Honble MISRA, J.–The letter dated 3.10.97 as contained in Annex-3 to this writ petition issued by the Head of the Department of the Post-graduate Department of Diploma Course in Cost & Works Accountancy (shortly referred to as the `DCWA Course) is under challenge in this writ petition by which the petitioner has been refused to be admitted in Part Ill of the DCWA on the ground that he was running short of the required attendance in the aforesaid course. (2). The facts in so far as it is relevant for examining the reasonableness of the letter issued to the petitioner are short and simple. The petitioner sought admission in the Post-graduate Diploma Course in DCWA which course consists of three parts. The petitioner, however, got an exemption from appearing in the First Year of DCWA since he was already holding a graduate degree in Commerce which exemption was in terms of the rule in this regard. He thereafter was granted admission in the Second Year of DCWA for the session 1995-96 which he successfully cleared by securing 67% marks and topped the list. Thereafter he was granted admission in Part-ill for the session 1996-97 and was also allowed to appear in the first paper. Suddenly in the midst of his examination he was not allowed to appear in the remaining papers of the course as it was reported that he was running short of the required attendance which held him ineligible as per rules to appear in the examination. The petitioner in view of this letter applied for fresh admission to DCWA Part Ill Examination as a regular student for the session 1997-98 but his form was not accepted nor he was granted permission to be treated as a non-collegiate student for Part-III examination as a consequence of which he was totally disqualified from continuing with the DCW course. (3). The petitioner evidently felt deeply disappointed and the rumbling of disappointment prompted him to file this writ petition challenging the order of the University as contained in Annex-3 disqualifying him to continue with the Ill year course of DCWA due to shortage of attendance although he had qualified for the earlier parts. (4). (3). The petitioner evidently felt deeply disappointed and the rumbling of disappointment prompted him to file this writ petition challenging the order of the University as contained in Annex-3 disqualifying him to continue with the Ill year course of DCWA due to shortage of attendance although he had qualified for the earlier parts. (4). While narrating the circumstances regarding shortage of his attendance it has been stated by the petitioner, by way of rejoinder to the writ petition, that he had unfortunately met with an accident in the month of April, 1994 while playing a Football game and sustained injury on his knee. For this purpose he had undergone treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi where a surgery was advised. The petitioner, however, did not choose to go in for the operation as according to him he was under financial constraint but he continued to take alternative treatment for his knee from August, 1996 to February, 1997 and in this connection he had to frequently travel from Jaipur to Delhi. The petitioner obviously could not pay any attention to his studies and hence could not attend the classes of DCWA. (5). The petitioner, therefore, had moved this Court urging that he should be allowed to complete the DCWA course by either granting him fresh admission or as a regular student in the Session 1997-98 even assuming that he was rightly held ineligible to appear in the examination for the 1996-97 Session, on account of the shortage of attendance, so that he could attend the classes as a regular student in the Session 1997-98 or he could have been treated as a non-collegiate student so as to complete the course. But he has been arbitrarily held disqualified to continue at all with the course for a lapse which was beyond his control. (6). The respondents having called upon by this Court by way of a show-cause notice which had been issued to them, have attempted to justify their action by placing reliance on Rule 12 of the necessary instructions which according to them is in consonance with the rules and conditions in the Prospectus of the institution in this regard. (6). The respondents having called upon by this Court by way of a show-cause notice which had been issued to them, have attempted to justify their action by placing reliance on Rule 12 of the necessary instructions which according to them is in consonance with the rules and conditions in the Prospectus of the institution in this regard. As per this rule, certain categories of students have been held ineligible for admission into the course and they are- (a) candidates who are declared failed; (b) candidates who are detained from appearing at an examination on account of shortage in attendance; (c) No. 3 is not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition; (d) candidates who did not take an examination after completing the attendance and thereby could not clear a class. (7). It has, however, been further laid down therein that a candidate belonging to categories (a) or (b) may be admitted to the same class once again if he has participated in the Intercollegiate Tournaments of the University or lnter-University/Inter-State/International Tournament Championship during the immediately preceding year and in case he has participated in the Intercollegiate tournaments himself or the Inter-University regarding which certain details have been given out which is not quoted as it is inessential for the purpose of this writ petition. (8). The respondents stand while contesting the petitioners case therefore is that since he had remained absent throughout the entire session, his admission form was rightly rejected since he could not have been allowed to remain absent as he had been admitted in the category of regular students and yet did not attend a single lecture. (9). (8). The respondents stand while contesting the petitioners case therefore is that since he had remained absent throughout the entire session, his admission form was rightly rejected since he could not have