K. R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitoner, who is a student, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for getting admission to Ungraduate Course in the School of building, Science and Technology ("sbst" for short) run by the Centre of Environmental planning and Technology- respondent No. 1 ("cept" for short ). It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-CEPT runs various courses including School of Building science and Technology, School of Architecture, School of Interior Design at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The CEPT had advertised common entrance test for admission to undergraduate course for School of Building Science and Technology, school of Architecture ("sa" for short), School of Interior Design ("sid" for short) and the application forms were made available from 27th May, 1996. It may be stated that the petitioner has passed her Central Board Secondary Education Examination (Delhi) ("cbse" for short) located in Gujarat and was qualified for appearing at the common entrance test which was held in two stages. The first test was held on 2nd July, 1996 and since the petitioner cleared the same, she was called for the second test held on 6th July, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the illegalities have started at the first stage of the test inasmuch as according to the brochure issued by the respondent-CEPT, 75% seats were for candidates who have cleared HSC Examination of the Gujarat Board and the balance 25% of the seats were for the candidates passing HSC examination from the central Board and other State Boards. It is the case of the petitioner that Gujarat candidates passing HSC examination from the Central Board were categorized in 25 percent quota seats. When, at the end of the first test, the results were declared, in fact, two lists were published by the respondent-CEPT-one for the Gujarat HSC Board candidates and the second for the other States Boards candidates. It is the case of the petitioner that in the second stage conducted, inter alia, by the SBST, at the end of the test, as many as four merit lists viz (i) HSC Gujarat, (ii) CBSE/isc Gujarat, (iii) SC/st candidates, and (iv) outside State candidates, were published by the respondents. As per the case of the petitioner, her name was shown at Sr. No. 69 in the list of CBSE/isc gujarat. As per the case of the petitioner, her name was shown at Sr. No. 69 in the list of CBSE/isc gujarat. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the literature given to the students, the respondent CEPT ought to have published only two lists instead of four lists - one for hsc Gujarat students (75%) and another for Central and Other State Boards students (25%) and the name of the petitioner ought to have been shown in the quota of 25%. It is alleged by the petitioner that creating two categories of CBSE/isc Gujarat and outside state candidates has adversely and prejudicially affected the petitioner inasmuch as candidates who secured less marks than the petitioner got admission while the petitioner is left out. Following chart would give clear picture about the case : HSC of Guj CBSC/isc Guj SC/st candidates Outside State candidates. (1) (2) (3) 75% 25% HSC Board Gujarat 90% of 75% CBSC/isc Gujarat 10% of 75% List at page 98 of the paper book where the petitioners name is at Sr. No. 69. since the petitioner did not get any satisfactory reply from the respondent-CEPT, even though called upon, the present petition is filed for appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record of the respondents with respect to the admission, including answer papers beginning the stage-1 of the test as well as various lists published and unpublished at various stages and examine the whole issue of admission of CEPT and for quashing and setting aside the whole admission process and order necessary inquiry as deemed fit and also order granting admission to the petitioner to SBSE. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-CEPT has filed affidavits on 19. 8. 96, 11. 9. 96, 25. 9. 96 and 3. 10. 96 and while denying [the averments of the petition it has been, inter alia, pointed out that the CEPT being a grant-in-aid institution, it follows the Rules and Regulations and other conditions stipulated by the grant-in-aid authorities. The stipulations also relate to admissions for academic programme for various categories viz. SC, ST, SEBC, HSC, cbs/isc Gujarat, Defence, Physically Handicapped and quota for outside State candidates as laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education ("aicte" for short ). The stipulations also relate to admissions for academic programme for various categories viz. SC, ST, SEBC, HSC, cbs/isc Gujarat, Defence, Physically Handicapped and quota for outside State candidates as laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education ("aicte" for short ). It is the case of the respondent CEPT that it was requested to conduct State Level aptitude Test in architecture for 1996 admissions for all schools/departments of architecture located in Gujarat on behalf of the State Government. The petitioner was one of the applicants for the CEPT Common Aptitude Test in Construction Technology and interior Design and also State Level Aptitude Tests in architecture. The distribution of seats has been done between the State HSC candidates, CBSE/isc Gujarat and out-of- state candidates as per the norms laid down by the All India Council for Technical education and Government of Gujarat. CBSE/isc Gujarat candidates get similar allocation of seats in Engineering, Medical, Dental and Pharmacy degree courses also. As per the norms, CBSE/isc students who have studied in such streams, from the schools located in the Gujarat are allocated seats on pro-rata basis depending on the number of students appeared and qualified vis-a-vis number of students appeared and qualified in hsc Gujarat. It is the case of the respondent CEPT that it had prepared the merit list separately for HSC Gujarat, CBSE/isc Gujarat students, SC candidates and outside State candidates and that CEPT has given admission only on the basis of the rules and norms framed by the State of Gujarat and AICTE. It is the specific case of the respondent CEPT that the admissions were given as per the Government resolution dated 18. 3. 96 which provides for the rules and methology for admission in Government and Non-Government university managed Engineering colleges, polytechnics throughout the State of Gujarat and the Rules apply to all Institutions under the Technical Department of the State government, which are taking also grant. As the school run by the respondent CEPT is a grant in aid institution, it is bound to follow these rules. It is further the say of the respondent CEPT that admission to technical institution should not be restricted on the basis of domicile nativity and similar factors and the admission to technical institution should be made on the basis of merits. ( 3 ) MR. It is further the say of the respondent CEPT that admission to technical institution should not be restricted on the basis of domicile nativity and similar factors and the admission to technical institution should be made on the basis of merits. ( 3 ) MR. R. R. Tripathi, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, after inviting my attention to the brochure issued by the respondent CEPT and the guidelines issued by the aicte submitted that the respondent Institute is required to provide admission for two categories only i. e. 75% to Gujarat Students and 25% to Central and States Boards students. Mr. Tripathi further submitted that the Government resolution dated 18. 3. 1996 has no application to the admission in the respondent Institute as the resolution clearly provides for admission in engineering degree diploma and pharmacy degree courses and, in any case, in the list of the institute the name of the respondent Institute does not figure. In the submission of Mr. Tripathi the said resolution only provides for grant in aid to the non-Government engineering colleges, polytechnics, high schools and other technical institutes in the Gujarat State. Mr. Tripathi also submitted that as per the report of the expert committee which clearly provides guideliness for admission, also contemplates two categories having 75% for the students of the State and 25% for out of State students. Mr. Tripathi submitted that the respondent Institute is a kind of its own and it cannot be made at per with the other medical and engineering colleges situated in the State. On merits, mr. Tripathi submitted that at page 71 of the paper book the list of students who are admitted in SBSE course by the respondent Institute contains names of 45 students though as per the say of the respondent only 30 students are required to be admitted. Under the circumstances, as per the submission of Mr. Tripathi, it is not impossible for the respondent to accommodate the petitioner. In the submission of Mr. Tripathi, it was the badluck of the petitioner that she passed CBSC examination from a school located in the state of Gujarat, otherwise in the list of 45 students there are as many as five students who are admitted having less marks than the petitioner. Mr. In the submission of Mr. Tripathi, it was the badluck of the petitioner that she passed CBSC examination from a school located in the state of Gujarat, otherwise in the list of 45 students there are as many as five students who are admitted having less marks than the petitioner. Mr. Tripathi also made a grievance about the list which contains as many as three students who are admitted in the category of defence quota though there is only one seat for defence quota. Mr. Tripathi finally submitted that out of 45 students plus the petitioner admitted at the beginning of the first semester, 4 students have left and, therefore, at the end of first semester plus the petitioner at the beginning of the second semeter there were about 44 students plus the petitioner as six students had failed and, therefore, since the petitioner has completed one year of her studies, even though by virtue of the order of this Court dated 18. 