JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner having qualifying the B.A. External Examination 1992 from Kaktiya University and after obtaining the necessary migration certificate from the said University was admitted in the First Year of LLB in the year 1992 course after having deposited the required fee with the respondent No. 2 Government College, Bundi which college is also imparting course of LLB. The petitioner prosecuted his studies regularly by attending classes in the First Year in the said college for the sessions 1992-93. The course started in the month of October/November 1992. He was informed by the authorities vide Annexure-8 and 9 in the month of May 1993 that his admission has been cancelled because of the decision taken by the University to de-recognise the B.A. External Degree issued by the Kaktiya University. The respondent University vide Annexure-8 dated 7.5.1993 had informed the Principal of the College, respondent No. 2, that the admission of the petitioner Satya Narain should be cancelled for the reason that the University had decided vide its letter No. R/14/198/Acad-ll/MDMV/92/385-4-3 dated 20.10.1993 to derecognise the degree of B.A. External Examination granted by the Kaktiya University and as consequence of the letter Annexure-8 the Principal of the respondent No. 2 college had informed the petitioner about the cancellation of his admission. The petitioner submits that he had sought the admission were proper verification from the concerned offices that the degree of B.A. in his possession was duly recognised by the University and was equivalent to B.A. Examination of the University. 2. He invities attention to the reference of the letter written by the Ajmer University on 13.12.1991 (Annexure-1) wherein certain facts have been stated to the fact that Kaktiya University is recognised. He made representations to the University in this regard. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the Osmania University was also derecognised along with the University of Kaktiya as is clear from the letter attached as Annexure R-1/1 with the written statement wherein it has been mentioned that B.A. Degree (External) as conferred by this University including Osmania University, Kaktiya University, Warangal and Utkal University stand derecognised and are not equal to the Graduate Degree of Ajmer University from the academic session 1992-93. But later on on the same reasons for which Osmania University was de-recognised vide Annexure-12 about four months of the order Annexure R/1-1, the Rajasthan University again recognised the Osmania University, even though there was no change of circumstance viz. a viz. of Osmania University and Kaktiya University. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the present degree in possession of the petitioner stood recognised right from 1987 and students were being given admissions as per the Ordinance framed by the University. But all of a sudden, without there being any advance notice the petitioner has been made to suffer and as such prays for continuance of his studies in the law classes with the respondent No. 2. 3. Reply has been filed by the University and it is stated that for the Session 1992-93 the degree as conferred by Kaktiya University has been derecognised even though it stood recognised prior to that. 4. It is stated that the members of the Board who had taken the decision to de-recognise the degree conferred by the Kaktiya University were expert bodies and as such no challenge can be made so far as de-recognition is concerned. It is further admitted in the written statement that earlier this very University had been recognised because of the reason that the Rajasthan University had recognised such degree. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though it is up to the University to recognise or de-recognise any of the degree, but the de-recognition could not be made applicable retrospectively and if at all the de- recognition was valid, the same could have been made applicable prospectively i.e. in the ensuing session of 1993-94 and in the alternatively also submits that the degrees granted during or before the session 1992-93 by the Kaktiya University was valid degree and did fall within the ambit of recognition. It is further submitted that once the admission had been granted to the petitioner and in that situation the same could not have been cancelled for the reasons mentioned above. 6. It is further submitted that once the admission had been granted to the petitioner and in that situation the same could not have been cancelled for the reasons mentioned above. 6. Another argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in the cases where the degrees stand recognised and in case any such degree is to be derecognised at later stage, there should be atleast reasonable notice to such students before the admission starts and in the present case the procedure of admission had started much prior to the decision of de-recognition. It is further submitted that the session of 1992-93 started in the month of July 1992, even though the actual admission may be granted sometimes at later stage and as such if any decision was to be taken for derecognition of such degree, that should have been taken during the period of session 1991-92 if it was to be made applicable for the Session 1992-93 and even such decision should have been properly published so that the public at large specially students should have known the fact of modification or change of recognition of degree of the University and in that situation the students like the petitioner could have tried their luck in some other university where such degree is recognised. 