JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-respondent filed the writ petition in 1996 with the prayer that respondents-appellants may be directed to give him admission in BSTC course for the Session 1996-97 and if it is not possible then in case he succeeds one seat may be reserved for him for the Session 1997-98. 3. The whole case of the petitioner is that while the last person given admission in the BSTC course has secured 75.55% marks, his total percentage marks in the qualifying examination is 75.35 yet he has been denied admission, and this was clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. There is no dispute now before us that in the ultimate result of the eligibility examination, namely; Senior Secondary Examination, he had secured in final analysis 78.85% marks which were higher than the person who has been admitted lastly in the BSTC course. The confusion has arisen because the petitioner in the first instance had passed his Senior Secondary Examination in 1995 as regular candidates in First Division and in 1996 he again appeared as private candidate in three papers of Accountancy, Business Organisation and English and has substantially improved his marks in all the three subjects. In the original result declared, the petitioner secured 108 marks in Accountancy which on reevaluation were increased to 119. The result of the petitioner has been declared by taking into account the original marks obtained in the examination 1996 without considering the reevaluation marks there being some communication gap. 5. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on Nov. 28, 1998 by finding that the petitioner has obtained higher marks than the last admitted candidate and, therefore, he could not be denied admission to BSTC course, and therefore directed the present appellants to give admission to the petitioner in BSTC course 1998-99. In pursuance of this direction, the petitioner was admitted to the BSTC course. 6. There was no interim order in the appeal while issuing notice. It is now not in dispute that during the pendency of this appeal the petitioner-respondent has passed his First Year BSTC course and has also appeared in II Year Examination on completion of course. In pursuance of this direction, the petitioner was admitted to the BSTC course. 6. There was no interim order in the appeal while issuing notice. It is now not in dispute that during the pendency of this appeal the petitioner-respondent has passed his First Year BSTC course and has also appeared in II Year Examination on completion of course. The result of petitioner's second BSTC course, which was required to be produced by this Court on 11.10.2001, has been produced in this Court today in a sealed cover by the learned counsel for the appellants. It shows that the petitioner- respondent has passed the Second Year BSTC course. 7. In these circumstances and as per the final result in eligibility examination, petitioner-respondent secured higher marks than the last admitted candidate in 1996-97 and thereafter under the directions issued by this Court he was admitted to the course and has successfully completed the entire Course, it will be just and proper that without going into the merit of the case no interference is made in the order of the learned Single Judge and the petitioner is allowed to retain the result and be not deprived of on technical reasons. 8. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. The result of the petitioner be now declared officially by the appellants. 9. There shall be no orders as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******