9. 96, the case of the petitioner requires consideration. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. A. K. Clerk, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent cept, while refuting the contentions of the petitioner, submitted that the admission procedure was undertaken by the CEPT for and on behalf of the State of Gujarat as per rules and directives of the State of Gujarat under the direct supervision and participation of the Director of Technical Education. In the submission of Mr. Clerk as the State of gujarat is giving grant to the respondent Institute, it is entitled to issue direction in the matter of admission. It is the case of the respondent Institute that the State of Gujarat has taken a policy decision reflected in the Government resolotion dated 18. 3. 96 by which the seats falling within the State quota are divided between the HSC and CBSE/ise students of Gujarat in the proportion of 90:10. Mr. Clerk submitted that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with such a policy decision which applies for all admissions to courses like engineering, medical, pharmacy etc and other technical professional courses. On merits, it is submitted by Mr. Mr. Clerk submitted that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with such a policy decision which applies for all admissions to courses like engineering, medical, pharmacy etc and other technical professional courses. On merits, it is submitted by Mr. Clerk that the petitioner is not eligible for admission on the basis of existing policy as per the list at pages 98 and 99 as there are two students above the petitioner in the merit list of cbse/isc Gujarat students. Mr. Clerk further submitted that the petitioner is not eligible even if the lists of CBSC/isc Gujarat students and outside State students are merged because there are only 11 students from outside State and in the said list the petitioner is at Sr. No. 22 in the order of merit in the combined list and, therefore, even if the petitioner succeeds, she cannot be given admission on the basis of 25% quota from out of State candidates. Finally Mr. Clerk submitted that the policy decision taken by the State is for the entire State of Gujarat and for admission in various professional courses. Striking down such a policy decision in the matter of admission would be assuming the role of rule making authority is not permissible and such a course would have wide an disasterous consequences on the students. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, let us examine certain documents, forming part of the record. Annexure "c" is the brochure issued by the respondents cept. Clause 7 thereof deals with Seats for Admission. Clause 7. 01 which is relevant for our purposes reads as under :"7. 01 The number of seats for admission would be as prescribed by the government from time to time, which at present is 30 students per annume; 75% seats are for candidates who have completed HSC of the Gujarat State Board, 25% are for the candidates from Central and other State Boards. Reservations for reserved categories shall be as per Government of Gujarat from time to time. " ( 6 ) THE requirement contained in this Brochure is in conformity with the Rules and regulations for Undergraduate Programme for Admissions, Conduct of Students, conduct of Examinations and Award of CEPT Diplomas, vide Annexure "aa". Reservations for reserved categories shall be as per Government of Gujarat from time to time. " ( 6 ) THE requirement contained in this Brochure is in conformity with the Rules and regulations for Undergraduate Programme for Admissions, Conduct of Students, conduct of Examinations and Award of CEPT Diplomas, vide Annexure "aa". ( 7 ) RULE 1 thereof provides that the following rules and Regulations shall govern admissions, conduct of courses, examinations, award of CEPT Diplomas and maintenance of discipline for the undergraduate programmes offered by Schools of Architecture, building, Science and Technology and Interior Design, (a) Diploma in Architecture (Equivalent to B. Arch), (b) Diploma in Construction Technology (Equivalent to B. Tech. (C) Diploma in Interior Design (Equivalent to Degree in Interior Design ). Rule 4, which is relevant for our purposes reads as under :"4. As per approvals of MHRD/aicte, 25% seats shall be offered to students passing 12th standard Science Stream with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics/ biology (for SID only) and English from Higher