( 1 ) THE petitioner was an aspirant for admission to MBA Course run by the respondent-University for the academic year 1998-99. He wanted a seat in the NCC quota. But, that seat was given to the 4th respondent keeping in view her ranking in the merit list of the candidates who were entitled to be considered against the said quota. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to provide him with the seat in the Course in question. ( 2 ) ADMISSIONS to the MBA Course is governed by the regulations framed by the respondent-University under Section 35 read with Section 36 of the Karnataka State Universities act, 1976 (for short, the 'act' ). The said regulation was published under notification dated 5-1-1994 have been placed at Annexure-A. As per the said regulations, the selection of candidates has to be made by a Committee constituted thereunder on the basis of inter se merits of the candidates as per the entrance test conducted under the regulations. The mode of providing marks in the interview and the written test has been set out in Regulation D. 3 of Part 'd' of the regulations. Regulation 3 of the regulations provide for intake and reservations. Clause (viii) of this Regulation 3 provides as under: "one seat in each course may be allotted for NCC candidates from among the graduates of the mysore University with outstanding performance in NCC on the basis of weightage criteria provided by the NCC Directorate", ( 3 ) THE NCC Directorate under its communication dated 23rd July, 1992 has laid down the mode of determining the weightage criteria and allotment of weightage marks for the purpose of reservations in various academic courses. It has been communicated to the Chairpersons of all the Post-graduate Departments of Studies in Mysore. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner had secured 46% marks in the Entrance Test as against 36. 6% marks of the 4th respondent. But, so far as the performance in NCC activities is concerned, as per the weightage criteria noticed above, the NCC Directorate has granted only 27 points to the petitioner, whereas, the 4th respondent has secured 52 points. 6% marks of the 4th respondent. But, so far as the performance in NCC activities is concerned, as per the weightage criteria noticed above, the NCC Directorate has granted only 27 points to the petitioner, whereas, the 4th respondent has secured 52 points. Therefore, the aggregate of the marks secured by the 4th respondent by adding the Entrance Test marks and the ncc points become higher to those secured by the petitioner. It is for this reason that the 4th respondent has been favoured with admission to the said course. ( 5 ) TO ascertain the correctness of the allegation levelled by the petitioner that the above basis of aggregating the marks was adopted for the first time by the respondent-University, I called upon the Counsel for the respondent to show as to what practice was followed in earlier years. He has produced the records right from academic year 1993-94 which shows that the above procedure was being followed uniformly in the matter of allotment of NCC quota seat. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that as per the regulations contained in Part 'd' thereof, the admissions can be granted only on the merits determined on the basis of the marks obtained in the Entrance test and therefore, for ascertaining the eligibility of the candidate to the NCC quota, the NCC points could not have been added to the Entrance Test marks. In my opinion, the submission so advanced suffers from a fallacy. The quote for NCC candidates has been reserved to encourage the NCC activities by providing one seat to the otherwise eligible candidate based on his outstanding NCC performance. Therefore, for ascertaining whether the performance was outstanding or not, on a relative basis, the points awarded by the NCC Directorate have to be given due weightage and that can only be done by adding the points awarded by the Directorate to the marks which had been obtained by the candidates concerned in the Entrance Test. Therefore, the practice which is being followed by the University seems to be quite rational, intelligible and consistent with the object sought to be achieved. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.