JUDGMENT D. RAJU, C.J.—The above writ petition has been filed by a candidate/applicant who could not secure admission to the course "Floriculture and Landscaping" in the Post Graduate College of Horticulture, for the academic session 1998-99 under the scheme announced by the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The claim centres around and involves the interpretation to be placed on a clause pertaining to reservation of seats in the prospectus issued by the University concerned, and it is unnecessary to delve at the facts in great details. In the said course pertaining to Floriculture and Landscaping the Academic Council of the University has approved the intake capacity for the session in question at the M.Sc. level two seats and Ph.D. level three seats. There is no controversy also with reference to the fact that having regard to the stipulation contained in clause 8 of the prospectus relating to the reservation of seats and the provisions contained therein that 75 per cent of the seats shall be reserved for the domicile of the Himachal Pradesh, two of the three seats have been earmarked for Himachali candidates and one for open category and it is on that basis the admission process has been pursued and selections have been notified on the basis of the recommendations made by the admission committee. It is seen from the said notification filed as Annexure PD that as against the two seats reserved for Himachali candidate there was only one eligible candidate within the category who could be selected and such person was one Narender Pathak son of Baldev Chand. As against the open category of one seat available, one Anurag Singh son of Shri Sukhbir Singh has been selected. A writ petition has been filed by some other candidate challenging the selection of Anurag Singh and that writ petition is pending and so far as the claim in the present writ petition is concerned, we are not concerned with the selection of said Anurag Singh as against the open category since it is also not challenged by the petitioner in this case. The claim of the petitioner is with reference to the one reserved seat, earmarked for Himachali candidate but which could not be filled up from such deserving Himachali candidate and has fallen vacant in respect of which the University has issued an admission notice filed as Annexure PF on 3.2.1999 inviting applications to fill up the said seat afresh. It is at that stage the petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the procedure adopted for re-advertising instead of making available the said seat also for the open candidate and filling up the same with the open candidates available and said to be eligible for admission as open candidate against the said seat. The submission on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in pursuing the stand taken in the writ petition is that in terms of "note" to Clause 8 (a) of the prospectus the seat/ seats which falls vacant on account of there being no candidate available under the reserved category shall be filled from the open quota from category (a) above and it was premature for the University without attempting to fill up likewise, but to go otherwise to re-advertising to fill up the seat which has fallen vacant also in favour of a Himachali candidate once over again. Per contra, Mr. B.S. Attri, learned Counsel for the respondent University tried to justify the stand taken by the University contending that the reservation of seat shown in the prospectus at page 17, Para 8 of Chapter II refers to reservation made to candidates of the category of SC/ST and women etc. under the Himachal quota and according to the learned Counsel for the University, as per the note in question if no candidate is available under those categories of SC/ST and women etc. the same are required to be filled up from other candidates from category (a) above, namely, Himachali candidate only and not the candidates from other states, namely, category (b) and the reservation of seats for non-Himachali candidate, according to the learned Counsel, is provided only under Clause (b) of Clause 8 at page 18 of the prospectus and not otherwise. 2. We have carefully considered the said submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. 3. 2. We have carefully considered the said submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. 3. In traversing the claim on behalf of the petitioner that in respect of other disciplines in the Post Graduate College of Horticulture, the note in question was construed by the University itself and applied in the manner it is sought to be contended for the petitioner in respect of the discipline relating to Floriculture and Landscaping also. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the University on the decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 (State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann) to contend that merely because some relief has been wrongly given to others a claimant before this Court cannot seek to enforce such right if not otherwise entitled to under any provision of law or that in the absence of a validly enforceable rule, to claim for such or similar treatment. The decision in (1997) 3 SCC 321, is one wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that a relief wrongly given to others cannot be claimed by any one unless there was an enforceable right and in the absence of any such enforceable right the plea of discrimination could not be validly or successfully raised in a Court of law. In our view the decision will have no relevance or application to the case on hand. It is not the claim of the petitioner in this case that the manner in which the note to Clause 8 (a) has been construed by the University itself in respect of other disciplines and the seats falling vacant in other disciplines is wrong or that despite the fact that on such erroneous interpretation or construction some relief having been given to somebody the same relief must be given to the petitioner also. On the other hand the claim of the petitioner is based on the "note" and the assertion made is of a right flowing from the said note contained in the prospectus itself and if such a right enures to the petitioner and also the category of candidates falling within the class of the petitioner, it cannot be said to be erroneous for the petitioner or any one in that class to assert such a right, particularly, when the very University has extended such benefit by construing the "note" in question, in the same manner, in respect of admissions relating to other disciplines, as the petitioner wants this Court to construe and consider. 