JUDGMENT Although this petition is listed for orders on I.A. No. 11/93, an application for vacating the stay granted by this Court on 16.8.1993, considering the nature of relief and the fact that all essential averments for disposal of the petition itself have been incorporated in the application for vacating the stay, this petition is taken up for its final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is being denied admission to the M.H. Sc. course by the respondent on the ground that he failed to deposit admission-fee by 31st July 1993 which was the last date for the purpose. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the admission-fee by the last date, the respondent has given admission to other candidates, who admittedly paid the fee at a later date which was fixed. According to the respondent, only 31 seals are available in the College for M.H. Sc. course. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured admission on the basis of merit. She is at serial No.7 in the merit list prepared by the respondent and filed as Annexure R-1to the application for vacating the stay. The petitioner is a resident of Bhind and her case is that she did not receive the intimation well in time so as to enable her to rush to the College for depositing the admission-fee etc. She approached the College authority on 4.8.1993 and made written request for accepting the admission-fee, which was also recommended by the Head of the Department as is evident from the endorsement made on Annexure P-3. The intervening dates being holidays, she could not contact the authority earlier than 4.8.1993. The moot question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a candidate otherwise eligible for admission on the basis of merit should be denied admission on the ground that he/she failed to deposit the admission-fee on a particular date and whether the deadline drawn for such deposit by the respondent is so much hard and fast that no extension of time can be allowed so as to deprive a meritorious candidate who offers for further studies. If the date so fixed, and the ground shown by the petitioner for her non-appearance on the due date, are considered no such hard and fast line can be drawn as to result in dwindling the academic career of a student. If the date so fixed, and the ground shown by the petitioner for her non-appearance on the due date, are considered no such hard and fast line can be drawn as to result in dwindling the academic career of a student. There is always scope for extension of time and number of cases can be cited in support of this point. Shri Dudawat, learned Add!. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent, urged that an interim order has already been made by this Court on 16.8.93 in favour of the petitioner and she is prosecuting her studies. He further submitted that in the event this interim order is confirmed and the petitioner is allowed to continue her studies, the admission to some other candidates will have to be cancelled. It is a matter for the authority to consider even without canceling someone's admission, the number of seats can always be adjusted. We are also informed that no stipend is paid to the admitted students, as such, it also does not involve financial implications. For the foregoing reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed which is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.