CYRIAC JOSEPH ( 1 ) THE petitioners passed plus 2 examination of the CBSE in June 1997 under the Vocational Stream. They applied for admission to the lind year Diploma Course in the Mechanical Engineering in the various Polytechnics under respondent No. 1 - Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. According to the petitioners, 10% seats in the lind year of the Diploma Courses are reserved for candidates who passed class XII examination under the vocational stream and they sought admission against the seats reserved for such candidates. The names of petitioners were shown at Serial No. 32 and 34 of the merit list of candidates under the vocational stream. The total number of seats being 410, the first respondent was bound to reserve 41 seats for candidates under the vocational stream and if 41 seats were reserved for such candidates the petitioners with rank Nos. 32 and 34 would have been entitled to admission. But the first respondent reserved only 30 seats for the candidates under the vocational stream and consequently the petitioners were not given admission. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 cannot go back on the promise to reserve 10% of seats for candidates under the vocational stream. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioners to IInd year Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering. ( 2 ) IN response to the notice to show cause why the petitioner should not be admitted, the Director, Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has filed a reply affidavit on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the prospectus issued by the Government of Delhi for the year 1997-98 has been produced along with the reply affidavit as Annexure R-l. Regarding reservation of seats for candidates under vocational stream the prospectus provided as follows: "eligible candidates under vocational stream will be considered for admission directly to the third semester (2nd year) in the analogous branch of engineering, against vacant seats, upto 10% of the intake. " ( 3 ) IT is stated in the reply affidavit on behalf of the respondents that there was no offer or promise to reserve 10% of the seats for candidates under the vocational stream. " ( 3 ) IT is stated in the reply affidavit on behalf of the respondents that there was no offer or promise to reserve 10% of the seats for candidates under the vocational stream. The offer was to consider such candidates for admission to the lind year of the Diploma Course "against vacant seats upto 10% of the intake. " Respondents have denied the contention of the petitioners that there are 41 seats available for the candidates under the vocational stream. According to the respondents the petitioners have calculated 41 seats as 10% of the fresh intake and they have ignored the further restriction that candidates under the vocational stream can be considered only against vacant seats. As per the details given in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit, the total number of seats (fresh intake) for Mechanical Engineer is 410 and the total number of vacant seats is only 25. In addition to the 25 vacant seats 5 vacant seats were taken into consideration for the course of Production Engineering, making the total number of vacant seats available for candidates under the vocational stream 30. Out of these available seats, 7 seats were reserved for S. C. /s. T. According to the respondents, admissions have been made on the basis of merit and the petitioners are below the cut off percentage and accordingly were not admitted. ( 4 ) ADMISSIONS to the courses can be made only in accordance with the provisions contained in the prospectus. As per the provisions in the prospectus eligible candidates under vocantional stream will be considered for admission directly to the. lind year Diploma course in the analogous branch of engineering against vacant seats upto 10% of the intake. It means that such candidates can be considered only against vacant seats and that too subject to a maximum of 10% of the intake. There is no provision to reserve 10% of the intake or the total number of seats in the lind year for candidates under the vocational stream. Therefore the writ petitioner has been filed under a mis-conception and on a wrong assumption that 10% of the total number of seats in the lind year of the Diploma Course are reserved for candidates under the vocational stream. Therefore the writ petitioner has been filed under a mis-conception and on a wrong assumption that 10% of the total number of seats in the lind year of the Diploma Course are reserved for candidates under the vocational stream. Though the petitioners produced a few pages of the prospectus as Annexure P 3, they did not produce the relevant page of the prospectus which contained the provision for reservation of seats for candidates under the vocational stream. Instead of producing the relevant page of the prospectus, the petitioner produced as Annexure P 4 a copy of a notice published by the Directorate of Education, Vocational Education Branch regarding admission to vocational courses at Plus 2 stage in Government Senior Secondary Schools. It is unfortunate that the petitioners did not produce the relevant pages of the prospectus but chose for produce a notice which has no relevance for admissions to the Diploma Courses in Polytechnic. As rightly pointed out in the reply affidavit of the respondents, in Annexure P 4 notice the provisions in the prospectus regarding reservation of seat for candidates under the vocational stream have not been accurately reproduced. The prospectus is issued by the Directorate of Training and Technical Education whereas annexure P 4 is issued by the Directorate of Education. Any mistake or misrepresentation in Annexure P 4 notice cannot govern the admissions to the polytechnics or confer any right on the petitioners for admission to the course. Applications for admission were invited on the basis of Annexure R-1 prospectus. Petitioners applied in response to Annexure R-1 prospectus. They were aware of the provisions contained in the prospectus regarding reservation of seats for candidates under the vocational stream. The petitioners cannot therefore claim admissions against the provisions contained in the said prospectus. ( 5 ) AS per the averments in the reply affidavit of the respondents there were only 30 vacant seats available for being filled up by candidates under the vocational stream and out of them only 23 seats were available for candidates belonging to the general category and the remaining 7 seats were reserved for S. C. /s. T. candidates. Admittedly, the petitioners belong to the general category and their ranks in the merits list are 32 and 34 respectively. Hence the petitioners were not entitled to admission to the course on the basis of their ranks in the merit list. Admittedly, the petitioners belong to the general category and their ranks in the merits list are 32 and 34 respectively. Hence the petitioners were not entitled to admission to the course on the basis of their ranks in the merit list. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the merit list contained repetition of names. It was pointed out that the same name appeared at Serial No. 1, 4 and 8 and that another name appeared both at Serial No. 35 and at 36. It has been explained in the reply affidavit of the respondents that in view of the 15% weightage given for rural institutes and the 5% weightage for other institute, the name of Ms. Poonam Rathi appeared at Serial No. 1 (by including 15% weightage), at Serial No. 4 ( by including 5% weightage) and at Serial No. 8 (without any weightage ). It is also stated that in computing the number of seats Ms. Poonam Rathi has taken one seat only. Similarly, the name of Mr. Joginder appeared at Serial No. 35 and 36 in the computerised merit list as he had submitted two application forms. However; in computing the number of seats the name of the said candidate has been considered only once. Even if the name of Ms. Poonam Rathi is deleted from two places, the ranks of the petitioners will be only 30 and 32 respectively. There were only 23 seats in the general category for candidates under the vocational stream. ( 7 ) IN the light of the discussion above, it is clear that considering the number of vacant seats available for candidates under the vocational stream the petitioners were not entitled to admission to the course in view of their low ranking in the merit list. Hence petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.