D. K. SETH, J. These bunch of writ petitions involved common question of facts and law. Therefore all these matters are heard together. Different sets of counsels have appeared on behalf of different sets of petitioners. While Sri Radhey Shyam and Sri J. N. Verma, learned counsel represented the respondent-Kanpur University. 2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 9461 of 1995 is that D. A. V. College, the petitioner herein, had admitted 113 students in B. Sc. Part III in the academic Session 1994-95. These students had passed their B. Sc. Part-11 examination from other University. According to the petitioners the said students were admitted upon strict compliance of provision of Chapter XI of the Kanpur University Ordinances. By a letter dated 4-4-1995 the final examination forms of the said 113 students were cancelled by the Kanpur University on the ground that no Bridge Course examination is conducted. According to Mr. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner the said order of rejection is contrary to the rules and the notice dated 2-1-1992 issued by the University to all the colleges, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is further alleged that the University had conducted such Bridge Course Examination for the academic session 1993-94 and it declared the result of such students in respect of B. S. Pat-Ill, as would be evident from Annesure-4 to the writ petition. However, pursuant to certain interim orders the students were allowed to appear in the Examination but their result have been withheld. 3. Similar case was made out in writ petition No. 8919 of 1995 wherein D. A. V. College, Kanpur is the petitioner in respect of 8 A. Part-Ill Examination for the same Session. In the said case the candida ture of the students were refused on different ground by undated letter, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. In the other writ petitions, namely, writ petition No. 31683 of 1995, 30345 of 1995, 30344 of 1995, 30343 of 1995, 28852 of 1993 and 1012 of 1996 the petitioners are individual students of B. A. /b. Sc. Part-Ill appearing in the examination through the said D. A. V. College except the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31683 of 1995, who had appeared through D. B. S. College. 5. Part-Ill appearing in the examination through the said D. A. V. College except the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31683 of 1995, who had appeared through D. B. S. College. 5. Sri Radhey Shyam learned counsel contends that the said students did not qualify and are not eligible to appear in the said examina tion because of provisions contained in Chapters-IX and XI of the Ordin ances. According to him the only students on transfer can seek admission. He further contends that Bridge course had been abolished and no such examination is conducted by the University. According to him the peti tioners have not passed B. A. /b. Sc. Part-II Examination and that nothing has been produced before the University to show that they have so passed from any other University. He further contends that the course of studies of those students are materially different and not identical. He further contends that pursuant to an order passed in one of this matter directing the Registrar to consider the question, the Registrar had asked the students to produce relevant documents but those were never produced before the Registrar. Therefore, no relief can be had on the application. Sri Radhey Shayam has made all contentions while opposing two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 9461 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 8918 of 1995, in which he is appearing. 6. Dr. R. O. Padia, in support of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31683 of 1995 had contended that under Chapters IX and Xi of the Ordinances the students having passed B. A. /b. Sc. Part-II Examination from the other University may be admitted in B. Sc, Part III of the Kanpur University. According to him the students had fulfilled all the conditions and are, therefore, eligible for being so admitted and that such admission has been made after verifying the papers by the concerned college. The course was also verified by the Dean of the Faculty of Science of the University to be the similar. Therefore, the refusal by the University are arbitrary. 7. Sri Baghel, learned counsel on the other hand contends that before admitting the students College had been informed by the University authority, particularly Dean Faculty of Science that the course are similar. Therefore, the refusal by the University are arbitrary. 7. Sri Baghel, learned counsel on the other hand contends that before admitting the students College had been informed by the University authority, particularly Dean Faculty of Science that the course are similar. The students have been admitted after verifying that they passed B. A. / B. Sc, Part-II Examination from the other University and that they have obtained Migration Certificate from such University. According to him the University has taken a different stand at different stages. Inasmuch while refusing the students of B. A. Part-Ill concerned in Writ Petition No, 8918 of 1995 by an undated letter, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it was informed that Bridge course have been abolished. While refusing the case of B. Sc. Part-Ill students by a different order dated 4-4-1995, which is Annexure- 2 to the writ petition No. 9461 of 1995 it was stated that the course of studies are not similar and, therefore, their case can not be considered. On the other hand the University had sought to improve-its case in the affidavit filed by seeking to introduce opinion of some other persons which they cannot do after the Dean or Faculty of Science had already given its opinion earlier. Sri Baghel has also relied on the various other documents wherein particularly Annexure RA-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, giving particular of the students from the other University, allowed to appear in the same course in 1994-95 session and had declared the result, which is apparent from Annoxure-RA-2 of the ^aid Supplementary rejoinder affidavit and cross-checking thereof shows that these very students whose names figure in the said RA-l to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit do also figure in the Annexure-RA-2. In paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit the particulars of the students of other Colleges, allowed to appear in the said course, have been given. Though the supplementary counter affidavit was filed after filing of the said rejoinder affidavit, but the statement made in Para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit has not denied in the supplementary counter affidavit. Therefore, it appears that the University meets out discriminatory treatment to the students of different colleges. 