Mr. Cyriac Joseph, J. ( 1 ) THE dispute involved in these writ petitions relatesto admission to LL. B. course 1994-95 in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The petitioners sought admission but could not secure admission. Notice to showcause as to why rule nisi be not issued, was issued in these writ petitions andaffidavit in reply to the show cause notice was filed on behalf of the respondentsin CWP No. 3967/94. According to the petitioners the refusal to admit them wasillegal, arbitrary and unjust. But the respondents contend that admission wasdenied to the petitioners for valid and justifiable reasons. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are common and the contentions raised are identical, we propose to dispose of these cases by a common order. ( 2 ). As per the printed Bulletin of Information issued by the Faculty of Law,university of Delhi, (produced as Annexure R-1 along with the reply to the showcause notice) admissions to LL. B. course for all the three Law Centres during1994-95 were to be made centrally by the LL. B. Admission Committee on thebasis of LL. B. Entrance Test conducted as per rules and procedure given in thebulletin. The total number of seats is 1500. Out of them 600 seats are at Lawcentre-1, 400 seats are at Law Centre-11 and the remaining 500 seats are atcampus Law Centre. All admissions were to be made strictly according to meritin the LL. B. Entrace Test, 1994. 15% of the total seats were reserved for Scheduled Castes and 7. 5% for Scheduled Tribes. There was no reservation of seats forany other category. The important dates relating to the procedure for admissionwere given on the first page of the Bulletin and the same are extracted below;- "important Instructions to Applicants" were given on the scond page of thebulletin. Paragraph 10 therein reads thus:-"the LL. B. Admission Committee reserves the right to change the datesgiven at page 1. " ( 3 ). All the petitioners submitted the applications for L. L. B. Entrance Test1994 within time and they were allowed to writ the Test held on 19/06/1994. Paragraph 10 therein reads thus:-"the LL. B. Admission Committee reserves the right to change the datesgiven at page 1. " ( 3 ). All the petitioners submitted the applications for L. L. B. Entrance Test1994 within time and they were allowed to writ the Test held on 19/06/1994. According to the important dates given on the first page of the Bulletin, the resultof the Entrance Test was to be announced by the middle of July, 1994 and withinone week from the announcement of Test result, the candidates had to submitnecessary documents for eligibility and the choice of Law Centre. However, theresult of the Entrance Test was declared earlier i. e. on 1/07/1994. Accordingto the averments in the affidavit in reply to the show cause notice, on 1/07/1994 itself the deponent (Convener of the LL. B. Admission Committee) issued apress release stating, inter alia, that the candidates who were eligible for admission to the course must obtain a prescribed form from the Office of the LL. B. Admission Committee and submit the same by 4. 00 p. m. on 18/07/1994. Itwas also stated in the Press release that the first Admission List would be notifiedon 20-7-1994 on the notice board of the Faculty of Law. A copy of the said pressrelease was displayed on the notice board of the Faculty and was also pasted atvarious important places in the Law Faculty Building. It is also stated in the saidaffidavit that the Delhi edition of several news-papers including The Times ofindia, The Pioneer, The Hindu and the Patriot had carried the news that theresult of the LL. B. Entrance Test had been declared, that the eligible candidatesshould obtain the prescribed form and submit the same by 4. 00 p. m. on18-7-1994 and that the first Admission List would be displayed on the noticeboard of the Faculty on 20/07/1994. Photocopies of the said Press release andthe press clippings of the said newspapers are produced along with the affidavitof the respondents, marked as Annexure R-3. It is further stated in the affidavitthat another notice dated 7-7-1994 was displayed on the notice board of thefaculty and at several places in the Faculty building notifying again to thecandidates that the form required for proof regarding eligibility had to besubmitted latest by 4 p. m. on 18/07/1994 along with the required documentsand that under no circumstances the date would be extended. It was also madeclear in the said notice dated 7-7-1994 that if the Final year result of the qualifying examination taken by the candidate had not been declared, he/she mustsubmit the form latest by the above date and time along with 1st year and 2ndyear Admission ticket. A photocopy of the notice dated 7-7-1994 is marked asannexure R-4. ( 4 ). It is asserted in the affidavit in reply to the show cause notice that out ofthe 4581 candidates who had appeared at the Entrance Test, not less than 3000candidates were issued eligibility-cum-option form. It is also stated that theoffice of the LL. B. Admission Committee issued the printed forms right till 18-7-1994 and that hundreds of such forms were issued on that date itself. It isfurther stated in the affidavit that the office of the LL. B. Admission Committeewas fully working on the said date and that it received notless than 1000 eligibility-cum-option forms, duly filled up by the candidates, on that date itself. ( 5 ). The petitioners did not or could not submit the eligibility-cum-optionform before 4 p. m. on 18-7-1994. Consequently the names of the petitioners werenot considered while preparing the first Admission List which was published asscheduled on 20-7-1994. Their names did not appear also in the second and finaladmission List or in the waiting list which were notified on 28-7-1994. According to the respondents the petitioners on account of their failure to submit theeligibility-cum-option form within the stipulated time (i. e. before 4 p. m. on 18-7-1994) forfeited their right to be considered for admission even if they hadobtained high marks in the Entrance Test. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the Admission List andby the inclusion of candidates who had obtained lesser marks, the petitioners approached this Court through writ petitions filed under Article 226 of theconstitution of India. Most of the contentions taken in the present writ petitionswere taken in the above mentioned writ petitions also. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the Admission List andby the inclusion of candidates who had obtained lesser marks, the petitioners approached this Court through writ petitions filed under Article 226 of theconstitution of India. Most of the contentions taken in the present writ petitionswere taken in the above mentioned writ petitions also. It was contended that therespondents were bound to adhere to the time-frame given in the Bulletin ofinformation; that time for submitting eligibility-cum-option form should havebeen given at least till 22-7-1994 since the result of the Test was to be announcedonly by the middle of July 1994; that the petitioners were not aware of the earlyannouncement of the result on 1-7-1994; that some of the petitioners could notobtain the form and submit it due to the strike by the Delhi University Kararncharis on 18-7-1994; that at any rate, failure to submit option form cannotresult inforfeiture of the right to be considered for admission; and that so longas candidates with lesser marks had been admitted the petitioners were entitledto have a direction issued by this Court to the respondents to admit them to thell. B. Course. In some cases where the petitioners were stated to have beenliving outside Delhi, interim orders were issued by the Court directing provisionaladmission. All the writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench on 22-8-1994 by a common order, a true copy of which is produced as Annexurer-5 along with the reply to show cause notice. Being a short order, it is fullyextracted hereunder, for convenience. "cw No. 3036/94 and connected matters. This is a bunch of writ petitions, filed for the admission in the first year ofll. B. of Delhi University for the year 1994-95. It appears that troublestarted when important dates as mentioned in the Bulletin of Informationwere not adhered to by the respondent as is the contention of the petitioners. Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the Delhi University at the outset pointsout that in certain cases we had granted provisional admission to studentson the presumption that those students, who were living outside Delhi didnot come to know the result of the entrance test, which was stated to havebeen declared on 1/07/1994 and consequently could not have been awareof the result, which otherwise was to be declared in the middle of July asper the Bulletin. Mr. Mr. Chaudhary submits that these students were, in fact,residing in Delhi and they made out a case giving a wrong address. He infact, showed us a statement in this respect. We do take a previous note ofthis misrepresentation and we, therefore, direct that cases of all these students, who gave wrong addresses shall not beconsidered and their writpetitions dismissed qua them and their provisional admissions cancelled. We further direct that all these writ petitions be treated as representationsmade to the LL. B. Admission Course Committee of the Law Faculty andthat Committee will look into these representations afresh, particularlykeeping in view their individual merits and thereafter as per their rank inthe merit list. Copies of the writ petitions which have not so far been given to the Counselfor the respondents shall positively be given to Mr. S. K. Mishra in C. W. 3224/94 to give additional affidavits as well, along with the copy of the writpetition. All these writ petitions shall stand disposed of in the terms above mentioned. Copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for all the partiesno costs. " ( 6 ). One of us, namely, D. P. Wadhwa, J. , was a Member of the Bench whichpassed the above order. It is clear from the order that the petitioners in thosewrit petitions failed to invite the Court to decide their claims on merits and topersuade the Court to declare their entitlement for admission or to direct therespondents to admit the petitioners to the LL. B. Course. It is obvious that, beingan essentially academic matter, the Court was not inclined to interfere with theadmission of students, when the petitioners were denied admission only onaccount of their failure to submit the eligibility-cum-option form within the stipulated time. However, since the announcement of the result of the Entrance Testearlier than the scheduled date could have caused genuine difficulties atleast inthe case of some of the candidates in submitting the eligibility-cum-option formin time, the Court wanted the LL. B. Admission Committee itself to considerafresh the grievance of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Committee was directedto treat the writ petitions as representations and to look into the matter afresh. B. Admission Committee itself to considerafresh the grievance of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Committee was directedto treat the writ petitions as representations and to look into the matter afresh. As per the above order of the Court, as we understood, the Committee wasexpected to examine whether the failure on the part of any of the petitioners tosubmit the eligibility-cum-option form was due to any bona fide reason or genuinedifficulty and if so, to favourably consider him/her admission if he/she wouldhave in the normal course got admission based on the marks obtained by him/her in the Entrance Test. The fate of the provisional admission, if any, woulddepend on the decision to be taken by the LL. B. Admission Committee afterconsidering the representations afresh. ( 7 ). Pursuant to the abovementioned order dated 22-8-1994 of the Divisionbench, the LL. B. Admission Committee offered to each of the petitioners anopportunity for personal hearing and for production of documents in support ofhis/her case. Statement of each of the petitioners was recorded in a registered,kept for the purpose, in his/her own handwriting. After considering the representations, documents if any produced and the statements recorded, the Committee came to the conclusion that 9 persons among the writ petitioners were entitled to be admitted. Out of them 5 had already got provisional admission andhence they were allowed to continue. The remaining 4 were offered admission. The provisional admissions of 11 persons were cancelled as the Committee foundthat they were not entitled to admission. ( 8 ). Even in the above mentioned exercise of the Admission Committee, thepetitioners in the present writ petitions were not found entitled to admission. Hence they have approached this Court again under Article 226 of the Constitutionseeking direction to the respondents to admit the petitioners in the LL. B. course. ( 9 ). It was contended on behalf of the petitioners before us that the LL. B. Admission Committee failed to consider the matter in accordance with the orderdated 22-8-1994 of the Division Bench. The contention was that pursuant to thesaid order of the Court the Committee was expected only to examine whether thecandidate was entitled to admission on the basis of his/her marks in the Entrancetest and that if he/she was so entitled, he/she should be given admission irrespective of the fact that he/she did not submit the eligibility-cum-option formbefore 4 p. m. on 18-7-1994. It was also alleged that by considering the admissibility or otherwise of the reasons or excuses for the failure to submit the eligibility-cum-option form, the Committee was sitting in appeal over the order dated22-8-1994 of the High Court. We find, no merit in these contentions. We havealready extracted the order and indicated as to what was expected of thecommittee. The Court had clearly refused to interfere with the admission ofstudents. The Court had declined to consider the merits of the claim of thepetitioners and to issue any direction to admit the petitioners. The Court gaveto the petitioners only an opportunity to satisfy the Admission Committee aboutany genuine and bona fide reason that prevented them from submitting theeligibility-cum-option form in time. The Court had not bound the hands of thecommittee in any manner. The Committee was not in any way inhibited by theorder of the Court, in exercising its power to take decisions on matters relatingto admission. Therefore, we are or the view that the Admission Committeecorrectly understood the true purport and scope of the order dated 22-8-1994 ofthis Court and carried out the directions strictly in accordance with that order. ( 10 ). It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Admission Committee, while considering the representations pursuant to the order of this Court,acted in an arbitrary and vidictive manner and that the Committee failed toappreciate properly the circumstances in which the petitioners could not submitthe eligibility-cum-option form in time. The AdmissionCommittee constitutedby the Dean of the Faculty, consisted of four senior teachers with Dr. S. N. Singhas Convener. While disposing of the earlier batch of writ petitions this Court feltthat the best persons to understand and appreciate the difficulties of the petitioners would be the members of the Admission Committee. There is no allegationthat any of the members of the Admission Committee has any ill-will towardsany of the petitioners or that the members of the Admission Committee have anyvested interest or ulterior motive in denying admission to the petitioners. In suchcircumstances we are not inclined to sit in appeal over the conclusions andsatisfaction arrived at by the Admission Committee. Admittedly each of thepetitioners was offered an opportunity for personal hearing and for productionof documents. The statements of the petitioners were recorded in their ownhandwriting. The Committee considered the writ petiton/representations, thedocuments, if any, produced and the recorded statements before taking thedecision. Admittedly each of thepetitioners was offered an opportunity for personal hearing and for productionof documents. The statements of the petitioners were recorded in their ownhandwriting. The Committee considered the writ petiton/representations, thedocuments, if any, produced and the recorded statements before taking thedecision. The decision was recorded as a speaking order in each case. Theconvener of the Committee, Dr. S. N. Singh himself has sworn to an affidavitstating how the Committee dealt with the matter. There is no reason to reject thestatements contained in the affidavit. Hence we are not impressed by the argument that the Committee acted in an arbitrary and vindictive manner. ( 11 ). It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Committeewent wrong in extending a differential treatment to some candidates who livedoutside Delhi. If the Committee felt that persons living outside Delhi had nopossibility of knowing about the early announcement of the Test result and hencehad a genuine reason for not submmeting the eligibility-cum-option form in timeand decided to offer them admission, we cannot find fault with the Committeefor taking such a decision especially in view of the directions contained in theorder dated 22-8-1994 of this Court. ( 12 ). Another grievance of the petitioners as highlighted by their Counsel,was that the decision of the Admission Committee was not communicated to theconcerned candidate individually. The affidavit in reply to the show cause noticeshows that the decisions of the Committee were notified on the notice board ofthe Faculty by means of four notices all dated 26-8-1994, photocopies of whichare produced a Annexure R-8. In the nature of the proceedings held by theadmission Committee, Annexure R-8 notices could serve the purpose and individual intimation to each candidate was not mandatory. ( 13 ). Yet another contention was that the Admission Committee did not giveany reasons for denying admission. When the matter was placed before theadmission Committee for fresh consideration, it was understood by all concerned that the petitioners had not been considered for admission as they hadfailed to submit the elgibility-cum-option form and that the Committee wasexpected to consider whether there was any justifiable reason for such failure. When the Committee notified on 26-8-1994 that the representations of the petitioners were rejected, it was obvious that the Committee could not find anyjustifiable reason for the failure of the petitioner to submit the eligibility-cum-option form in time. When the Committee notified on 26-8-1994 that the representations of the petitioners were rejected, it was obvious that the Committee could not find anyjustifiable reason for the failure of the petitioner to submit the eligibility-cum-option form in time. As already pointed out, the reasoning and decision of thecommittee were recorded as a speaking order in each case, though it was notcommunicated as such. In matters relating to admission in educational institutions, it may not be practical to communicate a detailed speaking order to thecandidate whenever a request for admission is declined. At any rate, in the factsand circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that we should not interfere withthe decision of the Admission Committee merely because a detailed order containing reasons for denying admission was not communicated to the petitioners. ( 14 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that so long as candidates having lesser marks have been admitted, the petitioners are entitled to beadmitted, to the course notwithstanding their failure to submit the eligibility-cum-option form in time, because failure to submit eligibility-cum-option formcannot forfeit their right for admission. It was also argued that the failure of therespondents to adhere to the time schedule given in the Bulletin of Informationshould not prejudice the right of the petitioners. The very same arguments wereraised in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners but the petitionersfailed to secure the relief from this Court. Having accepted the order dated 22-8-1994 without a demur, the petitioners cannot ordinarily be heard to raise thevery same arguments again in these writ petitions. However, we shall deal withthese questions as well, since the dispute in these cases touches the eduationalcareer of the petitioners. ( 15 ). It was the contention of the petitioners that submission of option formwas only a matter of procedure or formality and that in the absence of optionform, the respondents could have allotted the petitioners to any of the three Lawcentres as if the petitioners had no preference or choice regarding the Law Centre. It is not that simple as it is made out to be. For admission to LL. B. Courserequirements of eligibility had to be satisfied. According to the Bulletin of Information only a Graduate or Postgraduate with at least 50% marks or equivalentgrade point in the aggregate was eligible to appear in the Entrance Test. Thecandidate should have completed 20 years of age before 1-10-1994. For admission to LL. B. Courserequirements of eligibility had to be satisfied. According to the Bulletin of Information only a Graduate or Postgraduate with at least 50% marks or equivalentgrade point in the aggregate was eligible to appear in the Entrance Test. Thecandidate should have completed 20 years of age before 1-10-1994. A candidateappearing in any qualifying examination or awaiting the result of any suchexamination was also eligible to appear in the Test provisionally but he could notbe considered for admission unless he submitted proof of his having secured theabove percentage of marks on or before the date prescribed for the purpose atpage 1 of the Bulletin. According to page I of the Bulletin, necessary documentsfor eligibility had to be submitted within one week from the announcement oftest result. In the application for the Entrance Test, the candidate need onlymention among other things the date of birth, the qualifying examination and thepercentage of marks. Proof for having passed the qualifying examination withat least 50% marks and for having completed 20 years of age need not be produced along with the application. But before including a candidate in theadmission list the Admission Committee should have proof that he/she has passedthe qualifying examination with at least 50% marks and that he/she has completed 20 years of age. In other words, apart from securing sufficiently highmarks in the Entrance Test, the candidate should also satisfy the eligibility requirements regarding qualification and age. It is in this context that submissionof documents to prove eligibility i. e. qualification and age (as well as caste in thecase of SC/st candidates) within one week of announcemnt of Test result assumes significance. The admission list cannot be prepared without these documents. Hence it is imperative that a deadline or outer limit is prescribed forsubmission of documents to prove eligibility, which are essential for determiningwhether one should be included in the Admission List. It cannot be left to theconvenience of each candidate. Otherwise chaos and confusion will be the result. Whoever fails to submit the documents within the stipulated time will necessaryhave to be ignored in the matter and in that process if a candidate with lessermarks gets admitted, the former cannot complain. For the former it is the penaltyfor default and for the latter it is the prize for vigil. ( 16 ). Similar is the position regarding the submission of option. For the former it is the penaltyfor default and for the latter it is the prize for vigil. ( 16 ). Similar is the position regarding the submission of option. Admittedlythere are 3 Law Centres for which a common Entrance Test is conducted. Candidates are required to indicate their choice in the order of preference. It couldalso happenthat a candidate would like to join the course only if he gets admissionat a particular Law Centre and consequently would indicate only one choice. Therefore, choice or preference of Law Centre also should be known to theadmission Committee before they prepare the admission list. It cannot be delayed indefinitely or left to the guess work of the Admission Committee. Annexurer-2 is the prescribed form which is a combined form for proving eligibility andindicating choice of the Law Centre (eligibility-cum-option form ). Along withthis form duly filled, the candidate is required to produce attested copies of (1)Matriculation certificate for date of birth (2) Marks sheet/provisional certificateof qualifying examination, for eligibility and (3) Caste certificate if admission issought under reserved category of SC/st. It is to be noted that these documentsare not required to be produced while submitting application for the Entrancetest and that they are required to be produced only after the Test result isannounced and before the admission list is prepared. It is thus clear that submission of eligibility-cum-option form is not an empty formality but an importantand essential stage in the process of admission. The authorities who are responsible for running the course decided that the documents to prove qualificationand age as well as the option in respect of the Law Centre, need not be producedby the candidates at the time of submitting the application. They in their wisdomdecided that candidates should submit such documents and the option within astipulated period after the announcement of the result of Entrance Test. Theyhave valid reasons for taking such a decision. They have the necessary expertiseand experience in the matter. We could not find anything irrational or arbitraryor unreasonable in their decision. It is for the University and its functionariesand not for the Court to decide how the courses should be conducted or theadmissions should be regulated. The High Court cannot and should not assumethe role of the University and its functionaries. We could not find anything irrational or arbitraryor unreasonable in their decision. It is for the University and its functionariesand not for the Court to decide how the courses should be conducted or theadmissions should be regulated. The High Court cannot and should not assumethe role of the University and its functionaries. Therefore, we reject the contention that the failure to submit duly filled up eligibility-cum-option form withinthe prescribed time limit cannot forfeit the right of a candidate for admission. ( 17 ). It is true that some candidates who got lesser marks than the petitionershave been admitted to the course. It happened because the petitioners did notsubmit the eligibility-cum-option form within the stipulated time and consequentlywere not considered for admission. The petitioners will have to blame themselves for this anomalous situation. The respondents cannot be found fault withfor strictly following the rules for admission given in the Bulletin of Information. ( 18 ). The next question is whether the Admission Committee committed anyillegality or irregularity in announcing the result of the Entrance Test on 1-7-1994whereas according to the Bulletin of Information, it was to be announced by themiddle of July 1994. Paragraph 10 of "important Instructions to Applicants" (atpage 2 of the Bulletin) reserved to the Admission Committee the right to changethe dates given at page I of the Bulletin. Hence the Admission Committee wascompetent to take the decision to announce the Test result on 1-7-1994 instead ofmid July. There was no illegality or irregularity in this respect. ( 19 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the Committee could change the dates given in the Bulletin it could have been done onlywith notice to the candidates and without causing any prejudice to them. In thiscontext it is to be noted that as per paragraph 9 of the "important Instructionsto Applicants" (at page 2 of the Bulletin), all notifications including the result ofentrance Test and Admission List will be notified only locally on the Noticeboard. As already noted, on 1-7-1994 itself the Convener of the Admissioncommittee had issued a Press release publishing that the Test Result had beenannounced on 1-7-1994 and that the eligibility-cum-option form should be submitted by all candidates before 4 p. m. on 18. 7. 1994. A copy of the Press releasewas displayed on the notice board of the Law Faculty and was also pasted atvarious important places in the Law Faculty building. 7. 1994. A copy of the Press releasewas displayed on the notice board of the Law Faculty and was also pasted atvarious important places in the Law Faculty building. The Delhi edition ofseveral newspapers carried as news item the contents of the said Press release. A further notice dated 7-7-1994 also was displayed on the notice board of thelaw Faculty and at several places in the Faculty building notifying again to thecandidates that the form required for proof regarding eligibility should be submitted latest by 4 p. m. on 18-7-1994 along with the required, documents and thatunder no circumstances the date would be extended. Thus the respondents hadtaken reasonable and adequate steps to notify to the candidates that the Testresult was announced on 1-7-1994 and that the duly filled up eligibility-cum-option form should be submitted positively before 4 p. m. on 18-7-1994. It is alsoto be noted in this context that out of the 4581 candidates who appeared at theentrance Test not less than 3000 candidates had received from the office of theadmission Committee the eligibility-cum-option forms. In these circumstancesit cannot be held that the admissions made by the respondents are irregular. Anycandidate exercising reasonable vigil and showing normal interest would have ingood time come to know about the announcement of Test result on 1-7-1994 andthe requirement of submitting eligibility-cum-option form before 4 p. m. on 18-7-1994. In the ordinary course no prejudice could have been caused to the rightof the petitioners due to the change in announcing the Test result. The petitioners missed the bus due to their own default only. There is no merit in thecontention of the petitioners that the change of date should have been notifiedto each candidate through individual notice. As per the rules of admissiongiven in the Bulletin, such a course of action was not required. In the nature ofthe case it would have been help practically difficult also. ( 20 ). Some of the petitioners including Ms. Sangeeta Sharma (petitioner incw 3697/94) and Shri Rahul Mehra (petitioner in CW 3721/94) were confusedor misled by the strike of the Karamcharis of the Delhi University on 18-7-1994. Some of them thought that the office would not be functioning. Some othersclaim to have gone to the Faculty but were not given the form. Some say thatthere was nobody in the office to receive the filled up form and documents. Some of them thought that the office would not be functioning. Some othersclaim to have gone to the Faculty but were not given the form. Some say thatthere was nobody in the office to receive the filled up form and documents. These aspects were considered by the Admission Committee persuant to theorder dated 22-8-1994 of this Court but in the case of the present petitioners thecommittee could not find any merit in their claims. We find no reason to embarkupon a further fact finding mission in these proceedings. The Convener of theadmission Committee has sworn to an affidavit staling that the office of theadmission Committee was fully working on 18-7-1994, that hundreds of formswere issued on that date itself and that not less than 1000 eligibility-cum-optionforms, duly filled up by the candidates, were received in the office on 18-7-1994. In these circumstances it is difficult to believe that the petitioners alone werehandicapped in obtaining or submitting the forms and documents. We are inclinedto accept the finding of the Admission Committee in this respect. ( 21 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to thedecisions reported in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulatiand Others, AIR 1983 SC 580 , Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and Another, AIR1989 SC 903, Sonu Balhara v. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak andanother, 1989 (6) SLR 67, and Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Healthservices and Another, AIR 1992 SC 2202 and contended that since persons withlesser marks were actually admitted to the course, the Court should direct theauthorities to admit the petitioners also, if necessary, by creating additional seats. But we find that none of those decisions is applicable to the facts of this case sincewe have not held that the admissions made were illegal or that the petitionerswere denied admission wrongly. ( 22 ). On behalf of Rahul Mehra, petitioner in CWP 3721/94 a further contention was raised that the impugned admissions were bad also on account of thefailure of the Admission Committee to prescribe a later date for submission ofproof in case of late results of the qualifying examination, as contemplated bythe Bulletin of Information. This contention cannot be accepted in view ofannexure R-4 notice dated 7-7-94 which dealt with submission of documents incase of delay in declaration of result of qualifying examination. This contention cannot be accepted in view ofannexure R-4 notice dated 7-7-94 which dealt with submission of documents incase of delay in declaration of result of qualifying examination. At any rate, solong as the petitioner had not submitted the option in respect of the Law Centreand the proof of age before 4. 00 p. m. on 18-7-1994, he could not have beenconsidered for admission. Consequently the above contention has no relevancein his case. Moreover the finalisation of admission to a course cannot be delayedor kept pending until the results of all qualifying examinations are declared. Asper Annexure R-4 notice dated 7-7-1994, the Admission Committee was preparedto wait for the result of the qualifying examination till the display of the Secondadmission List. Admittedly the petitioner sent the documents to prove qualification only after the display of the Second Admission List. ( 23 ). For the reasons stated above we hold that all the writ petitions aredevoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. ( 24 ). At the close of the arguments Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for therespondent informed us that the Admission Committee again considered thecase of 27 persons including the petitioners and decided to offer available vacancies subject to the over all limit of 1500 seats. He said that four vacancies wereavailable as on 25-10-1994 and that four candidates, namely, Padamanabhan K. E. ,rajni Kher, Vanita and Rana Sudarshan Bishwas out of a list of eight candidatesprepared by the Admission Committee could be considered for admission. However, none of them would be entitled to choice of Law Centre. We, however,feel that all the available vacancies arising till 30-11-1994 should be filled up byoffering seats to the remaining four persons, namely, Sunita Singh, Sumanchauhan, Neetu Singh and Rajiv Bhasin out of the aforesaid list of eight students. If, after accommodating them, there are still further vacancies, they should beoffered to the petitioners herein on the basis of the rank/marks obtained by themin the Entrance Test. We direct accordingly. We further make it clear that thisorder will not be treated as precedent for any future admissions as it is onlybecause of the peculiar circumstances of this case that we have issued the afore-said direction and further that some of the students who would get admission,were admitted provisionally earlier under our interim orders in the earlier writpetitions. ( 25 ). The petitions are, therefore, dismissed subject to aforesaid directions. ( 25 ). The petitions are, therefore, dismissed subject to aforesaid directions. However, there will be no order as to costs.