7. The facts in the present case as stated are not disputed. B.A. degree of Kaktiya University was recognised from the very beginning by the present respondent University. It was only 20.10.1992 that the decision had been taken to derecognise such a degree, however, admission period of session 1992-93 had already started in the month of July 1992 when the applications were invited for admission to various institutions. The petitioner got admission and after studying about 5-7 months, he was told through the impugned orders that because of the later decision of the University, his admission stood cancelled. He was so informed in the second week of May 1993. His one session had almost already passed. There is force in the contention of the petitioner to say that if such decision is to be taken for derecognising of degree, such decision should normally be taken well in advance and not at the nick of time or during the session. His one session had almost already passed. There is force in the contention of the petitioner to say that if such decision is to be taken for derecognising of degree, such decision should normally be taken well in advance and not at the nick of time or during the session. If the advance decision is taken and circulated and published, the students and the public at large could have known their fate and may not apply for the admission in the present University and may try their luck where such degree is recognised. Even if such a decision is taken during the duration of a session, it should be made applicable for the next ensuing session so as to avoid the complication, harassment and financial loss to the students. Here in the present case, a student who is a disabled and handicapped student, by his efforts, he makes out to obtain B.A. degree from Kaktiya University after verifying that the said University stands recognised. He was given admission. He deposited the required amount of fee, continues with the studies for 5-7 months in the First Year of L.L.B. and is told that in May 1993 that this very degree stands de-recognised by the University for the session for which he had already got admission. It would have been different situation if this degree was not recognised degree at all from the very beginning. This degree was a valid degree right upto Session of 1991-92 and stood recognised and all of a sudden this very degree is derecognised. Reasons may be best known to the University authorities. This court may not go into the reasons of de-recognition in the present case as no situation has arisen nor any argument has been raised in this regard. But in the circumstances as mentioned above, if de-recognition of the University degree as in the present case, is not published well in advance for the knowledge of the general public, the students do acquire a right to continue the studies if they have already been given admission and continuing the studies. In the present case, for the above said reasons, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to continue and complete the LL.B. in accordance with the course of studies. 8. In the present case, for the above said reasons, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to continue and complete the LL.B. in accordance with the course of studies. 8. Viewing from another angle, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4723/88 and 4724/88 decided on 27.3.1989 - the derecognition could not have been applied to the degrees or certificates retrospectively and any person who had acquired such qualification before the de-recognition was entitled to the benefits of such recognition as was conferred on all those students who might have got admission on the said degree prior to derecognition. I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench in this regard on the principle as enuntiated. The Division Bench observed as under- "5. From the narration of the facts, there can be no doubt that so far as Mahavidushi (with English) Examination conducted by the Mahila Gram Vidyapitha, Prayag, Allahabad is concerned, it has been recognised as equivalent to Pre University Examination of Rajasthan University with effect from July 1, 1967 and continued to be so recognised until it was derecognised under Ann. 3, dated July 21, 1986, and the said derecognition was with immediate effect. Thus, apart from the fact that the derecognition was only with effect from July 21, 1986, it can be said that the derecognition could not have been with retrospective effect and the candidates who had sought admission and passed the Mahavidushi (with English) examination conducted by the Mahila Gram Vidyapitha Allahabad, prior to July 21, 1986, could not be denied admission to 1st year TDC and now could not be denied admission to Pre-degree course and if under the relevant ordinance one could appear as a private candidate the candidate who has passed the aforesaid examination prior to July 21, 1986, has a right to appear as a private candidate." 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders in question (Annexures 8 and 9) whereby the admission of the petitioner had been cancelled cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. A mandamus is issued to the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue with his studies of law and to appear in the examinations of LL.B. 10. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******