JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. Petitioner, applied for and appeared in entrance test of 1993 conducted by Respondent No. 1 for selecting candidates for admission in L.T. course in different training colleges. In her admission form, Petitioner has given first preference for Government L.T. Training College,' Allahabad second preference for K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad and her third preference was for Sakaldiha L.T. Training College, Sakaldiha District Varanasi. She was selected but she could not get sufficient marks for higher position in merit list on account of which she was admitted on 4-8-1993 in Sakaldiha L.T. Training College, Sakaldiha District Varanasi which was her third preference. It appears that there came into existence some vacancies in K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad due to non-joining of some of the selected candidates. When Petitioner came to know about these vacancies she made a representation before the Respondent No. 1 praying for admission in K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad. No action appears to have been taken by the Respondent No. 1 on this representation. Petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus direr-ting the Respondents to admit her in or transfer her to K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad. 2. The Respondents have filed counter affidavit and the Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. The Respondents have also produced the original record of candidates who were selected and those who were placed in the waiting list. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. 3. From the perusal of the record produced by the learned standing counsel, it appears that the Petitioner secured 133 marks and her name was placed in the merit list and she was admitted in Sakaldiha L.T. Training College, Sakaldiha, District Varanasi. However two candidates who have secured less marks than the Petitioner and whose names were not in the merit list were given admission in K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad after the vacancies came into existence on account of non-joining of certain students. The above two candidates were not even in the merit list and their names were in the waiting list. If the vacancies came into existence in K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad, it was the duty of the Respondents to offer the same to those, names were placed in the merit list. The above two candidates were not even in the merit list and their names were in the waiting list. If the vacancies came into existence in K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad, it was the duty of the Respondents to offer the same to those, names were placed in the merit list. Allotting these vacancies to those who have secured less marks and whose names were not even in the merit list, does not appear to be justified and is arbitrary. 4. That apart, controversy raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by decision of this Court in Writ petition No.3544l of 1992, Anupama Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others decided on November 24, 1992 short notes of which have been published in Allahabad Law Reports, 1993 (Summary of Cases) at Page 14 at Serial No. 31. 5. Learned standing counsel has however made two submissions while opposing the writ petition namely (1) there is no provision for transfer of a candidate from one Training College to another Training College and (2) in K.P.L.T. Training College only 100 seats have been sanctioned and admitting the Petitioner now will result in admission in access of the sanctioned strength. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel 6. The Petitioner has given first and second preference, for training college at Allahabad. She was entitled to be admitted in those colleges before any other candidate who has secured less marks is granted admission. From the perusal of the record which was produced by the learned standing counsel, it is apparent that two candidates who were not even in the merit list have now been given admission in the K.P.L.T. Training College, and admittedly they secured less marks than the Petitioner. The Petitioner should have been given offer for admission in K.P.L.T. Training College as and when a vacancy arose before granting admission to candidates who secured lesser marks. But this was not done. 7. As regards the second submission, it maybe observed that Petitioner was entitled for admission in K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad before granting of admission to candidates who secured less marks than her. But it was not done by the Respondents. What the Respondents have done is that the Petitioner whose name was in the merit list was not given admission in K.P.L.T. Training College for which she has given her second preference. But it was not done by the Respondents. What the Respondents have done is that the Petitioner whose name was in the merit list was not given admission in K.P.L.T. Training College for which she has given her second preference. But persons who were not in the merit list and have secured less marks than the petition have been admitted. The Respondents were responsible for creating such a situation for which no blame can be placed on the Petitioner, Petitioner has to be admitted in the K.PX.T. Training College, Allahabad on the basis of her merit. It is for the Respondents to adjust her. 8. Writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost. The Respondent No.1 and 3 are directed to admit the Petitioner in K.P.L.T. Training College Allahabad within a period of one week from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before them. The Principal of the Sakaldiha L.T. Training College, Sakaldiha District Varanasi is directed to return the papers of the Petitioners on presentation of a certified copy of this order before him and after these papers are returned, it will be open to the Petitioner to file the same before the Principal of K.P.L.T. Training College, Allahabad.