JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The Himachal Pradesh University (University for short) in the Department of University Institute of Information Technology (UIIT for short) invited applications for admission to Bachelor Course in Information Technology (BIT for short) for the academic Session 2000-2001 from the desirous candidates who had passed 10-1-2 examination or equivalent with Physics, Mathematics and any one of the other elective subjects from a Board/University established by law in India with 50% marks or equivalent grade. Total number of seats available for the Course were 40. The distribution of seats was : (a) Subsidized seats for H.P. bona fide/domicile and passing 10+2 exam from H.P. = 18 (b) For other than H.P. = 10 (c) Non-subsidized seats for bona fide/domicile and passing +2 exam from H.P. = 6 (d) For other than H.P. = 4 (e) Seats for those from abroad (Direct Admission Seats). = 2 Total = 40 2. Thus, the reservation of the seats for H.P bona fide/domicile candidates who had passed+2 examination from Himachal Pradesh was 60%. Reservation of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes in each category was also stipulated in the subsidized category. 3. The basis for admission to all the seats (except direct admission seats from abroad) was merit in the entrance examination which was to be conducted by the H.P. University. Separate merit list for subsidized and non-subsidized seats was to be prepared. Two seats which were reserved for candidates from abroad called "direct admission seats" were to be filled from amongst the candidates who must have passed + 2 or equivalent examination from abroad and secured at least 75% marks or equivalent grade in physics, mathematics and one more elective subject. The fees for such candidates was fixed at US 2000 per semester. It was stipulated that in case any of the seats remained vacant or fell vacant in this category, the same was to be passed over to the candidates belonging to non-subsidized category.-The candidates were at liberty to apply for both subsidized as well as non-subsidized seats. 4. The University issued Prospectus for admission to this Course (2000-2001) which detail all the conditions and eligibility criteria. The prospectus is placed on record as Annexure P3 to the writ petition. 5. Anirudh Sharma, petitioner herein, passed his + 2 examination in the year 1999 and obtained 54.5% marks. 4. The University issued Prospectus for admission to this Course (2000-2001) which detail all the conditions and eligibility criteria. The prospectus is placed on record as Annexure P3 to the writ petition. 5. Anirudh Sharma, petitioner herein, passed his + 2 examination in the year 1999 and obtained 54.5% marks. He applied for admission for the BIT Course and appeared in the written test on 7.8.2000. He secured 115 marks out of total marks of 200. The petitioner being lower in merit, could not secure the admission either against the subsidized or non-subsidized seats. 6. The case of the petitioner is: The University increased the number of seats from 40 to 52. However, the petitioner was not called for counselling even after the seats were increased. On 12.10.2000, a notice was circulated by the University indicating that three seats were still available for admission in BIT Course. Out of these three seats, one was available for H.P. non-subsidized category and two seats for other than H.P. non-subsidized category. The willing candidates from amongst the candidates who had already appeared in the test, were asked to give their option for consideration against these seats by 11.00 a.m. of 18.10.2000. The petitioner, in response to this notice, made an application on 17.10.2000 expressing his willingness to be considered for admission against these three seats. It is the further case of the petitioner that only three applications were received in the office of the UIIT by the stipulated time and date in the notice. The Authorities, nevertheless, entertained one application at 11.15 a.m. without signatures. Signatures, on this application, however, were obtained at 2.00 p.m. The respondents also considered the application of another candidate which was submitted at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner made a representation (Ann. P4) to the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Vice Chancellor marked the representation to Deputy Secretary/Honorary Director UIIT for examination and discussion before finalising the admissions. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of his personal request, his representation was not considered by the Authorities. He made another representation on 21.10.2000 (Annexure P5) addressed to the Director of UIIT but without any response. The petitioner made yet another representation on 1st December, 2000 (Annexure P6) which also remained unattended. 8. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of his personal request, his representation was not considered by the Authorities. He made another representation on 21.10.2000 (Annexure P5) addressed to the Director of UIIT but without any response. The petitioner made yet another representation on 1st December, 2000 (Annexure P6) which also remained unattended. 8. The petitioner came to know that Abhinav Chauhan, respondent No. 3, was granted admission to the BIT Course in September, 2000 though he had obtained 103 marks out of 200 in the entrance test which were lower than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Such an action, it is pleaded, is arbitrary and illegal. 9. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents. The University is arrayed as respondent No. 1. Honorary Director of UIIT is respondent No.2 and Abhinav Chauhan, selected candidate with lower merit is respondent No. 3. The petitioner prays : "(i) That admission granted to respondent No. 3 in BIT Session 2000-2001 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and petitioner being higher in merit to respondent No. 3 may be granted admission against that seat; (ii) That in the alternative the respondent University may kindly be directed to grant admission to the petitioner against one of the available vacant seats in BIT 2000-2001 course with all consequential benefits; (iii) That the respondent University may be directed to produce records pertaining to this case for the perusal of this Honble Court; (iv) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted; (v) Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 10. A joint return was filed by the University and Honorary Director, UIIT (Respondents No. 1 and 2). Respondent No. 3 filed his separate return. In its return, the University controverted the allegations made in the writ petition and particularly stated that representation of the petitioner was received and the same was duly considered and appropriate orders were passed by the Vice Chancellor. It was denied that any application was entertained after the stipulated time and date for the receipt of applications. The respondent-University on the representation of the petitioner and other applicants decided to keep these three seats unfilled. It was denied that any application was entertained after the stipulated time and date for the receipt of applications. The respondent-University on the representation of the petitioner and other applicants decided to keep these three seats unfilled. This position was duly recorded on the representation of the petitioner (Annexure R4 to the return). 11. In view of the reply of the University, the petitioner moved an application (CMP No. 261 of 2001) for amendment of his writ petition to say : "(i) the endorsement on Annexure R4 (also Annexure P7) was anti-dated by the University Authorities as 19.10.2000 and in fact, this endorsement was "written on some subsequent date so as to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner"; (ii) the Honorary Director had no authority to decide that the three vacant seats be not filled; (iii) the admission to the course was to be governed by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Prospectus Annexure P3 issued by the respondent-University and no other method, including inviting applications for the direct admission seats, passed over to the candidates belonging to non-subsidized category could be introduced. Such invitation was contrary to the provisions of the Prospectus and could not be adopted by the respondent-University for the selection of the candidates". 12. It was also stated that the main dispute is regarding filling up of the two "direct admission seats" against the provisions of the Prospectus. Consequential amendments were also sought to be made in the writ petition. 13. On 20.3.2001, we directed that the respondents may file reply to the application (CMP No. 261/2000) for amendment of the writ petition as also reply to the amended writ petition. No reply was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 though reply to the amended writ petition was filed by them. Respondent No. 3 in his reply opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner had never intended to be considered against the "direct admission seats" as the fees for the same were quite high. Had he intended his consideration, he would have applied pursuant to the circular (Annexure R l/A) of the University. The petitioner, it is stated, never even pressed his claim till the writ petition was filed by him though notice (Annexure R l/A) was circulated on 2.9.2000. Respondent No. 3, however, did not file reply to the amended petition. 14. Had he intended his consideration, he would have applied pursuant to the circular (Annexure R l/A) of the University. The petitioner, it is stated, never even pressed his claim till the writ petition was filed by him though notice (Annexure R l/A) was circulated on 2.9.2000. Respondent No. 3, however, did not file reply to the amended petition. 14. In the facts and circumstances, we allow the application to amend the writ petition. Amended writ petition along with reply of the respondents No. 1 and 2 to the amended petition and rejoinder are taken on record. 15. The respondent University and Director UIIT in their joint reply state that the first counselling was fixed for 2nd September, 2000. The H.P. candidates who had obtained minimum of 130 marks and candidates from States other than H.P. with 142 marks in the entrance test were called for this counselling. 16. On the basis of counselling, following admissions were made: Category-A (i) Subsidized H.P. Bona fide : (a) General category 15. (b) S.C. candidates 02. (c) S.T. candidates : 01. (ii) Subsidized other than H.P.: (a) General category : 09. (b) S.C. 01. Category-B Non-subsidized : (a) Bona fide Himachali : 06. (b) Non Himachali : 04. 17. All the Himachali candidates for subsidized category deposited their fees. However, against ten seats for States other than Himachal Pradesh, only eight candidates in the general category and lone candidate in the Scheduled Caste category deposited the fees. 18. For the non-subsidized category, against six seats for Himachali candidates, only four candidates deposited their fees and against four seats for States other than Himachal Pradesh, one candidate deposited his fee. 19. No body applied against the two "direct admission seats". Therefore, these two seats "were thrown open in the non-subsidized category but the fee was kept at higher slab", e.g.,