C. L. Chandhry ( 1 ) THE petitioner is seeking admission to the 1styear LL. B. course conducted by the University of Delhi. The petitionerappeared in the LL. B. entrance examination and secured 150 marks out of600. He was declined admission by the University of Delhi on the groundthat he had completed graduation on the 10+2+2 pattern of education andhe could be granted admission only if he had obtained 55/o marks in Graduation. The petitioner filed writ petition being C. W. P. No. 3983/1992 challenging the eligibility condition of 55% marks prescribed by the University foradmission to the LL. B. Course which provides that candidates who havepassed Bachelor s degree examination in 10+2+2/11 +3 pattern leading tothe award of the decree after 14 years of study securing atleast 55% marks inthe aggregate and should have completed atleast 19 years of age as on31. 10. 1992. According to the petitioner, in Graduation he had secured50. 40% marks and he was entitled to the admission in the LL. B. course. ( 2 ) THE University is opposing the petition filed by the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN similar circumstances another student Dinesh Pal also tiled awrit petition in this Court being C. W. P. 2562/1992 challenging the eligibilitycondition of 55/o for the Graduate students of 10+2+2 pattern. The writpetition filed by Dinesh Pal came up for hearing before a Division Bench ofthis Court comprising of Mahinder Narain and Jaspal Singh, JJ. The writpetition was decided by Judgment dated 15. 12. 1992. Mahinder Narain, J. held that the eligibility condition of 55% marks in Bachelor s degree examination was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it wasstruck down and Mahinder Narain, J. allowed the writ petition. But Jaspalsingh ,j. did not agree with the view expressed by Mabinder Narain, J. andupheld the eligibility condition of 55% marks. There was a difference ofopinion between the learned Judges and that is how the matter has beenplaced before me in accordance with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent for thehigh Court of Delhi. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a Civil Miscellaneous petition being 7914/1992 which is proposed to be disposed of by this order. By this applicationthe petitioner is seeking direction to the University for giving him provisionaladmission to the LL. B. course till the final disposal of the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a Civil Miscellaneous petition being 7914/1992 which is proposed to be disposed of by this order. By this applicationthe petitioner is seeking direction to the University for giving him provisionaladmission to the LL. B. course till the final disposal of the writ petition. It isstated that the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury if he is notgranted admission to the LL. B. course of the University and the same cannotbe compensated in terms of money if the petitioner ultimately succeeds in thewrit petition. ( 5 ) THE application is contested on behalf of the University. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the controversy involved. ( 7 ) IN support of his arguments Mr. Chaudhary appearing for theuniversity relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofkrishna Friya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, reported as AIR 1984 SC186 wherein it was observed as follows : "with this short preclude, now to the facts of the case whichdisclose a sad story indeed-not because those in charge of theinstitutions commit errors but because the Courts start directing theauthorities to grant provisional admissions to students even if theydid not deserve the same in some cases. Experience has shown thatin view of the huge accumulation of arrears in Courts, it takes along time for the petitions to be disposed of, hence we have evolvedthe practice of forcing the authorities to grant provisional admissionswhich has resulted in a piquant and pungent situation because bythe time the case comes up for hearing, the rejected candidateshaving completed their course and having appeared at the examination with every hope of success become eligible for admission to thehigher course in case of success though the Court may ultimatelyfind that their initial rejection was justified. Such a situation becomes a sort of a fait accompli for those in charge of the institutionsas a result of which the candidates are admitted in due deference tothe desire of the Court by increasing or creating vacancies even inthe absence of suitable and proper facilities to train the extra candidates. This results in an anathema and a dilemma for which thereis hardly any remedy. The present cases are a clear illustration ofthis problem. This results in an anathema and a dilemma for which thereis hardly any remedy. The present cases are a clear illustration ofthis problem. Our suggestion therefore, is that whenever a writpetition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matterof course on the petition being admitted unless the Court is fullysatisfied that the petitioner has a cast iron case which is bound tosucceed or the error is so. , gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible. In order, however, to test this fact even a shortnotice may be given to explore as to what the other side has to sayand thereafter if the Court is satisfied that there is strong primafade case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisionaladmission may be given. We hope