Judgment SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents and quashing the impugned orders dated 19th June, 2001, 22nd June, 2001 and 10t10t 10/07/2001, Annexures P/3 to P/5 respectively. 2. Vide impugned order dated 19-6-2001, Annexure P/3, the representation of the students mentioned therein including the petitioner for regularisation of their admissions to the Bachelor of Technical Course 1st semester for session 2000-2001 in the Haryana College of Technology and Management affiliated under Kurukshetra University was rejected and their admissions were consequently cancelled by the College and the University by the subsequent afore-referred orders. 3. The petitioner, while awaiting his result of 10+2 examination, appeared in the Entrance Test for admission to Technical Courses, in various colleges in the State of Haryana, (hereinafter referred to as CET examination). This examination was conducted on behalf of the State by Guru Jambeshwar University, Hisar. The petitioner got rank of 7158 in this examination. Upon declaration of the result, the petitioner got compartment in 10+2 examination. In terms of the Brochure, no candidate was entitled to take examination in the technical graduation courses as a matter of right. However, like the previous year, the Government of Haryana, Department of Technical Education, took a decision to grant provisional admission to the candidates in the B.Tech Courses, who had got compartment in 10+2 examination subject to their clearing the said examination in the supplementary examination, which was to be held in September 2000. On the basis of this decision, the competent authority granted admission to the petitioner in Haryana College of Technology and Management-respondent No. 3 in the petition. Supplementary examination of 10+2 was held by the Board of School Education, Haryana and its result was declared on 6/12/2000. The petitioner cleared the supplementary examination in his compartment by securing 62% marks. As already noticed, the petitioner was granted admission to the course and, the first semester examination was held in February, 2001 and the 2nd Semester examination was held by the University on 13/06/2001. It is at that stage that the representation of the petitioner for regularisation of his examination was rejected on 19th June, 2001 and his admission was cancelled by the University and College on 22/06/2001 and on 10/07/2001 respectively. It is at that stage that the representation of the petitioner for regularisation of his examination was rejected on 19th June, 2001 and his admission was cancelled by the University and College on 22/06/2001 and on 10/07/2001 respectively. Cancellation of admission by these orders have compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal Kaur V/s. State of Haryana, 1998 (1) Service Cases Today 576, contended that neither he had played any fraud with the College nor ever he mis-represented. In fact, he had subsequently cleared the qualifying examination to satisfy the eligibility condition. He has pursued the course for considerable time and thus the respondents were estopped from cancelling their admission to the degree course now. It was further stated that admission of a number of students, who were similarly situated who had cleared their qualifying examination subsequently along with the petitioner, were also regularised by the respondents, as such, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory, so far the petitioner is concerned. 5. Upon notice, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents. The basic contention raised by the respondents is that as the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum eligibility condition, therefore, his admission could not be regularised. Passing of 10+2 examination is a condition precedent to the admission of the Bachelor of Technical Courses. It was stated that there was no discrimination as the boys who had been given admission had cleared their 10+2 examination prior to the date of admission. 6. It is settled principle of law that condition of the Brochure are binding on the candidates and they have force of law, but where the authorities concerned themselves relax such condition and grant admission to the student, then the respondents in all fairness cannot be permitted to withdraw the condition, more particularly when a student has already taken examination of two semesters of the basic course. It is an admitted case that the candidates having compartment in their 10+2 examination were given admission to various colleges in the State of Haryana under the decision of Department of Technical Education, Government of Haryana. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had cleared his compartment in the supplementary examination held in September, 2000. It is an admitted case that the candidates having compartment in their 10+2 examination were given admission to various colleges in the State of Haryana under the decision of Department of Technical Education, Government of Haryana. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had cleared his compartment in the supplementary examination held in September, 2000. However, his result was declared on 6/12/2000. The petitioner obviously had no control over the date of declaration of his result. It was for the Board to declare his result and the petitioner had passed his 10+2 examination with 62% marks on 6/12/2000. At that stage, University or the college had not even issued notice to show cause why admission of the petitioner be not cancelled. It is stated that last date for admission was 20/11/2000. The result of the petitioner was declared on 6/12/2000, while show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13th of January, 2001 and the impugned orders were passed in the months of June/July, 2001. During this period, the petitioner was permitted to do 1st and 2nd semester examinations of the degree courses. It is apparent that the petitioner had at no stage made any misrepresentation to the respondents and pursued his academic course with all sincerity. The