JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner after passing the Senior Higher Secondary School Examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi had appeared in the Pre-Engineering Test held in the year 1995-96 and he was selected for admission in Engineering College, Jodhpur. It is stated that he became victim of racking in the Engineering College and was forced to leave the Jodhpur College by the other students. 2. The petitioner again appeared in the same Pre-Engineering Test in the year 1997. He was placed at merit No. 796/G. He was directed to appear for counseling before the Coordinator, Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur (here-in-after called as 'MREC'). He was selected and allowed to be admitted for 5 years course of B.E. (Civil) in Sardar Ballabh Bhai Regional College of Engineering and Technology, Surit vide Annexure-1. He got the admission at Surat, paid his college and hostel fee. 3. The third counseling of Pre-Engineering was again scheduled to be held on 21.10.1997 vide Annexure-2 for the students who were falling on merit between 600-800 and were to be considered for third counselling on 21.10.1997. The petitioner appeared in the third counselling before the Co-ordinator and he was selected for B.E. (Electrical) in place of REC, Surat and was allowed the admission at the college of Technical and Agriculture Engineering at Udaipur vide Annexure-3. As per Annexure-3 dated 21.10.1993 he was directed to report on 3.11.1997 for completing all other necessary formalities for admission. The petitioner could not appear before the Dean of Udaipur college on 3.11.1907. It is stated that the petitioner was entitled to deposit the fee upto 17.11.1997, 16.11.1997 was Sunday and when on 17.11.1997 the petitioner went for depositing the fee, he was told that his name has already been removed and he cannot be allowed to deposit the fee. 4. The petitioner had already deposited an amount of र 15,000/- as per Annexure-5 at the Engineering College at Surat. The petitioner immediately approached the authorities. He was informed on 18.11.1997 by the Deputy Registrar (Admn./Exams) vide Annexure-6, addressed to the father of the petitioner that nothing could be done in the case of the petitioner as the matter entirely fell within the jurisdiction of Dean of CTAE, Udaipur. 5. The petitioner immediately approached the authorities. He was informed on 18.11.1997 by the Deputy Registrar (Admn./Exams) vide Annexure-6, addressed to the father of the petitioner that nothing could be done in the case of the petitioner as the matter entirely fell within the jurisdiction of Dean of CTAE, Udaipur. 5. Reliance is being placed on the averments made in the written statement, number of authorities and Rule 11(ii) of the Information Bulletin, 1997-98 to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to deposit the fee upto 17.11.1997 with late fee. 6. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the facts as such are not denied. It is stated that the Udaipur Colledge, respondent No.2 had been allotted 150 seats for various subjects in the Pre-Engineering Test and all the seats have already been filled-up. It is admitted that the petitioner was at merit No. 796. It is also admitted that on third counselling by the Centralised Admission Committee, the petitioner was again provisionally admitted with the respondent No.2 at Udaipur in the Branch of Electical for the session 1997-98 in place of REC, Surat. it is admitted in the written statement that the fee was required to be deposited in the College at Udaipur as per Rule 11(ii) of the Information Bulletin, 1997-98 and the petitioner should have deposited the fee along with late registration charges upto two weeks after the scheduled date i.e. after 3.11.1997 and he should have deposited the fee with late registration charges upto 17.11.1997. Reliance is being placed by the respondent on Annexure R.2/1 to the effect that a notice dated 4/5.11.1997 issued by the Dean was pasted on the notice board to the effect that the registration be done by the student by 4.11.1997 without late fee and upto 8.11.1997 with the prescribed late fee failing which the admission shall stand cancelled. The averments in the written statement in this regard as mentioned in the preliminary objections are reproduced as under: 'The fee required to be deposited in the College at Udaipur was also not registered or remitted by him during this period. As per Rule 11(ii) of the Information Bullet in 1997-98, the petitioner could have deposited the fee along with late registration charges upto two weeks after the scheduled date i.e. after 3.11.1997. In this manner, he should have deposited the fee with late registration charges upto 17th of November, 1997. As per Rule 11(ii) of the Information Bullet in 1997-98, the petitioner could have deposited the fee along with late registration charges upto two weeks after the scheduled date i.e. after 3.11.1997. In this manner, he should have deposited the fee with late registration charges upto 17th of November, 1997. Besides this rule given in the Information Bulletin, a notice was also pasted on the Notice Board of the College on 4.11.1997 whereby the time for registration upto 3rd of November 1997 was extended without payment of late fee upto 4th of November 1997 and thereafter with the prescribed late fee upto 8th of November 1997. It was also clearly stated in the said notice that in case of failing to deposit registration fee in time in any of the manner as aforesaid, their admission shall be treated as cancelled. A photocopy of the said notice is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2/1.' 