( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the appellant found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court, namely, that candidates from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes who were meritorious had a right to admission on merit and they could not be considered against the reserved quota. The Division Bench added,"concedingly, if this principle had been followed, the appellant would have got admission in the course. Thus, the appellant has suffered on account of the conduct of the University in not following the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court. "but, surprisingly, instead of granting the necessary consequential relief, the Division Bench only found it fit to award costs in the sum of Rupees five thousand against the University. The appellant, therefore, challenges the correctness of its order. ( 3 ) IF it was the fault of the University, as the Division Bench found, it was proper to di-rect the University to make due amends. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment and order of this Court in C. Tulasi Priya v. A. P. State Council of Higher Education and Ors. [jt 1998 (5) SC 246 = 1998 (6) SCC 284 ] where also the University had committed a mistake to the detriment of the student and this Court directed that the student should be considered for admission to a medical college in the State in a seat from the quota of that State for the academic year in question upon the correct and not the mistaken basis. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the University has drawn our attention to the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellants writ petition was dismissed for the reason that its cause did not survive for further adjudication, and that apart, in the learned Single Judges words, "the University merely followed the directions of this Court in W. P. No. 23481 of 1997 and batch dated 11. 12. 1997. " ( 5 ) WHAT those directions were, we do not know because the relevant order is not produced by the University before us, nor apparently, was it produced before the Division Bench for it is not referred to in its order. The position in law is well settled, as the Division Bench noted. The University was in error. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the same. The position in law is well settled, as the Division Bench noted. The University was in error. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the same. ( 6 ) THE civil appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The University and its Admission Committee shall consider the candidature of the appellant for admission to a medical college within the province of the University from the quota of the State in the appropriate category for the Academic Year 2000- 2001 on the basis of her merit. ( 7 ) NO order as to costs.