Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, S. J. Mukhopadhaya and j. JJ. 1. In both the writ petitions, there being common points of law, are disposed of by this common order and judgment. 2. The writ petition C. W. J. C. No.9475 of 19% was filed by one Pramod kumar Singh, the father and guardian of praveen Kumar Anand (son) and Miss soni Kumari (daughter ). It was stated that the second daughter of petitioner miss Soni Kumari passed intermediate examination in the year 1996 conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna (B. I. E. C. for short) in 1st division with 65% marks. She (Soni kumari) applied for admission in B. A. Part-I course in Patna Womens College, patna, as well as, Magadh Mahila College, the two colleges under the Patna university. The application form numbers have been shown to be 469/96 (P. W. C.) and 3092/96 (M. M. C.) respectively. It is alleged that while a number of persons, who have obtained lesser marks than Miss Soni Kumari, they have been admitted in the Patna Womens college, Patna and Magadh Mahila College, Patna but she has been denied such admission. 3. Said petitioner Pramod Kumar singh has further stated that his son praveen Kumar Anand also passed intermediate (plus two) examination from the B. I. E. C. , Patna and applied for his admission in Science College, Patna for b. Sc. Part-I Course, having secured 80% marks but he was also denied such admission, though some other persons having lower marks have been admitted. 4. Similar grievance has been made by the petitioner Tanima Kashyap of c. W. J. C. No.8864 of 1996. According to her, Tanima Kashyap passed intermediate examination in Arts in 1996 in second division with 523 marks. She applied for admission in B. A Part-I course in Patna Womens College, Magadh mahila College, Patna and Patna College, Patna, all the three colleges under the Patna University. According to her, she has been denied such admission in the aforesaid three colleges, though a number of persons having lower marks than the petitioner Tanima Kashyap have been so admitted in one or other aforesaid colleges of the Patna University. 5. According to her, she has been denied such admission in the aforesaid three colleges, though a number of persons having lower marks than the petitioner Tanima Kashyap have been so admitted in one or other aforesaid colleges of the Patna University. 5. Earlier, when the case taken up and heard, it was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-Patna University made applicable certain provisions of reservation for admission in different colleges under the control of Patna University. While reservation for S. C. , S. T. and other backward categories were made, further criteria was laid down making two classes amongst the students, namely, the student, who passed intermediate examination out of Patna University and the student, who passed such intermediate examination from the Colleges of other Universities. It was pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioners that for general category while 64% was the minimum marks laid down for admission of students in graduate standard, who passed intermediate examination from a college of Patna University, such minimum marks were raised to 75%__ with respect to students who passed such intermediate examination from the colleges of other Universities. It was submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that such reservation and fixation of two different minimum qualifying marks for the students was arbitrary. It was further stated that there was no intermediate college under the control of Patna University; all the colleges upto intermediate level, for the purpose of intermediate examination were under the control of B. I. E. C. , patna. So it was argued that the students, who passed from the common council, namely, Bihar Intermediate education Council, Patna, out of them no valid classification can be made on the ground that one student read in one college and the other student read in another college. 6. On the last occasion, the Counsel for the Patna University submitted that there was a reservation policy laid down by the Patna University. A typed copy of the same was placed. However, such typed copy relating to reservation policy did not bear signature and there was no notification number shown therein. On 30-10-96 on the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioners, the following order was recorded: - "submission is that there is no ordinance framed under Sec.38 of the patna University Act making reservation of 80% seat as claimed by the respondents. On 30-10-96 on the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioners, the following order was recorded: - "submission is that there is no ordinance framed under Sec.38 of the patna University Act making reservation of 80% seat as claimed by the respondents. It is further submitted that though there is a proposal for such ordinance but assent of the Chancellor has not so far been obtained. We grant four weeks time to the respondents as prayed to come out with such Ordinance. In the meanwhile, we direct that subject to availability of seat and subject to the result of the writ application, Son! Kumari and Praveen Kumar anand be provisionally admitted in Patna womens College and in Patna Science college respectively, provided any student securing less marks than the candidates named above has been admitted. Similarly Tanima Kashyap, petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.8864 of 1996 be provisionally admitted in Patna Womens college subject to the above conditions. Let a copy of this order be given to both the parties. " 7. Today, when the case was taken up, the Counsel for the Patna University accepted that the chancellor has not yet granted assent to the proposal for reservation and issuance of Ordinance and further accepted that no appropriate Ordinance as yet framed under Sec.38 of the Patna University Act making reservation of 80% seat. In this background, it is accepted by the counsel for the Patna University that the reservation policy aforesaid including the policy relating to grant of weightage to the students, who were in the colleges of Patna University cannot be given effect till such Ordinance is framed under Sec.38 of the Patna university Act. However, it was submitted that already admission of majority of the students having been taken on the basis of the so-called reservation policy, the same should not be disturbed, particularly when they are not under challenge. 8. It is to be taken into note, during the pendency of the writ petitions in pursuance of order dated 30-10-19%, praveen Kumar Anand has been admitted in the Patna Science College. However, the authorities of the womens College, Patna has not taken admission of Soni Kumari. Similarly, miss Tanima Kashyap, the other writ petitioner, has not yet been given admission in either of the three colleges, namely, Patna Womens College and patna College. However, the authorities of the womens College, Patna has not taken admission of Soni Kumari. Similarly, miss Tanima Kashyap, the other writ petitioner, has not yet been given admission in either of the three colleges, namely, Patna Womens College and patna College. The respondents have not denied that the persons having lower marks than Soni Kumari has been admitted B. A. Part-I course in Patna womens College, Patna. It is stated that there are still a number of seats vacant in the Colleges. Similarly, nothing has been said against the petitioner lanima kashyap. 9. Having heard the parties, taking into note that the reservation policy in question is not yet applicable, no Ordinance having framed under Sec.38 of the Patna University Act, in the interest of Justice, we passes the following order: - (i) The authorities are directed to take admission of Soni Kumari in B. A. Part-I Course in Patna Womens College, Patna, if any person having lower marks than Soni Kumari has been so admitted. (ii) The provisional admission in b. Sc. Part-I course of Praveen Kumar anand as taken in the Patna Science college, Patna in pursuance of interim order of this Court is confirmed. (iii) The respondents will take admission of Tanima Kashyap in Magadh mahila College or Patna College, if it is found that a person having lower marks than the said petitioner Tanima kashyap has been so admitted. (iv) The Court is not disturbing the admission of students already taken in different colleges of the Patna University in pursuance of so-called reservation policy. However, the respondents, including the authorities of the Patna university are retrained from taking admission in future in pursuance of so-called reservation policy, till such reservation policy is assented by the chancellor and ordinance to that effect is framed under Sec.38 of the Patna university Act. Both the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed, with the aforementioned observations/directions. Petition Allowed.