and trust that the High Courtswould in future discontinue the practice of lightly granting provisional admission to the candidates at the time of regular admissions,as observed above. It is needless to state that this Court on itspart would also be extremely reluctant to grant provisional admission and would do so only in a very special case. The fundamentalreason for this is that otherwise the institutions are likely to becomeovercrowded by candidates, eligible or ineligible, efficient or inefficient. Unless the Institutions can provide complete and fullfacilities for the training of each candidate who is admitted in thevarious disciplines, the medical education will be incomplete andthe universities would be turning out Doctors not fully qualifiedwhich would adversely affect the health of the people in general. " ( 8 ) HE also relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Courtdelivered in the case of U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee and Others v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwaniand Others, reported as JT 1992 (1) SC 571, whereinthe following observation was made : "it is a well known rule of practice and procedure that atinterlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at thedisposal of the matter is not granted. The writ petitioners wantedadmission into post-graduate course as the main relief in the writpetition. To have it granted at the threshold creates a lot ofdifficulties. In a case where the petitioner ultimately loses in a caseof this type a very embarassing situation crops up. If he has bythen read for two or three years, there is a claim of equity raised onthe plea that one cannot reverse the course of time. To have it granted at the threshold creates a lot ofdifficulties. In a case where the petitioner ultimately loses in a caseof this type a very embarassing situation crops up. If he has bythen read for two or three years, there is a claim of equity raised onthe plea that one cannot reverse the course of time. In a case ofthis type equities should not be claimed or granted. Taking anoverall picture of the matter we are of the view that unless there isany special reason to be indicated in clear terms in an interlocutoryorder as a rule no provisional admission should be granted andmore so into technical courses. " ( 9 ) MR. Challdhary also relied upon a decision of the Division Benchof this Court in the case of Jayant Sudy. Faculty of Law, reported as 47 (1992) DLT 182. wherein the eligibility condition of securing 50% marks inthe degree examination was upheld. ( 10 ) ON the other hand Mr. Khadaria appearing for the petitionercontented that there is a difference of opinion amongst the two learnedjudges and one of the Judges i. e. Mahinder Narain, J. has held that theeligibility condition of 55% marks is invalid, unconstilutional and violative ofarticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The matter is yet to befinally heard and decided. In case the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, he cannot be compensated by any means. On the other hand if he isgranted provisional admission and is allowed to sit in the examination, noharm will be done to the University. But in case he is not allowed to takethe examination he shall suffer irreparable injury. ( 11 ) I have given my thoughful consideration to the entire matter. Incase of K. P. Ganguly (Supra) the Supreme Court has laid down that theprovisional admission could be granted only in a very special case. Sincethere is a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges and one ofthem, Mahindernarain,j. has struck down the condition of eligibility of55/o marks on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory and is vilolative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, Jaspalsingli, J. has upheld the validity of the aforesaid eligibility condition. Sincethere is a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges and one ofthem, Mahindernarain,j. has struck down the condition of eligibility of55/o marks on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory and is vilolative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, Jaspalsingli, J. has upheld the validity of the aforesaid eligibility condition. In myopinion the petitioner has a strong prima fade case because it is yet to bedecided as to which of the views taken by Mahinder Narain, J. or Jaspalsingh, J. is correct. In case the petitioner is granted provisional admissionand he is allowed to appear in the 1st Semester examination the Universitywill not suffer any injury. On the other hand if the petitioner is not allowedto take the 1st Semester examination and ultimately he succeeds in thewrit petition he shall suffer irreparable loss and he will lose one academicyear. ( 12 ) I under stand that the students who have secured 100 or moremarks have been admitted in the LL. B. 1st year. The petitioner has secured150 marks. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, I am ofthe view that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of provisional admissionand taking 1st Semester examination. Accordingly, I direct the respondentto grant provisional admission to the petitioner and allow him to take the1st Semester examination. However, I make it clear that the provisionaladmission so granted or taking of 1st Semester examination by the petitionershall not create any right in favour of the petitioner in case be ultimatelyfails in the writ petition.