Judgment Vijay Bahuguna 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31-8-1992 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. 2. By the impugned order the decision of the University has been communicated to the various Faculties that a weightage of 10 marks would be given to the students, who have passed the qualifying examination prior to 1992 if, they qualified in the entrance test. The petitioners are aggrieved by the grant of weightage of 10 marks to the students of 1991 batch. The petitioners contend that only they were eligible for weightage of 10 marks inasmuch as they had passed the qualifying examination from the schools recognised by the Banaras Hindu University. 3. The controversy is thus in a very narrow compass as to whether the award of weightage of 10 marks to students other than 1992 batch is valid or not. The petitioners had applied for admission to L.L.B in the Banaras Hindu University for the session 1992-93. The University had published a brochure regarding the information of the entrance test for admission to various courses of the University, including LL.B. course. In the said brochure it was stated that a weightage of 10 marks will be given to the Students passing the qualifying examination in 1992 for deciding the merit provided they qualified in the test the petitioners were given the weightage of 10 marks as they bad obtained B.A. degree from Banaras Hindu University in 1992. The petitioners contend that only they were entitled to the weightage of 10 marks as they were of 1992 batch and the students of the previous year could not be given the weightage of 10 marks and as such the L.L.B. admissions of the Banaras Hindu University are bad to the aforesaid extent the petitioners, after a weightage of 10 marks are Just short of 200 marks which was the qualifying mark for admission. 4. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the guidelines framed for the entrance examination could not be altered subsequently to the detriment of the petitioners and that the weightage of 10 marks could not be given to the students of 1991 batch. 4. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the guidelines framed for the entrance examination could not be altered subsequently to the detriment of the petitioners and that the weightage of 10 marks could not be given to the students of 1991 batch. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University it is admitted that in the brochure for 1992-93 entrance examination it was mentioned that the weightage of 10 marks would he given to the candidates who had done B.A. in 1992 However. It is clarified that the weightage of 10 marks was being given in the previous year to the students of 1991 batch and such on the representations made by the students of 1991 batch the Academic council passed a resolution on the 24th of August, 1992 deciding to grant weightage or 10 marks to the students of 1991 batch also. In fact the University has followed the same policy, which was prescribed in the year 1991-92 examinations. The old policy has been continued under which the students of earlier batch have also been given the weightage of 10 marks and after ward of weightage of 10 marks the students who have obtained 200 marks have been admitted. As the petitioners have procured below 200 marks they could not succeed. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Rama v. Kakatiya University, AIR 1982 A.P. 476 . In the concluding portion of paragraph 9 of the said Judgment the court observed that the students who ate in the merit list of M.A. English Examination for 1981-82 could not be admitted and the students with much lower marks were admitted which was in contravention of the admission policy. The Court held that as the admission policy was that admissions would be strictly on the basis of merit and ranking given on the basis of marks secured in the entrance examination, the policy could not be subsequently changed to amend the admission rules of granting preference to certain category of students. The aforesaid decision would not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioners are not claiming admission by merit but by weightage of 10 marks. The aforesaid decision would not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioners are not claiming admission by merit but by weightage of 10 marks. The policy decision taken by the University to give a weightage of 10 marks to the students of 1991 batch also cannot be said to be arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. The weightage of 10 marks was given to the students of 1991-92 batch also in the previous year and there was no good reason for the University to exclude them from the Weightage of 10 marks in the examination of 1992-93. 6. This court has inherent powers under Article 226 of the constitution to strike down admission policy of the University if it is violative of Article 14 of the constitution. If admissions are not done strlotly on the basis of merit and preference is given to a certain class of students on irrelevant considerations, then this court will not hesitate to strike down the admission policy. But, in so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the petitioners have not qualified on merit. However, they desire that the weightage of 10 marks should not be given to the students of 1991-92 batch. This weightage of 10 marks is meant for the students who have graduated from the Banaras Hindu University and if weightage is given only to 1992 batch students then the admission policy would be arbitrary as the students of 1991 batch constitute the same class for the purpose of grant of weightage of 10 marks. The academic council of the University has rightly, in its wisdom, amended the admission policy to include the students of 1991 batch also into the weightage of 10 marks so that the admission policy of the University could not be challenged by the students of 1991 batch on the ground of its being arbitrary and unreasonable. If the University amends its admission policy to remove the illegalities which existed, then it is not open for this court to term the admission policy as arbitrary, if an act of the University promotes equality and fairness, then this court would not set aside the admission policy on an objection that the University could not alter the policy after the tests were over. In fact, if a writ petition would have been filed by the students of 1991 batch challenging the weightage of 10 marks given to the students of 1992 batch then the entire examinations of the University would have been upset by a competent court of law. Either there should be no weightage, but if the University decides to grant weightage to the students who have graduated from it, then it cannot be confined to the students who have graduated in the year in which the entrance test is taking place. This would be an arbitrary classification and would be hit by Article 14 of the constitution. As this court is of the opinion that the admission policy for 1992-93 does not discriminate between the students who are similarly placed and as such the weightage of 10 marks given to the students of 1991-92 batch is fair and valid and does not justify any interference by this court. 7. The grant of weightage marks Itself is not a sound policy decision and such weightage has been struck down by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AIR 1989 SC 177 . The court had declared the weightage of 5% marks given to the students of the Medical College in which the candidates were seeking admission. In the postgraduate course as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. Even though the grant of 10 marks as weightage has not been challenged by any student In this court, but yet the same if a relevant aspect which has to be kept in mind by this court in examining the issues raised by the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this court under Article 226 of the constitution and as such are not entitled to seek any relief. 8. However the petitioners contend that initially there were only 250 seats but now the seats have been increased. The University is directed to admit the students strictly on the basis of marks obtained both in the entrance test and weightage of 10 marks and if any student with lesser marks, than those obtained by the petitioners, have been given admission in the University In the L.L.B. 1st year course the petitioners are also entitled to be admitted. The University is directed to admit the students strictly on the basis of marks obtained both in the entrance test and weightage of 10 marks and if any student with lesser marks, than those obtained by the petitioners, have been given admission in the University In the L.L.B. 1st year course the petitioners are also entitled to be admitted. The vice chancellor is directed to look into the matter and abide by the directions of this Court. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.