Secondary Boards other than gujarat Board. While 75% seats shall be offered to students of Gujarat Board sc/st, SEBC and OBC reservations shall be as per the guidelines of the State government. " ( 8 ) THERE is one more letter dated February 15, 1994, addressed by AICTE to the secretary (Science and Technology) Government of Gujarat under the Subject AICTE approval to various Institutions in the State of Gujarat to conduct Degree Engineering/ technology/pharmacy Courses wherein the name of respondent-CEPT is also mentioned alongwith the other colleges which have been accorded approval conducting Degree engineering/technology/pharmacy Course with intake shown against each on certain conditions. They are, inter alia, as under :"2. No new courses shall be started or on-going courses shall be discontinued by the institution without the prior approval of the AICTE. 7. Admission shall be made on merits and as per the norms and guidelines of the aicte. 8. The State Government policies for admission of SC/st, other weaker sections of Society, etc. shall be followed by the Institutions. No new courses shall be started or on-going courses shall be discontinued by the institution without the prior approval of the AICTE. 7. Admission shall be made on merits and as per the norms and guidelines of the aicte. 8. The State Government policies for admission of SC/st, other weaker sections of Society, etc. shall be followed by the Institutions. " (emphasis supplied) ( 9 ) READING these documents, it is clear without any manner of doubt that the respondent CEPT, after following the guidelines of AICTE has provided admission only in two categories, i. e. 75% of Gujarat HSC Board students and 25% of Central and other state Boards students who have passed 12th standard Science Stream with Physics, chemistry, mathematics/biology (for SID only) and English from Higher Secondary boards other than Gujarat Board, while SC/st, SCBC and OBC reservations shall be as per the guidelines of the State Government. This is also clear from the affidavit in reply filed by Prof. Y. M. Shaikh, Joint Director, Technical Education, on behalf of respondent No. 3 wherein he has stated as under : "i say and submit that accordingly the Director of Technical Education, Gujarat state, by way of letter dated 19th May 1993, directed the Honble Dean, CEPT, ahmedabad to regulate the admission to the undergraduate programmes viz architecture, Building, Science and Technology and Interior Design by holding the Entrance Test under the supervision of the Director of Technical Education, gujarat State, following the rules of eligibility, reservation of seats for SC, ST etc. of the Stale Government and in accordance with the guidelines of All India council for Technical Education as well as the scheme laid down by the Honble supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. Meaning thereby the respondent CEPT is to hold the entrance test under the supervision of the Director of Technical Education and has to follow the rules of eligibility and reservation of seats for SC, ST etc. of the State Government. However, admission is to be governed as per the Rules/guidelines of AICTE. Since the respondent cept is getting grant from the State Government it is bound to follow the policy for admission of SC ST and other weaker sections of the society. It is true that the State government has issued a G. R. dated 18. 3. However, admission is to be governed as per the Rules/guidelines of AICTE. Since the respondent cept is getting grant from the State Government it is bound to follow the policy for admission of SC ST and other weaker sections of the society. It is true that the State government has issued a G. R. dated 18. 3. 1996 by which the seats falling within the State quota arc divided between HSC Board Students and CBSE/isc Gujarat students in the proportion of 90:10. However, prima facie, they are applicable to admission to the courses like engineering, pharmacy, dental, architecture and other technical and professional courses and is not applicable to the respondent-CEPT, as it is a class of its own conducting courses of specialised in nature and is governed by the Rules of AICTE. Assuming the said circular is applicable to the respondent CEPT, the same cannot run counter to the directions of the AICTE which specifically provide for admission to only two categories i. e. 75% to Gujarat students and 25% to Central and State Boards students and especially when the respondents CEPT has issued brochure in conformity with the said directions. At this stage, a mention is required to be made to the report of the Expert committee of the Western Regional Committee regarding the assessment of the requirements of instructional facilities for the conduct of 6 years National Diploma course in Architecture at School of Architecture, Ahmedabad. Clause III of the said report prescribed recommendations