ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an unfortunate proceeding involving admission of a student in M. D. (Ayurved) Course in Banaras Hindu University. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, provisional admission of the petitioner was decided in the meeting held on 17-7-1996. There was no complaint of petitioners taking in any requisite qualification. By letter dated 1-8-1996 the petitioner was informed that his provisional admission was kept in abeyance "till the clarification regarding caste certificate submitted by you is received from the main Registry of this University. " ( 3 ) APPROACHING the respondents, the petitioner did not get any decision and so this writ petition was filed. Opportunity granted by this Court to the University authorities for a decision by the Admission Committee was not availed of and the matter was postponed recording that since the matter had gone into the Courts of law it is felt that the decision of the Court should be awaited. Then, this Court took up the matter for consideration and after argument by the respective learned counsel for both the sides interim order was passed on 26-8-1996 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to be admitted provisionally and to allow him to attend classes. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, this Court was nominated by Honble the Chief Justice and the matter came up for final disposal. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner a supplementary affidavit has been filed described as a second Supplementary affidavit stating certain relevant facts. The respondents thereafter filed a counter affidavit described as a short counter-affidavit. When the matter was taken up for the final disposal of the writ petition, parties agreed to final disposal on the existing affidavits. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that by reason of the changes in circumstances during the pendency of the writ petition, nothing much has been left for decision. It has been stated that question to be decided now lies in a very narrow compass. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that doubt initially raised by the respondents was as regards the caste certificate of the petitioner and for that reason even after provisional selection admission of the petitioner was kept in abeyance. During the pendency of the writ petition the only development was expiry of the Ordinance by which the petitioners caste was declared as a scheduled tribe. During the pendency of the writ petition the only development was expiry of the Ordinance by which the petitioners caste was declared as a scheduled tribe. Thereafter, the admission of the petitioner was cancelled on 26-11-1996 for the sole reason of expiry of the aforesaid Ordinance. It is stated that admittedly an Ordinance has come into effect from 9-1-1997 being the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997 providing for continuing the petitioners tribe as a scheduled tribe and all facts inspite of expiry of the earlier Ordinance had been saved. ( 7 ) THE short counter-affidavit filed by the respondents after filing of the aforesaid second supplementary of affidavit neither has disputed the issuance of Ordinance of 1997 or has alleged any disqualification of the petitioner for the purpose of admission. The short counter-affidavit has pointed out only the technical difficulties of the nature of requisite attendance in classes and the requirements of certain regulations. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents also at the time of hearing mainly raised objection against petitioners admission with reference to the law laid down in the cases of Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U. P. , AIR 1991 SC 1131 , State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1288, Amit Kumar Srivastava v. Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi 1996 All LJ 71 1 and Vidya Nand Singh Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi dated 1110-1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33131 of 1996. Apart from the aforesaid the only other objection was the possible inconvenience of the petitioner in completing the course in view of the fact that the petitioner could not attend all the classes and also in view of the fact that Regulation prohibits student to appear in final examination if he does not attend requisite number, of classes. Though this question has been argued but no regulation has been shown in support of such contention. ( 9 ) AFTER considering the respective contentions of the parties, I find that the respondents also do not dispute the eligibility of the petitioner on any other ground except the technical difficulties as pointed out hereinabove. ( 10 ) THE materials disclosed and the admitted facts indicate that the respondents have acted with gross irregularity in the matter of dealing with the case of the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE materials disclosed and the admitted facts indicate that the respondents have acted with gross irregularity in the matter of dealing with the case of the petitioner. After decision for provisional admission on 17-7-1996 the matter ought to have been processed by the respondents expeditiously as session was to commence on 1-8-1996. Surprisingly only on 1-8-1996 communication was made to the petitioner raising a doubt about the caste certificate and that too without indicating any positive ground. Even after the writ petition was moved and the court granted opportunity to the authorities to decide the matter, decision was not taken solely on the ground that the writ petition has been already filed. During the pendency of the writ petition nothing has been found against the caste certificate of the petitioner. Still then the admission of the petitioner was cancelled on the sale ground that the Ordinance making the petitioners tribe a scheduled tribe expired on 21-8-1996 which is admittedly a date much after the date of the of the session. Apparently, admission under the order of the Court following provisional admission decided on 17-7-1996 commence on 1-9-1996 not be cancelled on the ground of expiry of Ordinance on 21-8-1996. Even after the Ordinance came into force on 9-11997 and the petitioner approached the for allowing him to continue to classes his request was not responded by the respondents. Such conduct of the respondent University authorities in respect of admission of a student duly qualified for admission lacks justification and is deprecable. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the law referred to by the respondents as decided in the various cases mentioned herinabove, I find that the Same does not apply in the present case where admission was decided by the appropriate authority itself and the same was kept in abeyance without any sufficient reason compelling the petition to obtain a relief of admission by an interim order from the Court of law and apparently the subsequent ground for cancellation of admission of the petitioner is totally in non-existent basis. In such facts, the law decide in the aforesaid case does not apply. ( 12 ) WITH regard to the objection of the respondents as regards technical ground of violation of the regulations I find that no such provision contained in any Regulation has been shown to the Court at any stage. In such facts, the law decide in the aforesaid case does not apply. ( 12 ) WITH regard to the objection of the respondents as regards technical ground of violation of the regulations I find that no such provision contained in any Regulation has been shown to the Court at any stage. Moreover, in the facts of the present case when the petitioner could not attend some of the classes for a short conduct of the respondents, the authorities ought to allow the petitioner complete the course providing him opportunity and if required by allowing him classes. The respondents cannot deprive petitioner any benefit on the ground of attending classes during the period he being allowed by the respondents to attend classes. In such circumstance, attendance is to be calculated on the classes petitioner was allowed to attend and the total number of classes in the session. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-11-1996 canceling the admission of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue and complete the course allowing him all benefits available to him under the law and also providing him opportunity for making up the deficits in attending requisite number of classes during the period the petitioner was not allowed to attend his classes. Petition allowed.