been allowed to remain absent as he had been admitted in the category of regular students and yet did not attend a single lecture. (9). From the averments of the petitioners case narrated hereinbefore it is quite clear that the petitioner is not contesting on the count that he ought to have been allowed to appear in the examination even though he was running short of attendance but what he has been pressing herein is that even if he had not been able to attend the classes for Part-III examination as a regular student for the Session 1996-97 on account of a mishap due to which he sustained injury in his leg, he should have been allowed to apply afresh for admission to Part-III of the DCWA course in the next session i.e. 1997-98 or in the alternative he could have been allowed to be treated as a non-collegiate student to appear in Part-III examination. (10). This prayer clearly appears to be reasonable in my opinion but Shri Subhash Jain on behalf of the University of Rajasthan sought to justify the stand of the University by urging that DCWA is a specialised course and once a student has been disqualified for the reason as given out in the Instructions contained in the Prospectus, such student could not have been granted permission to seek even fresh admission in order to maintain the standard of the course. However, this argument fails to impress me as even according to the rules/instructions, certain categories of students have been protected from the disqualification to continue with the course, but that category is the category of only those students who have participated in the Inter-College Tournaments of the University or lnter-University/Inter-State/International Tournaments Championship during the immediately preceding year and in the case of Inter-collegiate tournaments if the candidate himself or his team figured in the first three positions in the tournaments, such a candidate will be re- admitted only once. The fact, however, remains that provisions have been made for re- admission of students in certain situation protecting their interest when they bonafide have not been able to attend classes although this protection is granted only to the students who participated in some tournament and that is Rule 12 which has been relied upon by the University. However, the rule is not statutory in nature and is merely in the form of Instructions contained in the Prospectus which have been framed to protect the interest of a student from wasting their years due to rigours of the Rule. When such instructions are incorporated, they are no doubt meant to be followed by the authorities as also the students, nevertheless, it is of prime importance that a pragmatic and practical aspect of the entire situation be taken into consideration in the interest of the students to protect them becoming a victim of the situation which is beyond the control of a person due to force of circumstances as the respondents in fact have done for students participating in games. But to deny similar protection to students other than those who participated in tournaments even on medical grounds is rather difficult to ignore as in case of the petitioner who met with an accident and was undergoing treatment which prevented him from continuing with the classes. The petitioner thus has fairly stated that if he was disqualified to participate in the examination for shortage of attendance, he was prepared to seek fresh admission in Part-III of the DCWA course which should not have been denied to the petitioner under the garb of a rule. (11). I find the submissions sufficiently weighty and hence see no justification on the part of the respondents to adopt such a stringent approach against a student merely in the name of maintenance of standard of the course for a student who was quite at the top in the merit list in Part-II examination of the course cannot be conceived of negligent in attending the classes in Part-III unless he were genuinely physically disabled for some period. I, therefore, find the approach of the respondents quite insensitive lacking in sound use of discretion in a circumstance which exists in the case at hand wherein the petitioner has been prevented even from seeking fresh admission in Part-III so that he could attend the classes and appear in Part-III examination after attending the classes. It is difficult to perceive of any course, more so in course of some standard, where students are bound to clear the course in one attempt and are totally disqualified, thereafter for this course for all times to come and more specifically when a candidate has not been able to clear the course in one attempt he is bound to get more chances or attempt to clear the course. The action of the respondents, thereby disqualifying the petitioner to continue with the course at ail is patently arbitrary and does not stand the test of reasonableness and justice. However, i do not propose to observe further in this regard as the petitioner has not challenged the Instructions/Rule 12 given out in the Prospectus, but 1 surely find substance in the plea of the petitioner that he should not have been deprived to seek fresh admission in the next session 1997~98 to attend the classes in Part-III of DCWA Course. Unfortunately the petitioner has already lost one more year without doing the course and hence no direction can be given to the respondents to allow him to appear in 1997-98 session without attending the classes. He will, therefore, be allowed to seek admission afresh as a regular student in the Session of 1998-99 in Part-III of the DCWA Course under special circumstances of this case and thereafter would be eligible for appearing in Part-III Examinations in the year 1999 as per the rule regarding attendance. (12). Since the petitioner had not been admitted in the DCWA Course as a private candidate nor there is provision to admit students as a non-collegiate student in DCWA Course he cannot be allowed to appear as a private candidate. (13). The impugned order of the University as contained in Annexure-3 is, therefore, quashed and the writ petition under the circumstances stands allowed without costs.