of the Expert Committee and Sub-clause (1) thereof deals with Intake and it reads as under : "1. Intake : Since the inception of the course in 1962, the intake has been 30. It is recommended that this intake of 30 be stabilised on a permanent basis. As the Course is specialised in nature, the Expert committee recommends that 25% of the seats (7 seats) be reserved for students coming from State lacking in facilities for Architectural Education. As it is being done at present in case of Sir. J. J. College of Architecture, Bombay, the selection of candidates against these 7 seats be vested in a committee to be headed by the "regional Officer" Western regional Office, Ministry of Education, Bombay. As it is being done at present in case of Sir. J. J. College of Architecture, Bombay, the selection of candidates against these 7 seats be vested in a committee to be headed by the "regional Officer" Western regional Office, Ministry of Education, Bombay. Rrcommendation of this nature reservation of seats, rightly conforms to the principles adopted by the All India Council for Technical Education (at its meeting held on 8th December, 1993) regarding the admission of ex-State students. These are reproduced below : (a) Admissions to the technical institutions should not be restricted on the basis of domicile or nativity and similar factors. (b) Admissions to technical institutions should be made on the basis of merit. (c) As many ex-State students as possible should be admitted on merits, reaching upto 35% in course of time. For this purpose ex-State students should be those who have passed the qualifying examination from a University or State board outside the State in which the college is situated. " (emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) THUS, considering these documents, I am of the view that the respondent institution is bound to follow the Rules/guidelines issued by the ACIPT as far as admission in the Institution is concerned and as per the guidelines two lists are required to be published viz. 25% seats to those students who have passed 12th standard Science stream with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics/biology (For SID only) and English from higher Secondary Boards other than Gujarat Board while 75% seats shall be offered to students of Gujarat Board. SC/st, SEBC and OBC reservations shall be as per the guidelines of the State Government. In view of the above, I find substance in the submission of the petitioner that as she has passed CBSC examination, which is admittedly a different examination than HSC examination of Gujarat Board and therefore clubbing the petitioners name with Gujarat students and not with the CBSC students and making bifurcation of CBSC students in two groups of CBSC Gujarat and cbsc outside Gujarat State is clearly illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of this, I find no merit in the submission of Mr. In view of this, I find no merit in the submission of Mr. Clerk and the admission procedure undertaken by the respondent CEPT was as per the Rules and directives of the State Government, as the State Government is giving grant to the present respondent and, therefore, is entitled to issue direction in the matter of admission. As stated above, admission procedure is required to be undertaken by the respondent CEPT under the Rules/guidelines of the AICPE and under the Rules, the respondent CEPT is required to follow the directions of reservation for reserved categories as per the policy of the Government of Gujarat. Such a direction, as far as admission procedure issued by the State Government is concerned, it runs contrary o the Rules/guidelines of the AICPE. In any case, when the respondent CEPT has issued the brochure as per the requirement of the Rules/guidelines of AICPE, it is now not open to it to contend that the admission procedure was undertaken by it for and on behalf of the State Government as per the Rules and directives of the State Government. I have gone through the authorities cited by Mr. Clerk viz Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1970 SC, 35; Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Rajesh bhaskar and Anr. , AIR 1993 SC 2412 ; U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee and Ors. vs. Dr. B. Sheetal and Ors. , AIR 1992 SC 671 ; and Hemant L. Leuva vs. H. S. Shah, Chairman admission Committee, 1997 (1) GLH 83 . There cannot be any dispute with respect to the principles enunciated in the said decisions. However, in view of the above discussion, and considering the facts of this case, I am of the view that the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 11 ) IT is the contention of the respondent CEPT that even if the petitioner succeeds, she cannot be given admission on the basis of 25% quota from out of there State candidates. In the submission of Mr. Clerk, the petitioner is not