Judgment : By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, when the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing. 2. The petitioner has come up to this Court praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to admit the petitioner in the B.L. evening course at Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Madras. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner applied for B.L.Evening course for the academic year 1992-93 and appeared for the entrance examination. The petitioner belongs to Hindu Vaniyar community which is a backward class and he seems to be a handicapped candidate and as such he applied for the B.L. course under the handicapped quota wherein certain seats have been reserved for handicapped candidates. As per the entrance examination results published in the newspapers dated 8. 1992, the petitioner seems to have been selected against the handicapped quota. When the petitioner did not receive the intimation card, he met the third respondent herein on 18. 1992 complaining that he did not receive the intimation card. It seems the third respondent has not explained as to why the petitioner did not receive any such communication. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that apart from securing good marks in the entrance examination he is entitled for the allotment of seats against the quota for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner also states that even though his entrance examination number found a place in the selected list he was not given admission in the Law College, Madras so far. At this stage, the petitioner has come up before this Court, with the prayer stated supra. 4. I ordered notice to respondents. 5. Learned Government Advocate appears with instructions. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate states that two candidates from backward class were provisionally selected to the 3 year evening course in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Madras; that the petitioner is one among them, with marks 43.65 and the other candidate is one Dhanasekaran with 47.62 marks. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate states that the petitioner could not get admission for certain reasons. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate states that the petitioner could not get admission for certain reasons. One Mr.M.R.Mani, a candidate for admission to three year (Evening) course in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Madras applied for admission for 1992-93 under scheduled tribe category indicating the relevant code numbers in his application and in the coding sheet; that he has secured 45.25 marks in the entrance examination and was selected in the main list under scheduled tribe category. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate states that at the time of despatching selection intimation to the said M.R.Mani, it was found that he had not submitted his community certificate along with the application and that he was called upon by the Principal, the third respondent therein to produce the community certificate. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions also states that by letter dated 18. 1992, the said M.R.Mani informed the principal, the third respondent herein that he is a physically handicapped candidate, that he belongs to backward class that he does not belong to scheduled tribe community, that he has committed a mistake in his application by mentioning that he belonged to scheduled tribe community and that he requested to admit him in the three year B.L. (Evening) Degree Course against the seats reserved for backward class-physically handicapped candidates. It seems that when the matter is under consideration of the department, the respondents herein, the petitioner has come up to this Court, as mentioned above. 6. Learned Government Advocate, on instructions states that in case the department decides to concede the request of the said M.R.Mani, to be considered as a backward class-physically handicapped quota, he may have to be selected in the place of the petitioner herein since the said M.R.Mani has got higher marks than the petitioner in the same category and that in such an event, the petitioner herein cannot be selected also. 7. I have considered the arguments on both sides. 8. The question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner has to be given a seat for which he was selected as published in the newspapers or the petitioner has to fall out because of the other candidate who comes later stating that he belongs to backward community and that he had mistakenly noted in the application that he belongs to scheduled tribe candidate. 9. 9. It is well-settled that in cases of admission, the applications have to be rejected if they are not in order or bereft of particulars. The peculiarity in this case is that the candidate who has described himself as belonging to scheduled tribe has got admission in that category and when it was found that he did not belong to scheduled tribe category, he comes with a request to treat him in the backward class-handicapped quota. I do not see anything wrong in that request. But that request, if conceded, will effect the petitioner’s admission into Law College. The petitioner has correctly filled up the application form stating that he belongs to backward class and he is also a handicapped candidate. As such, he had been provisionally selected in that category. The sudden confu sion has been created because of the respondents, who have not verified the applications and community certificates at the first instance i.e., even before issuing the Hall tickets to appear for the entrance examination. If it had been done so earlier i.e., either before issuing hall-tickets to appear for the entrance-examination or before the publication of the entrance test, this kind of confusion would not have occurred. Only after the publication of the list of admission, the said M.R.Mani made a request to change over from one community to another Community quota and wants to snatch away the seat from the petitioner herein. It is true that the said M.R.Mani has got more marks than the petitioner herein. It is also true that merit alone has to be considered in selecting the candidates for admission. But considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I am of the view that the petitioner should not suffer for the inaction on the part of the authorities in the sense that they have not verified the application forms and the community certificates before the publication of results. In my view, the candidates like that of the petitioner should not be penalised for the fault of the authorities. It is true that there is only one seat left vacant. In my view, the candidates like that of the petitioner should not be penalised for the fault of the authorities. It is true that there is only one seat left vacant. But I am of the view that the petitioner should not be denied that seat because another student comes with a new story that he belongs to backward class-handicapped category who had not followed the instructions shown in the application form in consonance with the prospectus issued for B.L. degree three years evening course. When a candidate sends an application form with incorrect particulars, the result always will be that the application has to be rejected summarily. That apart, the student, M.R.Mani, who now claims to belong to backward class-handicapped, has not sent the relevant community certificate with the application form. I do not understand how the respondent authorities entertained such an application even at the first instance, without valid verification of the community of the candidate. That apart, it is disheartening to note that the authorities, placed in the position as they are to admit students, have discharged their duty in a slip-shod manner and have sent the intimation cards without verifying the particulars and comparing the certificate with the application form submitted by the candidates. This situation has arisen because of the indifferences and negligent attitude of the respondent authorities concerned when scrutinising the applications of various candidates for admission before the publication of results. The petitioner before me had a legitimate expectation to get admission into the course when his register number is found in the selection list published in the newspapers and as such I am of the view that the petitioner should not suffer because of the action of the respondent authorities, who have erred in discharging their duties as per the norms prescribed for admission. I do not think the respondents can take shelter stating that a candidate who described himself as belonging to scheduled tribe now wants to get an allotment in the backward community-handicapped quota stating that he belongs to backward community. I do not think the respondents can take shelter stating that a candidate who described himself as belonging to scheduled tribe now wants to get an allotment in the backward community-handicapped quota stating that he belongs to backward community. If the admission is granted contrary to the Rule’s and Regulations meaning thereby, against the conditions of admission as noted in the prospectus, I do not think that the respondents can take such a stand before this Court and try to explain as to why the petitioner has not been admitted into the B.L. course even though he was selected. Such sort of behaviour on the part of respondent authorities is bound to generate a sense of resentment and frustration in the minds of the unfortunate young students. The respondents have got a duty to act fairly and objectively while making the selection for admission into courses like the B.L. three years (evening) degree course. As such, the authorities who have selected the petitioner and the other candidate by ignoring the rules and regulations for admission, cannot be allowed to contend now that only one candidate can be accommodated in the backward class handicapped quota. In view of that, I am fully satisfied, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that this is a case where the petitioner has got to be admitted into B.L. three years evening degree course, taking into account that he is a candidate belonging to backward class and also that he is a handicapped candidate suffering from ‘Polio Meningitis’ and the impairment is 60%. If necessary it is open to the respondents to get an increase of one more seat to the handicapped quota-backward class and admit the petitioner into B.L. three year evening degree course. This Court is not concerned with what decision the respondents are going to take with regard to another candidate i.e., the said M.R.Mani. This writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to receive the fees and admit the petitioner into the B.L. three year evening degree course, on production of a copy of this order. No costs.