D. P. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, in this writ petition, prays for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to issue admit cards for appearing in the first year examination of the 'd' Pharma course. ( 2 ) THE petitioners' case is, they took admission for the year 1992-93 session in the opposite party No. 3 College and also attended classes. Internal examination marks were also awarded to them. In normal course they ought to have been allowed to appear in the examination as per the prescribed Education Regulation, 1981. It is their case that though altogether 40 students took admission to the course, opposite party No. 2, the Orissa State Board of Pharmacy issued admit cards to 30 students denying the same to the rest ten students including the petitioners numbering four. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 2, the Orissa State Board of Pharmacy filed a counter-affidavit stating in para 6 of the same that the petitioners were not eligible to appear in the examination since they were not regular students of the opposite party No. 3 college as found by the inspecting terms both of the State Board as well as opposite party No. 1, the Pharmacy Council of India. The Principal of the college, opposite party No. 3 filed a separate counter-affidavit supporting the cause of the petitioners. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. D. Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. J. K. Mishra, learned counsel for Opp. party No. 3 and perused the contents of the petition, the counter-affidavits and the annexures. ( 5 ) ANNEXURE-5 is the xerox copy of the mark-sheet awarded to the 40 students on the roll of whom the roll numbers of the four petitioners are found to be at serial 15, 28, 31 and 36. This document has not been challenged by opposite parties 1 and 2 either as manufactured or fabricated. The State Board inspected the institution on 5-2-1992 vide Annexure A and found 30 students to be on roll. The Pharmacy Council of India inspected the institution on 4-4-1996 and from its report (Annexure B) column 5 shows that the team found from the Admission Register, Attendance Register and Seasonal Records of the college that there were 40 students on the roll. The Pharmacy Council of India inspected the institution on 4-4-1996 and from its report (Annexure B) column 5 shows that the team found from the Admission Register, Attendance Register and Seasonal Records of the college that there were 40 students on the roll. Thus it is apparent that 10 students were admitted sometime after 5-2-1992 i. e. the inspection by the State Board. It seems admit cards were issued to 30 students those who were found to be on the roll by the State Board. The rest 10 students have been denied issuance of the admit cards including the petitioners. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the admission of the petitioners, though lately, was either illegal or irregular, or it was against any prescribed law and rules. As a matter of fact, they were found to be on the roll though lately and so, for no fault of theirs, they should not suffer. The only defect as pointed out in the inspection report of the Pharmacy Council is that in respect of the students bearing roll Nos. 4 and 36 (not the petitioners), no photographs were affixed in the application forms. The students bearing roll Nos. 28 (petitioner Ranjan Kumar Mohanty), 29, 35 and 36 (petitioner Mrutyunjaya Panda) deposited the fees for which receipts were issued. In regard to roll Nos. 29 and 39 (not the petitioners) photographs affixed in the Admission Register did not tally with the application forms. In respect of petitioner Mrutyunjaya Panda alone a discrepancy was found that he had taken admission on 14-8-1992, but the application for admission was dated 3-9-1993. Nothing was found during inspection against the rest three petitioners. ( 6 ) WE may point out that we are presently concerned with the petitioner' bearing roll Nos. 15, 28, 31 and 36. If on the date of the inspection i. e. 4-4-1994 they were on the roll of the institution which fact is not disputed, refusal to admit them to sit in the examination should be unjustified and improper and the same cannot be denied merely on the ground of certain discrepancy only in respect of petitioner Mrutyunjaya and because of their delayed admission to the institution, for it will be too harsh to deny them to appear for the examination. Further, the counter affidavit of the Principal shows that they were the students of the institution and he also requested by letter dated 26-5-1996 (Annexure C/1) addressed to the Member-Secretary of the Orisssa State Board stating that there was no reason why the rest ten students were not to be permitted to appear in the examination. Annexure B/1 is also the letter dated 14-3-1996 of the Principal showing submission of Registration forms and Examination Forms relating to 40 students and the requisite Demand Drafts towards fees etc. for the examination. We do not find any thing wrong in the action of the petitioners to be deprived of the examination. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. We direct opposite parties 1 and 2, the Pharmacy Council of India and the Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, to allow the petitioners to sit for the 'd' Pharma examination if not already done by following necessary procedure as prescribed under law. We, however, make it clear these four petitioners shall fill up fresh forms for the examination with their latest photographs authenticated by the Principal of the Institution and it shall be duty of the Principal to identify the four petitioners at the time of issuing the Admit Cards. Requisite be filed within three days for communication of the order. ( 8 ) P. K. MISHRA, J. : -. I agree. Petition allowed.