eligible for admission on the basis of existing policy as far as the lists at pages 98 and 99 of the compilation are concerned as there are two students above the petitioner in the merit list of the CBSE/isc gujarat students. Mr. In the submission of Mr. Clerk, the petitioner is not eligible for admission on the basis of existing policy as far as the lists at pages 98 and 99 of the compilation are concerned as there are two students above the petitioner in the merit list of the CBSE/isc gujarat students. Mr. Clerk also submitted that even if the list of CBSE/isc Gujarat students and outside State students are merged, there are only 11 students from outside state and in the said list, the petitioner is at Sr. No. 22 in order of merit in the combined list and, therefore, she is not eligible for admission. List in merit order prepared by the respondent CEPT at page 98 is as under : school of Building Science and Technology CEPT Common Apptitude Test in S. B. S. T. and S. I. D. (Admission 1996) Merit Order CBSE/isc in Gujarat State School of Building Science and Technology CEPT Common Apptitude Test in S. B. S. T. & S. I. D. (Admission 1996) Merit Order CBSE/isc in Gujarat State Seat NAME ORDER No. PLACE MERIT 2166 Verma Sudhish Sudarshan Ahmedabad CBS 4 2259 Marvindersingh Mohindersing Gnagar Def CBS 8 2176 Gupta Neha P. Rajkot CBS 10 2125 Swadia Tejas Kirtibhai Rajkot CBS 14 2207 Bhartiya Ketan Dilipkukar Valsad CBS 19 2043 Singh Ambica Ramlakhan Ahmedabad CBS 28 2167 Sharma Nidhi Ved Ram (NS) Ahmedabad Def CBS 31 2111 Seera Gurminder Monmohansingh Abad CBS 34 2219 Arul Amuda Arul Anand CBS 39 2122 Karanth Anup Gururaj Ahmedabad CBS 48 2124 Shrivastava Pinki Ganesh Ahmedabad Def CBS 52 2204 Parikh Chinmay Girishchandra Abad Def CBS 54 2116 Barua Prachurya Surya Ahmedabad CBS 61 2078 Desai Ami Dilip Baroda CBS 62 2009 Trivedi Tapsa Ashwin Ahmedabad CBS 69 2150 Sikka Sushant Suremdersingh Ahmedabad CBS 73 2055 Mistri Narendra Pukhrajbhai Gnagar SEBC CBS 75 2011 Kamal Poonam Dayaram Ahmedabad SC CBS 76 2143 Vashi Dennis Dasharath Haria CBS 78 2210 Trivedi Shreya Arun Prakash Surat CBS 97 ( 12 ) AS can be seen from the said list, the name of the petitioner is shown at Sr. No. 69 in the merit order. No. 69 in the merit order. Page 99 of the compilation is the list of merit order prepared by the respondent CEPT of the students from Boards other than Gujarat/outside State which is as under : school of Building Science and Technology CEPT Common Aptitude Test in S. B. S. T. and S. I. D. (Admission 1996) Merit Order From Boards other than Gujarat/outside State School of Building Science and Technology CEPT Common Aptitude Test in S. B. S. T. & S. I. D. (Admission 1996) Merit Order From Boards other than Gujarat/outside State Seat NAME PLACE MERIT No. ORDER 2211 Jayshanker Shrikrishna V Madras OUT 1 2050 Tyagi Mukta Pramod (MS) Bombay Def OUT 2 2203 Parikh Nirav Hemant Bombay OUT 3 2121 Bazari Mahendra Purshottamlal Ahmedabad OUT 4 2012 Das Gupta Sudhasil Nirmal Ahmedabad OUT 5 2154 Merita Meghna Axay (MS) Ahmedabad OUT 6 2165 Pokharna Mitesh M Udaipur OUT 7 2170 Patel Kiran Prabhubhai (MS) Haridwar OUT 8 2225 Vyas Naman Kiritkumar Bombay OUT 9 2005 Jain Rajesh Kankroli OUT 10 2503 Gadia Chanchal Surendra (MS) Chirava OUT 11 2229 Puranik Jyoti Anand (MS) Ahmedabad OUT 12 2028 Konnur Shweta Jayvibhav (MS) Mpdef OUT 13 ( 13 ) PERUSING the list at Page 99, it is an undisputed fact that five candidates shown in the merit order at Sr. Nos. 8 to 12, who have come from CBSE i. e. Boards other than gujarat/outside State, and who are lower in order of merit than the petitioner, have been admitted to the Court, if the respondent Institute has not bifurcated the list of HSC Gujarat in the category of CBSE/isc Gujarat and if there are two lists viz HSC Gujarat and cbse/isc and outside State candidates, the petitioner could have been shown above the name of the candidate shown at merit order No. 8. Since I have already taken a view that under the Rules of AICTE, the respondent CEPT is required to issue only two lists, the petitioner is entitled to be included in the list of outside State students for which the quota is fixed at 25%. This is in view of the fact that as the petitioner is ex-State students as the petitioner has passed CBSE, Delhi and not HSC Gujarat, her name ought to have been in the outside State students list. This is in view of the fact that as the petitioner is ex-State students as the petitioner has passed CBSE, Delhi and not HSC Gujarat, her name ought to have been in the outside State students list. ( 14 ) THE respondent CEPT has placed on record at page 77 a hypothetical list combining both the lists of CBSE/isc Board students and outside State students. The said hypothetical list is reproduced below : School of Buildings Science & Technology OUT STATE/cbse Seat No. Name Place Merit No. 2211 Jayshanker Shrikrishna V Madras OUT1 2050 Tyagi Mukta Pramod (MS) Bombay OUT 2 2203 Parikh Nirav Hemant Bombay OUT 3 2166 Verma Sudhish Sudarshan Ahmedabad CBS 4 2121 Bazari Mahendra Purshottamlal Ahmedabad OUT 5 2012 Das Gupta Sudhasil Nirmal Ahmedabad OUT 6 2154 Mehta Meghna Axay (MS) Ahmedabad OUT7 2259 Harvindersingh Mohindersingh Gandhinagar CBS 8 2176 Gupta Neha P. Rajkot CBS 9 2125 Swadia Tejas Kirtibhai Rajkot CBS 10 2207 Bhartiya Ketan Dilipkumar Valsad CBS 11 2043 Singh Ambica Ram Lakhan Ahmedabad CBS 12 2167 Sharma Nidhi Vedram Ahmedabad CBS 13 2111 Seera Gurmindermonmohan Singh Ahmedabad CBS 14 2219 Arul Amuda Arul Anand CBS 15 2165 Pokhrana Mitesh M. Udaipur OUT 16 2122 Karanth Anup Gururaj Ahmedabad CBS 17 2124 Srivastava Pinki Ganesh (MS) Ahmedabad CBS 18 2204 Parikh Chinmay Shirishchandra Ahmedabad CBS 19 2116 Barua Prachurya Suryya Ahmedabad CBS 20 2078 Desai Ami Dilip (MS) Baroda CBS 21 2009 Trivedi Tapsa Ashwin (MS) Ahmedabad CBS 22 2150 Sikka Sushant Surendrasingh Ahmedabad CBS 23 2170 Patel Kiran Prabhubhai (MS) Haridwar OUT 24 2055 Mistri Narendra Pukhrajbhai Gandhi nagar CBS 25 2011 Kamal Punam Dayaram (MS) Ahmedabad CBS 26 2143 Vashi Dennis Dasharath Haria CBS 27 2225 Vyas Naman Kirtikukar Bombay OUT 28 2005 Jain Rajesh Kankroli OUT 30 2503 Gadia Chanchal Surendra (MS) Chirawa OUT 31 2210 Trivedi Shreya Arun Prakash Surat CBS 31 2229 Puranik Jyoti Anand (MS) Ahmedabad OUT 32 2028 Konnur Shweta Jay vibhav (MS) MP OUT 33 ( 15 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Clerk in view of this merged list there are only 11 seats for outside students and in the said list, the name of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 22 and, therefore, even on this count also the petitioner cannot get admission. It is not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Clerk for the simple reason, appointed out by Mr. No. 22 and, therefore, even on this count also the petitioner cannot get admission. It is not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Clerk for the simple reason, appointed out by Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner, that candidates at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 in the hypothetical list at page 77 have not secured the admission. In that case, the petitioner will be at Sr. No. 11, including 2 students, viz Barua Prachurya and Desai ami Dilip who are above the petitioner. In that event also the petitioner is entitled to get admission. Assuming that Mr. Tripathi is not right in his submission that the students in the merged list above the petitioners name viz candidates at Sr. Nos. 1. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 in the hypothetical list have not secured admission, in that event the respondent CEPT should have considered the question of granting admission to the petitioner also on the basis of her merit order in the merged list. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get admission in the course of School of Building Science and Technology run by the respondent CEPT and placing the petitioner in the list of CBSE/isc instead of the list of candidates of outside state. Considering this illegality, this Court, at the admission stage of the petition, directed the respondent CEPT to grant provisional admission and accordingly the petitioner is continuing her studies with the respondent CEPT since one year which is also an additional factor which is required to be taken into consideration. ( 16 ) BEFORE parting, I would like to high light the question to be viewed with different angle. The petitioner being a student of merit and is desirous of continuing her course in the respondent Institute, it is not only the duty but an obligation on the part of the Institute to encourage her and to help her as far as possible instead of taking highly technical contentions. It is hoped that the Institute will accept this judgment in its true letter and spirit and will make all possible endravour to see that the desire of the petitoner is fulfilled. ( 17 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. It is hoped that the Institute will accept this judgment in its true letter and spirit and will make all possible endravour to see that the desire of the petitoner is fulfilled. ( 17 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. It is held and declared that the petitioner is entitled to admission to the School of Building Science and Technology Course and the respondents are directed to grant her admission to the said course accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ( 18 ) MR. Clerk at this stage prays for the stay of this judgment for a period of two weeks to enable stay of this judgment for a period of two weeks to enable the respondent institute to carry the matter in appeal. Stay as prayed for is granted. However, the provisional admission of the petitioner shall continue in the second year course. D. S. permitted. .