respondents themselves issued letter dated 7-11-2000, Annexure R2/2 directing various institutions to fill up the vacant seats in all the colleges in accordance with the instructions and to complete the admission by 20/11/2000. As far as the admission is concerned, the petitioner had already been granted admission and it was only his result of supplementary examination, which was awaiting at that time. Even if the instructions of the respondents are strictly construed, at best, it can be stated that the respondents could issue notice to the petitioner for cancellation of his admission immediately after 20/11/2001. The authorities awaited for a considerable time and then issued the show cause notice in January 2001 by which date the result of the petitioner had already been declared and brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. It was expected from the authorities to look into the documents more closely and carefully. Had this been done, in all probability, no occasion would have arisen for the authorities to issue even show cause notice. It was expected from the authorities to look into the documents more closely and carefully. Had this been done, in all probability, no occasion would have arisen for the authorities to issue even show cause notice. It is not the case of the respondents that the last date of admission i.e. 20/11/2000 was even notified to the candidates so that they could make efforts to get their result declared before that date. Once, the authorities alter their policy, they are required to duly notify the candidates of the consequences of its alteration so that the students do not suffer avoidable prejudice to their academic courses. 7. In Paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the plea of discrimination has been taken and specific names of the candidates, who has been permitted to continue the courses are stated. This is not disputed by the respondents and it has been averred that the result of Vijay Kumar was declared on 5/08/2000, while in the same paragraph, it is stated that the compartment examination was held in September, 2000. This is vague reply and the authorities cannot be permitted to act discriminately and in an arbitrary manner. 8. We have already noticed that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation to the respondents. He was given admission in the degree course as per the policy of the Government. He has pursued his degree course and has also appeared in two semester examinations of that course. If his admission is cancelled at this stage now it will vest the petitioner with serious inevitable problems and two valuable years of his academic career would be wasted. He was not admitted to the course contrary to the terms of the Brochure or policy of the State. In fact, the State in its wisdom varied the eligibility condition and specifically directed the College to grant admission to such students who had got compartment in their 10+2 examination. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner on any score whatsoever. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment titled Chairman, Central Council of Homoeopathy V/s. M/s. Varinder Singh, (2000) 10 JT (SC) 231 held as under :- ".....................In other words, they have already completed the period meant for Diploma Course and are now studying in the extra months meant for Degree Course. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment titled Chairman, Central Council of Homoeopathy V/s. M/s. Varinder Singh, (2000) 10 JT (SC) 231 held as under :- ".....................In other words, they have already completed the period meant for Diploma Course and are now studying in the extra months meant for Degree Course. The directions given by the High Court so far as allowing the students to complete the required number of years of study or hours of study for acquiring the degree and certificate, need not be interfered with. We also make it clear that the number of hours of study required for each subject for a Degree Course should also be completed." 9. Even earlier, in somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon ble Apex Court had taken a view and held that where there is no misrepresentation by the students and the admission was made in conformity with the instructions, the students be permitted to complete their courses. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Shri Krishan V/s. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376, where the Court held as under :- "...............Similarly, when the candidate was allowed to appear at the Part II Law Examination in May 1973, the University authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate." 10. Further in the case of Sanatan Gauda V/s. Berhampur University, AIR 1990 SC 1075, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under:- "In the instant case the candidate-appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his mark-sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellants examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course." 11. The reliance by the counsel for the petitioner again on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Iqbal Kaurs case, (supra) is apt. 12. We have already discussed above that admission of the petitioner was in conformity with the decision of the Government and the University, which altered the condition of the brochure to some extent. Having done so, the authorities should not be permitted to cancel the admission of the petitioner by resorting to these condition of eligibility mentioned in the Brochure at this stage now. The principle of equity demands that the petitioner should be permitted to continue with the degree course in accordance with the Calender of the University and his admission should not be quashed. 13. In view of the above settled position of law and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation in quashing the orders dated 1 9/06/2001, 22/06/2001 and 10t 10/07/2001, Annexures P/3 to P/5 respectively. Accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.