8. Though the supplementary counter affidavit was filed after filing of the said rejoinder affidavit, but the statement made in Para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit has not denied in the supplementary counter affidavit. Therefore, it appears that the University meets out discriminatory treatment to the students of different colleges. 8. Sri Dilip Kumar appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1012 of 1996, has referred to the recommendations of University Grant Commission, a copy whereof has been produced referring thereto he submits that the Bridge course was directed to be followed or carried on the recommendations of University Grant Commission, which is binding on all the Universities. Therefore, the respondents cannot abolish or deny to hold Bridge course Examination. In my view the Character and purpose of the course referred to herein is different from the course we are dealing with now, which is not a Bridge course, if the expression issued in the said proviso is examined and compared with the provision of Chapters IX and XI of the Ordinances. 9. Sri Baghel has produced copy of Migration Certificates of each of the students before this court which is taken on record. It is not alleged that D, A. V. College has admitted those students without verifying the Migration Certificates. D, A. V. College on the other hand asserts that those Migration Certificates have been forwarded to the University He also refers to the opinion of the Dean, Faculty of Science to the extent that the course is similar. He also refers to the list of students of other college, allowed to appear in the said course and points out that there are students from Calcutta University and Bardhman University. If those course can be held to be similar in those students it cannot be said that those course are different in case the students who appeared through D. A. V. College. Sri Kadhey Shyam, has not been able to dispute the said ancexures nor they have denied that they not allowed any student from any other colleges who are similarly situated. According to the second part of Clause t3 ). Sri Kadhey Shyam, has not been able to dispute the said ancexures nor they have denied that they not allowed any student from any other colleges who are similarly situated. According to the second part of Clause t3 ). "a candidate who has passed Part-l B. A. Examination of another University may also be admitted to Part-II B. A. Examination provided that he offered for the Part-I Examination a course of an equivalent standard almost identical syllabus as is required for Part I Examination of this University and has attended a regular course of study for one academic year in au affiliated college of the Uni versity. The facility may also be extended to those candidates who have passed Part-I and Part-II of B. A. Examination of another University, in case of transfer for admission to B. A, Part-Ill Examination. "chapter- IX deals with Examination of Bachelor of Arts while Chapter-IX in Clause (2) makes similar provision for Science students in the Second part in identical expression. 10. A plain reading of the said Ordinances lays down that a candidate, who have passed B. A. Part-Li Examination from the another University, in case of transfer for admission in B. A. Part-ill Examina tion can be admitted, if he had offered course of equivalent standard almost identical syllabus as is required for Part-H examination of the University and has attended regular course of studies for one academic year in an affiliated college of the University. 11. The refusal of the candidature of B. A. Part-Ill candidates by the undated letter, being Annexure-3 to the writ petition No. 918 of 1995 does not state correct reasons inasmuch as it can not be said from the materials produced before this Court that University has abolished the said course. There is no dispute that second part of Clause (3) of Chapter IX and second part of Clause (2) of Chapter XI of the Kanpur University Ordinances is being described as Bridge course. Unless the said Ordinance is repealed or provision is created by amending the Ordinance the Univer sity is not authorised to abolish the said Bridge course nor can they refuse to conduct examination of such Bridge course. Even then the University has to make provision for such Bridge course in terms of second part of the said Ordinance, referred to above. In view, bridge course in terms of Regulation 8. Even then the University has to make provision for such Bridge course in terms of second part of the said Ordinance, referred to above. In view, bridge course in terms of Regulation 8. 3 of the University Grant Commission, Regulation 1985 regarding admission of the students provided in Regula tion 2 thereunder as contained in the second proviso in respect of the cases for the transitory period as provided there in is different from the course we are dealing with. Inasmuch as the course referred to U. G. C. regulation is meant for transitory provision for converting from two years course to three years course. Whereas in the present course it is For the students of other University having passed Part-I or Part II B. A. /b. Sc. are seeking admission in Part HI B A. /b. Sc. Examination. Even then the Bridge course referred to in U. G. C. regulation also cannot be abolished by the University until the transitory period is over. There is nothing to show that the transitory period is over. The Univer sity has also not produced an referred to any record before this court to show that the Bridge course is abolished. In the present case it is also not contended by the University that they come under second proviso to sub-para (2) of Regulation 8. 