4. It is useful to refer to the said clause in its entirety to have an idea about the purpose of the reservation of seats in this case in order to properly construe the note in question: "8. RESERVATION OF SEATS : Admission to various programmes shall be open to all eligible persons subject to the reservation of seats as under : (a) 85% seats in U.G. Programme and 75% seats in P.G. Programme shall be reserved for domicile of Himachal Pradesh; and (i) 22.5% of the seats in UG and PG Programmes category (a) above shall be reserved for Scheduled Caste (15%) and Scheduled Tribe (7.5%). In case the candidates in either of the two categories are not available, the seat(s) will be interchangeable. (ii) 15% of the seats in both UG and PG Programmes in category (a) shall be reserved for women candidates. (iii) 60% of the seats in category (a) above shall be reserved for candidates belonging to rural area out of which 10% seats are reserv.ed for candidates belonging to IRDP category. In case of non-availability of IRDP candidate(s), the seat(s) will be declared open to the candidates from rural area. A candidate passing his/her High School Examination from a school located outside the limits of Municipal Corporation/Municipal Committee/Notified Area Committee/Cantonment Board shall be deemed to be a candidate hailing from rural area (applicable for under-graduate programmes only). t . (iv) One seat in one of the UG Programmes shall be reserved in alternate year for the son/daughter of the serving and ex-defence personnel from category (a) above. However, preference would be given to the wards of gallantry award winner. Decision for this seat, shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. t . (iv) One seat in one of the UG Programmes shall be reserved in alternate year for the son/daughter of the serving and ex-defence personnel from category (a) above. However, preference would be given to the wards of gallantry award winner. Decision for this seat, shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Note.— In case, the candidates as prescribed in (a) (i to iv) above, are admitted on merit, reservation quota shall stand reduced correspondingly. Further, if no candidate is available under these categories, the vacant seat(s) shall be filled from open quota from category (a) above." 5. Even a cursory reading of the note would make it clear that in case the candidates prescribed in Clause (a) as also under the various sub-clauses therein are admitted on merits reservation quota shall stand reduced correspondingly. In addition thereto there is a further stipulation which in unmistakable terms provides further that if no candidate is available under the said reserved category, the vacant seat shall be filled from "open quota from category (a) above". Though attractive as the stand taken for the petitioner may appear to be, we cannot accept the same having regard to the scheme underlying the reservation of seats in clause 8 of the prospectus merely because the quota reserved for open candidate or non-Himachali candidate is fixed at 25 per cent only. No doubt, this is the stipulation, but then having regard to the note which is part and parcel of the very reservation of the seats, renders the reservation of 75 per cent for Himachal domicile "candidates and 25% for open candidates a flexible one as also a varying factor depending upon the availability or non-availability of the required number of candidates in the particular reserved category. That is the inevitable consequence of the specific stipulation contained in the note to clause 8. That is the inevitable consequence of the specific stipulation contained in the note to clause 8. In our view, in view of the above, and having regard to the admitted position in this case that there was only one Himachali domicile eligible candidate for admission, the other seat earmarked for the discipline of Horticulture and Landscaping should become available for being filled up from open quota and, therefore, the other candidates in the open quota have to be considered and their claim to be assessed and dealt with for admission treating the one seat which has fallen vacant from the quota earmarked for candidates of Himachal domicile as having become available for open quota candidates. Therefore, we are of the view that the notice issued by the University proposing to re-advertise the same and filed as Annexure PF in so far as it relates to the admission at any rate relating to the discipline of Floriculture and Landscaping cannot be sustained and is hereby held to be not a right course to be adopted. Hence, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that in considering the question filling up the vacancy of one seat earlier reserved for Himachal domicile candidate, which has fallen vacant the open candidates including the petitioner and any other as are available, has to be considered on the basis of their merit performance without re-advertising the same to undergo the process of admission afresh. Interim stay, if any, shall stand vacated, in view of the final disposal of the writ petition. Appeal dismissed.