ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Heard Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-10-2002 and further directing the authorities concerned to allow the petitioner to take oath of the post of President in reference to election held on 19-10-2002. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari has also been prayed for quashing the order dated 25-11-2002 passed by the respondent No. 1. It has also been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondents from holding oath ceremony in respect of respondent No. 3 on the post of President for Student Union for Session 2002-2003. A writ of mandamus has also been sought restraining the respondents authorities from interfering in the working of the petitioner as office bearer of the Student Union. Further, a writ has also been sought for directing he respondents authorities to give status of a regular student to the petitioner. 3. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition which emerges from the pleadings of the parties are; Petitioner appeared in B. A. Part I Examination from Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College, Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli in the year 2001-2002. Petitioner claimed to have passed B. A. Part I and took admission in B. A. Part II of the same college. The election of students Union of the Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College, Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli was held on 19th October, 2002 in which the petitioner contested for the post of President as being student of B. A. Part II and was declare elected on 19th October, 2002. The respondent No. 3 who was next contestant for the post of President of Student Union, filed a complaint to the Principal of the Institution on 25-10-2002 stating that the petitioner has not passed B. A. Part I and has failed in B. A. Part I and he took admission in B. A. Part II on the basis of forged mark sheet and has fictitiously contested the election of the office of President of the Union. The Principal issued notice to the petitioner on 25th October, 2002 asking the petitioner to produce his original mark sheet of B. A. Part I so that it may be verified. The Principal issued notice to the petitioner on 25th October, 2002 asking the petitioner to produce his original mark sheet of B. A. Part I so that it may be verified. It was stated that if the petitioner does not get his mark sheet verified further proceedings treating the petitioner admission as ficititious will be taken. Petitioner submitted reply on 26th October, 2002 in which he has stated that his original mark sheet has been lost and he is taking steps for getting another mark sheet. On 30th October, 2002 the petitioner gave another application to the Principal in which he acknowledged that according to the Tabulation Register of the College petitioner has failed but due to ignorance he has taken admission in B. A. Part II on the basis of the mark sheet issued by the College, he has stated that he did not verify the mark sheet with the Tabulation Register. It was further stated that his admission in B. A. Part II be cancelled and he be treated as regular student of B. A. Part I. He prayed that his admission in B. A. Part I be treated with effect from 28th September, 2002 on which date he deposited his fee. He prayed that he should be administered oath of the office of President of the Students Union. After receiving the aforesaid application dated 30th October, 2002 the Committee of the College heard both the parties and came to the conclusion that the admission of the petitioner in B. A. II is illegal on own showing of the petitioner as admitted by the petitioner in his application dated 30-10-2002. Principal issued an order dated 30th October, 2002 cancelling the admission of the petitioner in B. A. Part II and it was further stated in the order that with regard to administering oath of the office of President of the Students Union further action will be taken after taking legal advice. The petitioner challenged the above order dated 30-10-2002 before this Court. This Court passed an interim order dated 11-11-2002. The petitioner challenged the above order dated 30-10-2002 before this Court. This Court passed an interim order dated 11-11-2002. By interim order of this Court the petitioner was allowed fifteen days time to apply for re-admission to B. A. Part I. The interim order further stated that if such an application is made the College will consider the same in accordance with law and if permissible the petitioner will be admitted to B. A. Part I and if the petitioner is not entitled to be re-admitted to B. A. Part I, the College will pass a reasoned order. 4. After the aforesaid interim order Principal considered the representation of the petitioner for admission in B. A. Part I and vide order dated 25-11-2002 the Principal of the College stated that the petitioner cannot be admitted in B. A. Part I. It was further stated that if the petitioner submits application as x-student of B. A. Part I then his application can be forwarded to the University which benefit is available to the petitioner only upto 16th December, 2002. It was further stated that in case the Honble High Court directs the State Government and the University to create special seat for the petitioner then the Management will admit the petitioner in accordance with the said order. Petitioner failed amendment application for challenging the said order dated 25-11-2002 which was allowed by this Court and he was permitted to challenge the said order also. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Principal of the Institution. It was stated in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner has failed in B. A. Part I examination, copy of Tabulation Chart of the College of B. A. Part I sent from the University has also been annexed as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit saying that the petitioner has failed in B. A. Part I. It was further stated that the petitioner did not show his original mark sheet when called by the college. 6. 6. During the course of arguments Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order of the college dated 30th October, 2002 cancelling the admission of B. A. Part II of the petitioner presumably due to the reason that the petitioner himself in the application filed on 30-10-2002 has stated that his admission in B. A. Part II be cancelled and he may be treated to be regular student of B. A. Part I. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit and the copy of the tabulations chart filed as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit it is proved that the petitioner has failed in B. A. Part I 2002 Examination having secured only 184 marks. After the complaint was made by the respondent No. 3 to the College that the petitioner has taken admission in B. A. Part II on the basis of forged mark sheet, petitioner was called upon by the Principal vide letter dated 25-10-2002 to produce the original mark sheet which was not produced by the petitioner and immediately thereafter, on 30-10-2002 petitioner came up with the prayer that his admission in B. A. Part II be cancelled and he be treated as regular student of B. A. Part I. This conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner knew about the weakness of his case that he has not passed B. A. Part I and his admission in B. A. Part II was made on the basis of a bogus mark sheet. In this Court also the cancellation of admission has not been challenged and the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner were confined only towards entitlement of the petitioner to be admitted in B. A. Part I as a regular student. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to be admitted in B. A. Part I as regular student, has submitted that the College has admitted several students who have failed earlier as regular student in the same class hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the said benefit. Reference of two students have been made in paragraph 12 of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 8-12-2002. Reference of two students have been made in paragraph 12 of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 8-12-2002. In paragraph 12 of supplementary affidavit it has been stated that Chandra Mauli Keshari failed in B. A. Part II in the year 2002 and was allowed admission in November, 2002 as regular student of B. A. Part II. It was further stated that one Javed failed in B. A. Part I and was given admission in 2002-2003 session as a regular student. Counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that there is no restriction from admitting a failed student as regular student in the next year and hence, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as regular student. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he should be treated to be admitted as B. A. Part I regular student with effect from 28-9- 2002. The petitioner is claiming that he will be treated as regular student of B. A. Part I with effect from 28-9-2002 so that he may not be disqualified in the election of students union which was held on 19-10- 2002. The constitution of the students union which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition provides that only regular students can be member of the General Body. Unless the petitioner is treated as regular student he becomes disqualified for contesting the election and the said submission is being pressed by the Counsel for the petitioner due to the above reason. The learned Counsel appearing for the College has stated that the petitioner has failed in B. A. Part I and cannot be re-admitted as regular student of B. A. Part I. The Counsel for the college has also referred to the letter dated 6-7-2002 and letter dated 3-10-2002 issued by the Registrar of the University which contains several instructions for admission of the students to examinations. A copy of the said letters have been filed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition. 8. I have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the record. 9. The first prayer in the writ petition by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 30-10-2002 by which the petitioners admission in B. A. Part II has been cancelled. 8. I have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the record. 9. The first prayer in the writ petition by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 30-10-2002 by which the petitioners admission in B. A. Part II has been cancelled. The petitioner himself has not taken stand in the writ petition that he has passed B. A. Part I Examination thus his admission in B. A. Part II was admittedly illegal and has rightly been cancelled by the order dated 30-10-2002. The Counsel for the petitioner in his submission has also not challenged the order dated 30-10-2002 cancelling his admission in B. A. Part II. In view of the above the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 30-10-2002 cannot be granted since there is no illegally in the order dated 30-10-2002 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with regard to above prayer. 10. There being no dispute that the petitioner failed in B. A. Part I, now the question remains to be considered is as to in which capacity the petitioner can be admitted in B. A. Part II again or only he is entitled to be re-admitted in B. A. Part I as ex-student. After passing of the interim order the Principal of the Institution has considered the claim of the petitioner for re-admission and refused to re-admit the petitioner in B. A. Part I as regular student vide his order dated 25-11-2002. In the impugned order dated 25-11-2002 the Principal has stated that the seats of B. A. Part I has already been fixed and the restriction has been imposed for admitting the students beyond the fixed number, hence, college cannot admit the petitioner beyond existing fixed number. It was further stated that the Examination Form of B. A. Part I students have already been forward to the University hence the petitioners admission is not possible in B. A. Part I. The Principal has further stateded that there is no rules for re- admission of the students and admission in B. A. Part I is only through entrance examination and in accordance with the merit after following the reservation rules. Reference to the letter dated 3-10-2002 of the Registrar of the University has also been given in the order of the Principal according to which there is no rule for re-admission. Reference to the letter dated 3-10-2002 of the Registrar of the University has also been given in the order of the Principal according to which there is no rule for re-admission. Principal has stated in the order that it is clear from the said letter that the failed students can fill up the Examination Form as ex-students. Principal further stated in the order that the petitioner can fill up his Examination Form as ex-student upto 16-12-2002. 11. With regard to criteria of re-admission of failed students the relevant instructions or rules have not been brought on record by both the parties. On record of the writ petition there are only two letters/circulars of the University issued by the Registrar of the University dated 6-7-2002 and 3-10- 2002. The submission of Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that there is no prohibition from admitting a failed student as regular student in the same class. The petitioner has not been able to bring on record any rules, regulation or instructions to the effect that a student who has failed in one class, is entitled to be re-admitted in the same class as a regular student. Having failed to bring any such rule or instruction on record, the Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there being no restriction for re- admission, the petitioners claim may be upheld. 