S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27. 4. 95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in C. O. No. (w) of 1995, whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge allowed the writ application filled by the writ petitioners/respondents by directing the appellant University not to cancel their admission and the University authorities were directed to allow the writ petitioners to continue in the concerned course. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter bereft of unnecessary details are as follows : the writ petitioners who were 3 in number intended to get themselves admitted in M. A. of the appellant University in Sociology and Social Anthropology. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of taking admission of eligible candidates guidelines have been fixed by the respective Faculty Council, as would be evident from the excerpts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Arts, Commerce and Law held on 22. 3. 94. In terms of the said guideline the intake capacity in respective Post-Graduate Departments in Sociology and Social Anthropology were first at 35. Such selection of candidates were to be made according to the following order of preference :"2. Selection of candidates shall be made according to the following order to preference. (a) Preference will be given to the candidates who graduated in 1993 and the order to preference shall depend upon the year of graduation, like 1993, 1992 and so seriatlity. However, students from N. B. U only who got 1st Class marks in B. A. /b. Com. examination (including Special honours) in 1992 shall be considered for admission before the students who got 2nd Class in 1993 from North Bengal University. Cases of exception students who obtained a minimum of 50% of marks in the aggregate of Part-I and Part-II examination taken together in 1992, may be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor for consideration, if necessary. " ( 3 ) MOREOVER, from a circular dated 18. 3. 92 as contained in Annexure "a" to the stay application, it appears that the following decision had been taken. "the Head of the Department shall maintain a register containing names of newly admitted students in his office. Students will be asked to put their signature against their names in that register as soon as they join the department. 3. 92 as contained in Annexure "a" to the stay application, it appears that the following decision had been taken. "the Head of the Department shall maintain a register containing names of newly admitted students in his office. Students will be asked to put their signature against their names in that register as soon as they join the department. After checking the record, the Head of the Department will forward the names of the students who would fail to join their classes within 10 days from the commencement of lectures, for cancellation of their admission. The report should reach the office of the Secretary. Faculty Council for Post-Graduate students in Arts, Commerce and Law within 7 days from the expiry of 10 days period. However, the whole process of admission in to M. A/m. Com Part-I classes for the session 1993-94 including admission against dropped out/cancellation should be completed within two months from the commencement of the lectures. " ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the aforementioned guideline, a list of candidates was published and the names of the petitioners appeared at serial Nos. 93, 95 and 152 thereof. ( 5 ) BY a letter dated 22. 2. 95 as contained in Annexure 'a' to the writ application, the petitioners were offered admitted on provision basis and pursuant thereto, the petitioners took their admission on 22nd and 23rd February 1995 and deposited tution fees, library fees and hostel charges and had been attending classes. However, by reasons of the impugned order dated 14. 3. 95, their admissions were cancelled purported to be on the ground that the said admission took place in gross violation of the norms. The said letter is contained in Annexure 'c' to the application for stay filed by the appellants before this court. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioners in the writ application appears to be that keeping in view of the fact that they were offered admission by the authorities of the appellant University without any demur whatsoever, their admissions could not have been cancelled. The Vice-Chancellor affirmed an affidavit in opposition wherein it was stated that pursuant to the aforementioned guideline issued by the Academic Council, the admissions were closed on 15. 12. 94 and although all the students were bound to take admission by 15. 2. 95, the writ petitioners took their admissions on 22nd and 23rd February 1995. The Vice-Chancellor affirmed an affidavit in opposition wherein it was stated that pursuant to the aforementioned guideline issued by the Academic Council, the admissions were closed on 15. 12. 94 and although all the students were bound to take admission by 15. 2. 95, the writ petitioners took their admissions on 22nd and 23rd February 1995. ( 7 ) IT was contended before the learned trial Judge on behalf of the appellants that keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioners obtained their admission by mistake they were entitled to rectify the mistake particularly in view of the fact that the same was offered to them in violation of the guideline. ( 8 ) THE learned trial Judge having taken into consideration the respective submission came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the writ petitioners did not procure admission and the same was offered to them, the action on the part of the appellants was arbitrary. ( 9 ) MR. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised 3 contentions in support of this appeal. Learned counsel submitted that all concerned were bound by the guideline fixed by the Academic Council, and any deviation or departure therefrom would attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel next contended that in any event, the writ petitioners could not have been offered admission by an officer of the University in violation of the said guideline by superseding the claims of other candidates and the same would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any event, contended by Mr. Roy, that the petitioners having taken admission after expiry of 2 months, the same was illegal and in this view of matter, the appellants were entitled to rectify their mistake. It was further pointed out that the petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any injury, inasmuch as, their admission in the University was provisional in nature. ( 10 ) MR. Moitra appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have attended classes for a long time and they have also appeared at the examination. ( 10 ) MR. Moitra appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have attended classes for a long time and they have also appeared at the examination. Learned counsel contained relying on the basis of a decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448 , that such admission was taken pursuant to an offer made by the University, and as such, it was not fair on the part of the appellants to cancel the said admission. ( 11 ) HAVING given our anxious thoughts over the matter, we although find that the contentions raised by Mr. Roy, may have sufficient force, but we do not think it a fit case where this court should exercise its jurisdiction in setting aside the judgment. It is now well known that this court is not only a court of law but is also a court of equity. Guidelines issued by the respondents are not mandatory in nature but are merely directory. In this case, no student has come forward to question the admission of the writ petitioners/respondents. The writ petition was filed immediately after the impugned order dated 14. 3. 95 was issued and it is an admitted fact that pursuant to an interim order passed by this court they have been attending their classes and as indicated hereinbefore they have also appeared at the examination. ( 12 ) IN this situation, in our opinion, it would not be fair and proper on the part of this court to set aside the admission of the writ petitioners/respondents. However, we may add that the judgment of the learned Trial Court shall not create any precedent and the question raised by Mr. Roy may be considered in an appropriate case. ( 13 ) BEFORE parting with this case, we may, however, observe that the University being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is bound to act fairly and reasonably. Such fair and reasonable action on the part of the University would be in consonance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The University, when frames a guideline in accordance with law, it is bound to adhere strictly therewith. Such fair and reasonable action on the part of the University would be in consonance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The University, when frames a guideline in accordance with law, it is bound to adhere strictly therewith. Any deviation or departure from such guideline would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in a given case, it may be open to the University to rectify its mistake in the event it be held that some offers of admission were issued to some students who were not entitled thereto. It is expected that in future the officers of the appellant University would bestow serious consideration before issuing any offer of admission to any candidate, inasmuch as, in the event of such an action is questioned by any other eligible candidate, the University would be answerable to a court of law and such an action on the part of the University may be subject matter of a judicial review. We would, therefore, hope and trust that in future there would not be recurrence of any such avoidable mistake. We may further observe that when number of seats are fixed by the University, normally this court should not give any direction upon the University to create more posts, inasmuch as, such direction may give rise to many complications. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, it is not necessary for us to consider the merit of the matter in depth. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations. The University may now publish the results of the writ petitioners/respondents. However, there will be no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy, if applied, he supplied to the parties on priority basis. S. N. Chakrabarty. J. ? I agree. Appeal disposed of