the same to be admitted within seven days from the date of the Notice. It further provides that the admission shall be made in order of merit on the application so received. " 6. The respondents have contended that since the petitioners did not apply pursuant to the notice dated 8.1.1992, they were not admitted. It further provides that the admission shall be made in order of merit on the application so received. " 6. The respondents have contended that since the petitioners did not apply pursuant to the notice dated 8.1.1992, they were not admitted. However, in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit, it has been accepted that about two or three students who have secured lower marks to the petitioners have been admitted against casual vacancy. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that classes for LL. M. Part-1 has already been closed at the examination is scheduled to be held on or from 27th of July, 1992. 7. Petitioners have filed a reply to the said counter-affidavit, wherein they have made various allegations as against the Respondent No 3. It has been contended that one Mr. Devendra Prasad Deo was admitted on 7.1.1992 and the process of admission continued upto March, 1992, although in terms of the Rules, all admission should have been completed by 4.1.1992. It has further been submitted that eventually the casual vacancies were notified on 8.1.1992 and the petitioners have contended that really any application for casual vacancy was not obtained as one Asbok kumar Prasad was offered admission in February, 1992, who secured only 52% marks. 8. Before us the University has produced all applications for admission and it appears that one Mohan Kumar Rajak obtained 935 marks, i. e.52% was admitted against the vacancy of scheduled caste : one Sadhna Sinha who obtained 55% marks was admitted as a girl candidate ; one Jamuna prasad, who was also a scheduled caste candidate was admitted who obtained only 40.29% marks ; one Shiv Nath Prasad who secured 51.4% marks was admitted who was a scheduled caste candidate ; Smt. Saroj Kumari, who was a girl candidate, obtained 55.4% marks ; one Jaweed perwaiz having 56.6% marks being a backward candidate were admitted. However, one Ravindra Ram has been admitted who obtained only 50.9% marks ; one Kamaldeo Prasad Singh was admitted having 49.2% marks ; vinay Kumar Sinha having 56.5% ; Gyaneshwar Parajuli having 42% marks ; nilamber Prasad Verma having 53.8% marks were admitted. One Md. However, one Ravindra Ram has been admitted who obtained only 50.9% marks ; one Kamaldeo Prasad Singh was admitted having 49.2% marks ; vinay Kumar Sinha having 56.5% ; Gyaneshwar Parajuli having 42% marks ; nilamber Prasad Verma having 53.8% marks were admitted. One Md. Parwaiz having 56% marks against backward quota ; one Nagendra Singh having 56.1% marks ; one Radha Mohan Singh having 51.5% marks ; one amar Nath having 54.8% marks ; one Tuntun Jalan having 57% marks ; one anant Kumar having 50.8% marks ; one Satendra Narain Singh having 55.9% marks ; one Surcsh Kumar having 52.5% marks were admitted. Sri ahsanuddin Amanullah who has been admitted by the order of this Court secured 53% marks. Our attention has not been drawn to any policy decision of the State of University reserving some seats belonging to some specified categories. 9. It is, therefore, clear that many persons having less marks than the petitioners particularly girl candidate who has much less marks than petitioner No.2 has been admitted in the aforementioned course. 10. The University is state under the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. It has, therefore, a duty to act fairly. The students who seek admission in LL M course were thus entitled to a fair deal from the University as also the Respondent No.3. Unfortunately, the Respondent no.3 had acted in a most arbitrary manner. Even in the counter affidavit he has not come out with true story. These actions on the part of respondents and in particular that of Respondent No.3 have to be deprecated. 11. The Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University is hereby directed to make an enquiry as to under what circumstances, the persons who had secured less marks than the petitioners had been admitted. It would be open to the Vice-Chancellor to take such suitable action as against the erring officer which exigencies of circumstance may require. We hope and trust that the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall see to it that in future admission to such disciplines like LL. M. is made strictly on merits and in accordance with law. 12. The contention of the respondents to the effect that some students had been admitted after casual vacancy arose also does not inspire confidence. We hope and trust that the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall see to it that in future admission to such disciplines like LL. M. is made strictly on merits and in accordance with law. 12. The contention of the respondents to the effect that some students had been admitted after casual vacancy arose also does not inspire confidence. Clauses 6 and 7 of the General Ordinances for Admission to the various courses of studies of the University, which has been issued by the chanceller, Patna University in exercise of powers conferred upon him under section 38 (4) of the Patna University Act, 1979 as published in the notification dated 1st September, 1982 reads as follows : "6. In respect of admission in any class in the Faculties of humanities, Social Sciences, Science, Education, Commerce and law, the date of closure of admission shall be 30 days from the date of commencement of teaching in the class concerned in the college/department : provided that the Vice-Chancellor, in exceptional circumstances arising due to natural calamities or closure of the institution under unforeseen circumstances, may increase this period of 30 days by such number of days as may be required under the special circumstances necessitating such a change, after specifying the reasons for such a relaxation.7. Subject to the provisions of clause 6, casual vacancies shall be notified on the college or Department notice-board inviting applications for the same to be submitted within 7 days from date of such notification and admissions shall be made in order of merit of the application so received : provided that the inter-transfer from one college to another college in the University, to fill up any such casual vacancy may be made within 45 days of the starting of the classes in the institution where the candidate seeks to take his admission. " 13. It is true that clause 7 provides for the manner in which casual vacancies are to be notified, but, the same being subject to the provisions of clause 6. It was incumbent upon the Respondent No 3 to obtain prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor as such casual vacancies were to be filled up after 30 days from the date of commencement of the teaching in the class concerned in the College. It was incumbent upon the Respondent No 3 to obtain prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor as such casual vacancies were to be filled up after 30 days from the date of commencement of the teaching in the class concerned in the College. It is also, therefore, clear that no casual vacancy could have been notified on 8.1.1992 as has been contended on behalf of the respondents. The Vice-Chancellor of Patna University should inquire into this aspect of the matter also. 14. However, in this writ application, we are unable to give any relief to the petitioners as it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that course of studies have already been completed and the examination of LL. M. Part I is scheduled to be held on or from 27th July, 1992. 15. However, we direct the respondents to admit the petitioners in the next session keeping in view the fact that they have been kept out of consideration for admission in LL. M. Part I course for no fault on their part and also in view of the fact that in CWJC No.4900 of 1992, an offer to the aforementioned effect was made by the University itself. 16. These writ application is, therefore, disposed of with the aforementioned directions. Application Disposed.