JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe. He appeared in the Pre Teacher Education Test conducted by Meharshi Dayanand Saraswati University Ajmer in the year 1992. He secured 347 marks out of a total of 600 marks and was assigned district merit No. 403. He was allotted Bhartiya Vidya Mandir Shiksyak Prashiksan Maha Vidyalaya, Banswara. On 25.1.93 the petitioner received a communication from respondent No. 2 regarding his provisional admission. He was directed to submit his fees alongwith original certificates, mark-sheets and admission card of PTET, 1992. Immediately on receipt of the communication from respondent No. 2 the petitioner proceeded for Banswara. He met the Principal Bhartiya Vidya Mandir, Shiksyak Prashiksan Maha Vidyalaya, Banswara on 27.1.93 because, 26th January was a National holiday. He requested the Prinicpal to accept the fees and his documents but the Principal declined to accept the same on the ground that the petitioner had come late. The petitioner submitted representation dated, 27.1.93 to the Principal of the College but no action has been taken by the respondents for accepting his fees and certificates. 2. The petitioner's claim is that he is being denied benefit of admission without any reason or rhyme and he is being made to suffer on account of the fault of the respondents. The petitioner has received communication from respondent No. 2 only on 25.1.93 for depositing fees and original documents. It was impossible for him to submit these documents at Banswara on 25.1.93 itself. However, he had submitted the fees and documents on the next working day and notwithstanding that he has been denied admission. 3. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have contested the writ petition by arguing that the petitioner had full knowledge of his allotment to Bhartiya Vidya Mandir, Shiksyak Prashiksyan Maha Vidyalaya because, the result of PTET 1992 was notified in all daily newspapers. The result indicated the particular College to which selected candidates had been allotted. A notification dated, 12.1.93 was also got published in daily newspapers and the candidates were called upon to deposit their fees and original documents by 25.1.93, even though they may not have received the provisional selection letter on account of delay in distribution of Dak. On the basis of Annexures R/1 and R/2 the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner ought to have acted upon Annexure R/2. On the basis of Annexures R/1 and R/2 the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner ought to have acted upon Annexure R/2. Respondents have pleaded that the petitioner was under an obligation to come to Banswara even without receipt of the provisional letter of selection from respondent No. 2 and since he has not done so, his admission stood cancelled. 4. A perusal of Annexures 2 and 3 filed alongwith the writ petition show that although the letter of provisional selection bears the date 13.1.93, it was delivered to the petitioner only on 25.1.93 and there is nothing on record to show as to when respondent No. 2 actually despatched Annexure-2 to the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner had contacted the Principal of Bhartiya Vidya Mandir Shiksyak Prashiksan Maha Vidyalaya immediately on receipt of provisional selection letter. He cannot therefore, be held to have committed any negligence or lapse in taking steps for deposit of the fees and the original documents. The petitioner could have been held guilty of negligence if after receipt of the letter of provisional selection he had not taken steps for deposit of fees and necessary documents within reasonable time. Refusal of the respondents to accept fees and documents of the petitioner even though he has been selected on the basis of merit is throughly unreasonable. Since the petitioner had received letter of provisional selection only on 25.1.93, it was impossible for him to have reached Banswara from Alwar on that very day and tender his fees together with documents before the Principal of the College. The petitioner cannot be penalised for his failure to fulfil an impossible condition. 5. The plea of the respondents that the petitioner should have acted upon Annexures R/2/2 cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the respondents had not indicated in the syllabus of examination or in the Mark-sheet or the result sheet that they would publish intimation for deposit of fees and documents in some newspaper. Therefore, the respondents cannot rely on publication of notice dated 12.2.93 in the newspaper. Secondly, the petitioner is not expected to read a particular newspaper and therefore, even if the respondents No. 2 had got the notice published in a particular newspaper, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of admission for his failure to read that newspaper. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Secondly, the petitioner is not expected to read a particular newspaper and therefore, even if the respondents No. 2 had got the notice published in a particular newspaper, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of admission for his failure to read that newspaper. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents and in particular respondent No. 3 is directed to accept the fees and original documents of the petitioner and allow him to undertake the study in B.Ed. Course. This must be done immediately on receipt of certified copy of this order by respondent No. 3. Costs made easy.Petition Allowed. *******