S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the notification issued by the Osmania University, first respondent herein, dated 19-1-2000 calling for applications from the supplementary batch students for admission into M. C. A. Course during the academic year 1999-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) ALL the petitioners herein are graduates and they are presently studying the course of Master of Computer Applications (MCA) in various colleges. When this writ petition was filed on 24-1-2000, the first petitioner was studying first year MCA course in Osmania University Post Graduate Centre at Nalgonda; Second petitioner was studying at Osmania University Post Graduate centre at Medak; third petitioner was studying at Nishita Post Graduate College, Nizamabad; fourth petitioner was studying at Osmania University Post Graduate Centre, Mahabubnagar; fifth petitioner was studying at Osmania University Post Graduate Centre, Mahabubnagar; sixth petitioner was studying at Osmania University Post Graduate Centre, Mahabub-nagar; seventh petitioner was studying at Osmania University Post Graduate Centre, Mahabubnagar and eighth petitioner was studying at Osmania University Post Graduate Centre, Mahabubnagar. All these petitioners who were admitted into the first semester of MCA course in the month of November, 1999 completed the first semester course and also appeared for the public examination held in the month of January, 2000. ( 3 ) WHEN the matter stood thus, some more colleges to run MCA/mba courses for the academic year 1999-2000 were established after the All India Counsel for Technical Education (AICTE) and the Government accorded their permission in the month of February, 2000. Three colleges, two in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and one in moffusal area were established in the month of January, 2000. That led to the Osmania University issuing the impugned notification calling applications for admission to the MCA course from the supplementary batch students for the academic year 1999-2000. The impugned notification restricted admission to the first semester of MCA Course in the newly started colleges only to the supplementary batch students, and it excluded regular batch of students who were already admitted to MCA course in the month of November, 1999 from sliding. Hence, this writ petition assailing the impugned notification insofar as it excludes the regular batch students from competing for admission into newly established three colleges in the month of January, 2000. Hence, this writ petition assailing the impugned notification insofar as it excludes the regular batch students from competing for admission into newly established three colleges in the month of January, 2000. ( 4 ) ASSAILING the validity of the impugned notification, Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that those students who passed entrance examination and passed degree examination along with the petitioners could not get seats in MCA course in the month of November, 1999, either in the city or outside the city in the first three phases and counselling were allowed for the present admissions and that all these students got inferior ranks in the entrance examination and they stand below the petitioners in the merit list. The learned counsel would also point out that the other category of students who passed entrance examination, but, failed in the degree examination and subsequently passed in the supplementary examination are also allowed for the present admissions. The learned counsel contends that both the above categories of students cannot have any better right than the writ petitioners and similarly circumstanced students in the matter of admissions and/or sliding. The learned counsel would also point out that the merit ranking of the petitioners must be given due weightage and they have to be offered with seats in the newly established three colleges according to their choice before the students of lesser merit are given seats. The learned counsel would also point out that it is very difficult for the petitioners every day to travel to the remote places like Nizamabad, Medak, Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar and in the process, the petitioners consume major portion of the day for to and fro travelling itself and that the petitioners incur high cost. The learned counsel contends that the petitioners having relatively better rank than the students who are admitted into the newly established three colleges, are entitled to seek admission into the newly established colleges in preference to less meritorious students. The learned counsel would thus conclude by pointing out that the impugned notification insofar as it excludes the regular batch students from competing for admission into the newly established three colleges is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would thus conclude by pointing out that the impugned notification insofar as it excludes the regular batch students from competing for admission into the newly established three colleges is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri K. Ramakantha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Osmania University contended that admissions made under the impugned notification were for the supplementary batch students during the academic year 1999-2000, and such batch of students constitute a separate class altogether and, therefore, the impugned action does not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that the petitioners were admittedly admitted to the first semester of MCA course in the month of November, 1999 and all the petitioners prosecuted first semester course in their respective colleges and they also appeared for the examination conducted after completion of first semester of MCA course, and if the petitioners were to be granted admissions into the newly established three colleges in the month of February, 2000 then, the seats that might have been vacated by the writ petitioners would have gone waste as no students could have been allotted in the places of the petitioners where they are presently studying. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that the students who are admitted to the first year MCA course in the newly established three colleges are prosecuting the studies and they would also shortly complete the first semester and if the Court were to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners, it would result in total confusion and chaos and impracticable situation and such a course of action is totally against public interest. ( 6 ) IT is true, as contended by Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the admissions made by the University in the month of November, 1999 and in the month of February, 2000 are during the same academic year 1999-2000, within the meaning of the definition of the term academic year as defined u/s. 2 (3) of the Universities Act. It is relevant to note that the MCA course is governed by semester system. The petitioners were admitted into the first semester of MCA course in the month of November, 1999. It is relevant to note that the MCA course is governed by semester system. The petitioners were admitted into the first semester of MCA course in the month of November, 1999. MCA course is of three academic years according to curriculum, and each academic year consists of two semesters. ( 7 ) THE situation as on today is that the writ petitioners have already completed the first semester of the MCA Course and they are prosecuting the second semester of the MCA Course, and they are going to complete the same within a month or two. By the time those students who were admitted to the first year MCA Course in the newly established three colleges during January, 2000, the petitioners had already completed not only the first semester course but also appeared for the public examination held by the Osmania University on completion of the first semester course. ( 8 ) THE crux of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners runs like this : the writ petitioners are prepared to forego their study in the first and second semesters; the petitioners being relatively more meritorious, they are entitled to seek admissions into the newly established colleges and the action of the University in excluding the writ petitioners and the similarly circumstanced students from seeking admission into the newly established colleges, and preventing them from sliding is totally unjustified, irregular and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) IT is true that in the normal course in any selection process for admitting the students into professional courses, relatively more meritorious students shall have preference not only in the matter of admission but also in choosing the educational institution of his or her choice which imparts a particular discipline in question. If the writ petitioners and those students who are admitted in the newly established colleges in the month of January, 2000 were counselled and allotted to the colleges affiliated to the Osmania University in the same selection process, the contention of the learned counsel would have some force. That is not the position obtaining in the instant case. When the petitioners were counselled and allotted to the colleges situated in Nizamabad, Medak, Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar etc. That is not the position obtaining in the instant case. When the petitioners were counselled and allotted to the colleges situated in Nizamabad, Medak, Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar etc. during the month of November, 1999, it was not in contemplation of anybody that the AICTE and the Government would definitely accord permission, and that three more colleges would definitely be established in the month of January, 2000. Should it be noted that the selection process initiated by the Osmania University resulting in the admission of certain students to the newly established colleges in the month of February, 2000 is distinctly a separate selection process and it is not a continuation of the selection process that was initiated by the Osmania University which resulted in the admission of the writ petitioners and the similarly circumstanced students to the first year MCA Course in the month of November, 1999. Therefore, the writ petitioners and similarly circumstanced students, and those students who are now admitted to the first semester of MCA Course in the newly established three colleges cannot be considered as the ones belonging to the same class. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Osmania University if the writ petition is allowed and the relief as sought by the petitioners is granted, that would result in an impracticable situation wherein the seats now held by the writ petitions would go waste. There is no obligation on the part of the managements of the colleges in which the writ petitioners are presently prosecuting their studies to admit students to the first semester of MCA Course now in the places that may be vacated by the writ petitioners irrespective of their numbers and impart education of first semester of MCA Course to them. Secondly, it will be totally unreasonable to direct the managements of the colleges to have full-fledged teaching faculty only for a student or few students, and to provide all other infrastructural facilities. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. ( 10 ) LOOKING from the standpoint of reasonable classification also, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Should it be noted as pointed out supra that the writ petitioners and those students who are admitted to the first semester of MCA Course in the newly established three colleges do not belong to same class. ( 10 ) LOOKING from the standpoint of reasonable classification also, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Should it be noted as pointed out supra that the writ petitioners and those students who are admitted to the first semester of MCA Course in the newly established three colleges do not belong to same class. What Art. 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification . But, however, in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, viz. , (I) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (II) that, that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects ought to have been achieved by the law. It is true that in the matter of admission to the semester of MCA Course made by the Osmania University in the month of February, 2000, the petitioners and those students admitted into the newly established three colleges were not treated equally for the writ petitioners and the similarly circumstanced students were excluded from competing for admission. Therefore, the relevant question that arises for consideration is whether the classification made by the Osmania University is based on any rational differentia. The differentia made by the Osmania University is intended to see that no seat in professional course leading to MCA degree should go waste and the students be allotted to the concerned colleges as per the intake fixed by the AICTE and the University in respect of each of those colleges. Therefore, an intelligible differentia is discernible which distinguishes the students who are admitted to the first semester of MCA Course in the newly established three colleges from the petitioners and the similarly circumstanced who are left out, and this differentia is intended to achieve the above noted objects. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the impugned action is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is also liable to be dismissed in limine for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the impugned action is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is also liable to be dismissed in limine for non-joinder of necessary parties. If the writ petition is allowed and the reliefs as prayed by the petitioners are granted, it will affect the interests of the students who are admitted to the three newly established colleges vitally, and they are not made parties to the writ petition. ( 12 ) IN the result, and for the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.