7. There is force in the submission made by the petitioner. Rule 11(ii) prescribes that fee could be deposited with late fee within two weeks. Counting two weeks from 3.11.1997 or 4.11.1997, the date of expiry for deposit of the fee with late fee charges comes to 16.11.1997 or 17.11.1997. 16.11.1997 was Sunday, the petitioner was entitled to deposit the fee on 17.11.1997. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to explain as to how and why and under what rules, the Dean of College in Annexure R/2/1 had fixed the last date for admission with late fee to be 8.11.1997 instead of 16.11.1997 or 17.11.1997, therefore, the mentioning of the date of 8.11.1997 to be the last date for depositing the fee was contrary to the rules. There is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be believed that he had actually visited the college on 17.11.1997 and was told that he cannot be given admission in view of the instructions issued by the Dean as contained in Annexure R/2/1. He immediately represented vide Annexure-6 dated 18.11.1997 itself. The petitioner had earlier got the admission at Surat in Civil Engineering and on third counselling he was given the admission in Electrical Engineering at Udaipur. Vide Annexure-5 he had already deposited the fee at Surat amounting to र 15,000/-. It cannot be believed that the petitioner would in his sense try to miss the chance. 8. The petitioner had earlier got the admission at Surat in Civil Engineering and on third counselling he was given the admission in Electrical Engineering at Udaipur. Vide Annexure-5 he had already deposited the fee at Surat amounting to र 15,000/-. It cannot be believed that the petitioner would in his sense try to miss the chance. 8. In view of the above-said circumstances and discussion, the petitioner was entitled to be allowed for deposit of fee upto 17.11.1997 but for the issuance of the instructions by the Dean for depositing the fee upto 8.11.1997, the petitioner has been deprived of a clear chance of admission to Engineering College, rather he has lost one year. 9. This court in the case of Manish Dak v. Malviya Regional Engineering College and others. 1998(3) WLC (Rajasthan) 419 in the similar circumstances had held that once a provisional admission had been granted, the seat allotted, could not have been declared vacant and it could only be done after the last date of depositing registration fee with late fee fine and the seat provisionally granted could not have been declared vacant to be allotted to one lower in merit than the provisionally admitted candidate at the time of subsequent counselling. The respondents were directed to accept the petitioner's registration fee with late fee and to allot him the seat. The respondents were directed to accept the petitioner's registration fee with late fee and to allot him the seat. It was also a case of the same college and almost in the similar circumstances the directions as given by the High Court are as under: 'In view of the discussion held hereinbefore based on the facts and circumstances of the matter, a more pragmatic and rational dealing of the matter was expected of the authorities in a situation of this nature, more so from authorities of an educational institution which could have spared a young student from approaching a Court of law even before he entered into the basic course for his survival, as I find the action of the respondents wholly legal and arbitrary in denying a seat to the petitioner as they have denied it to a candidate duly qualified in the entrance test on a very flimsy ground, which is far from just and reasonable." "It is, therefore, directed to the respondents to accept the registration fee with late fee fine from the petitioner, thus confirming his provisional admission and allot a seat to the petitioner at Udaipur in the Mining Branch in the First Year of B.E. Course of the 1997 batch. If there is no seat available with the respondents in this branch, it is left open for them to remove the last selected candidate in this course, if his position on the merit list is lower than the petitioner or shift the last selected candidate in the Mining Branch to any other college. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed but in the circumstances without any order to costs." 10. A similar direction as above is given in this case. The petitioner would be given the admission in the same specially in which he was selected and if need be the person in lower in position shall be shifted to another branch to accommodate the petitioner who had been illegally deprived of admission. 11. If the department still feels that for the session in question, it is not possible to allot him seat because of lapse of time, the petitioner would be given the seat in the next ensuing session. He has already lost one year of studies. The respondent No.2 shall also pay cost of र 10,000/- to the petitioner.The writ petition is allowed with the above-said observations.Petition allowed with costs of र 10,000/-. He has already lost one year of studies. The respondent No.2 shall also pay cost of र 10,000/- to the petitioner.The writ petition is allowed with the above-said observations.Petition allowed with costs of र 10,000/-. *******