3 of the University Grant Commission Regulations 1985. It is clearly a case which comes within the ambit of Ordinance as provided in Chapter IX and XI in Clauses (3) and (2) respectively, as referred to above therein after referred to as Ordinance. If a distinction is drawn that the said Ordinance does not mean Bridge course and means a regular course when for the students coming from the other University having pissed B. A. Part-I and Part-II examination, as the case may be, in that event the same cannot be termed as Bridge course, but a regular course. Therefore, abolition of Bridge course, or conducting examination of Bridge course can not be a ground to refuse the students coming within the ambit of the Ordinances. The material placed before this court clearly indicates that the said students do qualify for the said course. Therefore, abolition of Bridge course, or conducting examination of Bridge course can not be a ground to refuse the students coming within the ambit of the Ordinances. The material placed before this court clearly indicates that the said students do qualify for the said course. Inasmuch the students from the Calcutta University and Bardhm n University, similarly situated, have been allowed to appear in the examination from other colleges, which is apparent from Annexure-RA-1 and RA-2 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. The fact that Dean Faculty of Science having opined that the course are of same standard and almost identical, can not be brushed aside even by the reason of subsequent report, wherein it was found that 70 to 75 per cent course are similar. But then the said opinion has not been resorted to in case of students mentioned in Annexure RA-1 and RA-2 referred to above. In such circumstances when the ground has not been raised in respect of those students, mentioned in Annexure RA-1 and RA-2 above, such ground cannot be raised against the students of D. A. V. College or the petitioners herein. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case admittedly there is not fault on the part of the students. No fraud or misrepresentation has been alleged against the students. The students soughs admission on the basis of said Ordinances while similarly situated have been allowed and for the present concerned year from the other colleges it cannot be said that the students are in any way responsible for taking advantage of the said Ordinances. It is clear and unambiguous and is being so interpreted by the University in respect of the University from the other Colleges. In such circumstances the students having allowing to appear in the examination pursuant to the order of this court which was specified that the said students are eligible under the said Ordinances they cannot be deprived of the result, particularly when I have already found that the students are eligible as such. 13. Sri Radhey Shyam had referred to various decisions in support of his contention that the University authority cannot admit the students contrary to the Ordinance. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions inasmuch as the principles laid down cannot be disputed and have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. Sri Radhey Shyam had referred to various decisions in support of his contention that the University authority cannot admit the students contrary to the Ordinance. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions inasmuch as the principles laid down cannot be disputed and have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since I have found that the students are eligible under the said Ordinances, therefore by allowing them to appear in the examination and declaring their result the University will not act contrary to the said Ordinances. 14. The allegation of Sri Kadhey Shyam that the students have not produced the required documents, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the same were duly verified by the College authorities. However, the tame can very well be verified once more. There is no doubt that in case the students do not qualify under the conditions laid down in the said Ordinance then they are not eligible for admission in B. A. /b. Sc. Part-Ill Examination. In -order to resolve this impasse the Principal D. A. V. College, Kanpur and D. B. S. College, Kanpur are directed to furnish attested zerox copy of Migration Certificates of the concerned students together with the mark-sheets and other documents showing that the peti tioners or the said students had passed B. A. /b. Sc. Part-II Examination alongwith certificate that the said students had attended regular course of studies for one academic year in the said college, for the verification by the Registrar through a forwarding letter within a period of one week from the date of this order. The University authority shall be at liberty to verify the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. It is expected that the University authority should be little reasonable and shall not unnecessarily embarrass or harrass the petitioner unless there are sufficient reasons, if necessary, the original documents, if in the possession of the Colleges, authority, may be sent through special messenger by the respective Colleges to the Registrar on a date and time fixed so that the Registrar may, if necessary verify the same with the copies so attested upon giving adequate notice to the principal requiring such production provided there are sufficient reasons to disbelieve the attestation of those documents made by the Principal. After the said period of five weeks the result of the petitioner shall be declared by the University as early as possible but not later than the period of eight weeks from the date of this order. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to various decisions, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, when on the facts it has been found that the University has taken a different stand at the different stages and has discriminated in applying the provisions of the same ordinance in respect of the students from different colleges, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions, particularly, in view of the fact that the facts disclosed are sufficient to decide the case, in the manner, I have decided and the decision is so simple which does not harbour any doubt or difference of opinion. Therefore I refrain myself from discussing various decisions cited at the bar. 16. These bunch of petitions are thus disposed of. 17. There will be, however no order as to costs. Petition disposed of. .