JUDGMENT 1. - This case and writ petition No. 5398/2000 are heard together and decided together as they involved the common facts and questions of law. The petitioners in both these cases were candidates for admission to B.D.S. course. Under the scheme for admissions, a Central Under-graduate Admission Board has been established and the Principal and Controller of SMS Medical College and attached hospitals, Jaipur is the Convenor of the Board. The admission Board called the candidates on 13.10.2000 and after counseling on 24.10.2000 declared the result of counseling and allotment of seats. Both the petitioners were successful in getting a seat in the Darshan to Dental College, Udaipur in the B.D.S. course. They had to report to the college up to 7.11.2000 failing which their admission was liable to be cancelled. 2. The petitioner (in writ petition No. 81/2001) Anita Choudhary has stated in her petition that as she was unaware of the programme of admissions and also unware of the fact that 7.11.2000 was the last date for reporting to the college, she had reported to the college on 8.11.2000 at Udaipur and was informed by the College Authorities that the last date for depositing the fee was 7.11.2000 and therefore, they were unable to admit her to the college. 3. The petitioner (in writ petition No. 5398/2000) Manoj Kumar has stated in his petition that he was also not aware of 7.11.2000 being the last date for reporting to the college for admission. He came to know through his relative on 10th November, 2000 that he had been allotted a seat in Darshan Dental College, Udaipur. As he was ill from 4.11.2000 to 12.11.2000 he could report for admission to the college only thereafter. The college refused to admit because he had not reported before 7.11.2000. 4. The respondent Board in its reply has pointed out that both these candidates should have been aware of 7.11.2000 being the last date for admission because it was made clear to them in the information booklet published for PMT and PVT, 2000 Test that the results will be announced only through publication on the notice board and will not be intimated individually. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent from the booklet (Paragraph 4 G) that it was stated therein that a provisional list of candidates selected by the admission board shall be put on the notice board of the SMS Medical College, Jaipur and no intimation will be given to the candidates individually. It was also expressed in clear terms in the foot-note appended to the booklet that the examination results will be published on the notice board and such publication only will be considered to be the authentic result of the examination. It was further pointed out that accordingly, the Board published the result of the examination on 20.8.2000 by affixing the office order on the notice board of the SMS Medical College. In this office order annexed to the reply to the petition as Annexure 2, it is clearly stated that all the newly selected/admitted candidates are directed to report for medical check-up and report for the course and to deposit the fee as per rules within 10 days from the date of issue of the order i.e. up to 7.11.2000. There is a note appended at the bottom of this order also to the effect that newly selected/admitted candidates in M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course are directed to report for medical examination, depositing of fee and joining course within 10 days from the issue of this order at respective college i.e. up to 7.11.2000. 5. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners were given clear notice that the results will be announced by affixing on the notice board of SMS Medical College, Jaipur and such results will be only the authentic results. If that be so, the petitioners were expected to keep track of the declaration of the result. If they had done so, they would not have missed publication of the result on 28.10.2000 on the notice board which clearly directed them to approach the allotted college for admission before 7.11.2000. 6. In such a situation, therefore, if the petitioners did not receive information about 7.11.2000 being the last date for reporting for admission at the allotted college, they have to blame themselves. There is no fault on the part of the respondent Board in this respect and the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the board on that count. 7. 6. In such a situation, therefore, if the petitioners did not receive information about 7.11.2000 being the last date for reporting for admission at the allotted college, they have to blame themselves. There is no fault on the part of the respondent Board in this respect and the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the board on that count. 7. The petitioners have moved application for impleading the college, when they realised that they could have no grievance against the Board. I do not find any purpose in impleading the college also because once it is held that the college could admit students only if such successful candidates reported on or before 7.11.2000, the college could not have done anything about the candidates who had reported late excepting reporting back to the Board the names of the candidates who had not reported on or before 7.11.2000. that has already been done by the college. 8. I do not find it necessary to allow the application for impleading the college also in the petition. In the result both the petitions fail and are dismissed. 9. If the authorities empowered to do so, can still accommodate the petitioners and allow them to be admitted to the college concerned or any other college, this order shall not come in their way.Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. *******