C. L. Chandhry ( 1 ) THE petitioners are seeking admission to thell. B. Course conducted by University of Delhi. The petitioner No. 1,jayshree Ravi graduated from the University of Delhi in the year 1983 securing 47. 75% marks. The petitioner No. 2 also graduated from University ofdelhi in the year 1980 securing 46% marks. The petitioners were desirousof taking admission in LL. B. course in the Faculty of Law, University ofdelhi. The University of Delhi decided to hold an entrance test. Accordingly an advertisement dated 22. 6. 1992 was published in the Newspaperwherein eligibility criteria was laid down as under : "test is open to candidates (a) who have passed Master sbachelor s Degree examination under 10+2+3 Scheme or Delhiuniversity securing atleast 50% marks in the aggregate and havecompleted 20 years of age as on 1. 10. 1992. " ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners they submitted their applicationforms for taking entrance examination to be conducted by the University ofdelhi for entrance to the L. L. B. course They were apprehensive of the factthat due to eligibility condition of 50% marks in aggregate, the Universitywould reject their application form and would not allow them to appear inthe entrance test. In these circumstances they approached this Court underarticle 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the eligibility conditionof minimum 55% marks in the aggregate in Graduation for appearing in theentrance test. ( 3 ) THE writ petition came up for admission on 28. 7. 1992 before abench of this Court. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent as towhy Rule Nisi be not issued, returnable on 10. 8. 1992. In the miscellaneousapplication filed on behalf of the petitioners for a allowing them to appearin the entrance test, the Bench directed that the application submitted by thepetitioner would be accepted provisionally by the respondent but the resultof the selection would not be announced till further orders. Under thesecircumstances the petitioners were allowed to take the entrance test. ( 4 ) THE writ petition 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. Under thesecircumstances the petitioners were allowed to take the entrance test. ( 4 ) THE writ petition 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 50% 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 Mahinder 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. ( 5 ) TWO other students namely- Vineet Malhotra and Rohit Chopramoved applications being No. 84/1993 and 85/1993 seeking intenvention inthe writ petition. ( 6 ) THE petitioners have moved the present applications seekingdirection to the University to declare their results and grant them provisionaladmission to appear in the 1st Semester Examination of the LL. B. course. Itis stated in the applications that in case the petitioners were not allowed toappear in the 1st Semester Examination they would suffer irreparable injuryin case they finally succeed in the petition. ( 7 ) THE applications are contested on behalf of the University. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties as also theinvervenors. For the reasons recorded in C. M. 7914/1992 in C. W. 3983/1992i allow these applications and direct the University to declare the results ofthe petitioners within 3 days and in case they secure more marks than thelast candidate who was given admission by the University of Delhi, thepetitioners would also be given admission provisionally and they will beallowed to take the 1st Semester examination. However, the grant of thisprovisional admission and taking of the 1st Semester examination shall notconfer any right in favour of the petitioners in case they ultimately fail in thewrit petition.