12. The letter dated 6th July, 2002 issued by the Registrar contains instructions with regard to number of students to be admitted in B. A. Part I. The number of students have been fixed and the admission is to take place on the basis of fixed number. The fixed number has co-relation with number of teachers in the college and the said number has been fixed taking into consideration the number of teachers. The letter dated 3-10-2002 which has been issued by the Vice-Chancellor contains seventeen various instructions with regard to admission of the students in Examination. The instructions provide different fee for regular students and for ex-students and private students. The instructions also provide that the students of certain categories are entitled to fill up form as ex-students only for limited number of years apart from their appearance as regular students. For ex-students it also provides that they will fill up their Form from same college from where they appeared as regular students. The instructions also provide that the students of certain categories are entitled to fill up form as ex-students only for limited number of years apart from their appearance as regular students. For ex-students it also provides that they will fill up their Form from same college from where they appeared as regular students. From the instructions it is clear that the number of seats in B. A. Part I are fixed which admission is made in accordance with the entrance test/merit and the said number is not dependent on the fact that how many students of B. A. Part I have failed in earlier year. In case the number of failed students and earlier students are re- admitted as regular students then there will be difficulty in admitting the regular students and each year there will be admission of students beyond the number of seats prescribed in a class. Letters dated 6-7- 2002 and 3-10-2002 indicates that failed students of the College can submit their Examination Forms as ex-students and the list of regular students and ex-students is to be separately submitted with separate examination fees. There is difference between the fee of regular students and ex-students. Regular students has to pay less examination fee as compared to ex-students. Distinction is maintained between the regular students and ex-students/private students and from the instructions it does not appear that the students who have failed in the class can be re-admitted as regular students. The petitioner having failed to bring on record any material to justify his claim that failed student can be admitted as regular student, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that he is entitled for admission as regular students in B. A. Part I. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the college has admitted some students who had failed in particular class as a regular student, is also to be examined. The petitioner has given instance of two students in paragraph 12 of the supplementary affidavit as noted above. The petitioner has claimed equality with aforesaid students and has prayed for issue of a writ in his favour on that basis. As observed above, petitioner has failed to prove from any material that a failed student is entitled to be re-admitted as regular student, the admission of above mentioned two students cannot be said to be in accordance with rules. As observed above, petitioner has failed to prove from any material that a failed student is entitled to be re-admitted as regular student, the admission of above mentioned two students cannot be said to be in accordance with rules. The petitioner having failed to justify the admission of failed student as regular student no benefit can be taken by the petitioner from the fact that college has admitted some failed students as regular students. This Court in 1995 (1) Supreme Court Cases 745, Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jagjit Singh and another, has held that if the order in favour of certain other persons is found contrary to law or not warranted such order cannot be made basis of issuing a writ. Following was laid down by the apex Court in paragraph 8: " (8) We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner, if the order in favour of the other pension is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis for issuing a writ compelling the respondent authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat the illegality over again and again. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat the illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interest of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. " 13. In view of the above dictum of the apex Court petitioner cannot derive any benefit on the basis of fact that college has given admission to some students as regular students who had failed earlier. On the basis of above submission the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 14. In view of the forgoing discussion it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for re-admission in B. A. Part I as regular student and there is no illegality in the order of the Principal dated 25-11-2002 refusing such admission to the petitioner. In the order dated 25-11-2002 Principal has observed that the petitioner can appear as ex-student in B. A. Part I provided he fills the Form by particular date. In view of above, the petitioner can appear in B. A. Part I Examination ex-student provided he is so permitted by the University. Admittedly, the last date for forwarding the form of the petitioner as ex-student from the college has already expired. In case the petitioner desires to appear as ex-student in B. A. Part I he may approach the University for seeking permission to appear as ex-student in B. A. Part I provided the Examination has not commenced. Admittedly, the last date for forwarding the form of the petitioner as ex-student from the college has already expired. In case the petitioner desires to appear as ex-student in B. A. Part I he may approach the University for seeking permission to appear as ex-student in B. A. Part I provided the Examination has not commenced. It is, however, observed that it is for the University to accept the form of the petitioner as ex-student at this late stage and the direction of the University is not being fettered in any manner by this order. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition except that he may represent the University for being permitted to appear as ex-student in B. A. Part I which may be considered by the University in accordance with law. 15. Subject to observations made above the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .