ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Pravara Institute of Research and Education in Natural and Social Science, Loni, Ahmed Nagar, Respondent 3 herein, is a college affiliated with University of Pune, Respondent 2. Shivanandam Vivekanand Babu and Kumari Maheshvary Patel, the two appellants before us, sought for admission in MBA course of study conducted by Respondent 3. The appellants are residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Gujarat respectively. Undisputedly, they belong to the reserved category as notified respectively for the States to which they belong. The appellants do not belong to anyreserved category as notified for the State of Maharashtra. The eligibility qualification is that the candidate must have secured marks above 50 per cent if belonging to the general category and marks above 45 per cent if belonging to the reserved category in the qualifying examination i.e. at graduation. Both the appellants had secured marks above 45 per cent but less than 50 per cent in graduation. Each one of the two appellants stated the marks secured by 9 him/her in the application for admission. The College granted them the admissions. 3. The advertisement issued by the College in September 1998 stated, inter alia: "Eligibility Bachelors degree in any discipline of any statutory university with minimum 50% marks in the aggregate (45% in case of candidates belonging to reserved categories)." The prospectus issued by the College also provided as under: "(IV) Eligibility for admission Graduates possessing 50% marks at degree (45% in the case of the reserved category candidates) in any faculty of any statutory university shall be eligible for admission to MBA course, after a written test, interview and other tests." 4. However, Circular No. 107/98 issued by the University of Pune provided inter alia as under: "Admission to MBA course After passing qualifying test: (a) A bachelors degree in any faculty of any statutory university with 50% or more marks (45% or more marks for candidates belonging to SC, ST/DT, NT, OBC, SBC for Maharashtra State only). (b) A bachelors degree with less than 50% marks, with masters degree, second degree in any faculty of any statutory university with more than 50% marks." (emphasis supplied) 5. (b) A bachelors degree with less than 50% marks, with masters degree, second degree in any faculty of any statutory university with more than 50% marks." (emphasis supplied) 5. It is clear from the perusal of the excerpts as above from the relevant documents that although the University prescribed the relaxation of 5 per cent marks in the minimum eligibility requirement for reserved category candidates belonging to the State of Maharashtra only, but the prospectus and the advertisement issued by the College were to some extent in departure from the provisions of the said provision inasmuch as it was not stated therein that the relaxed eligibility requirement could be availed of only by the candidates belonging to the reserved category belonging to Maharashtra State only. 6. The two appellants completed four semesters participating in the examinations conducted at the end of each semester. They were issued admission tickets for entry into the examination hall by the University and they completed the course of study. The results of the first three semester examinations were declared as and when due. However, the declaration of the result of the fourth semester examination was withheld on the ground that the two appellants were not eligible for admission. 7. The two appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai which have been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court forming an opinion that the appellants being ineligible for securing admission itself they could not have been allowed admission and, therefore, a writ for declaration of results cannot be issued. The High Court has recorded a specific finding that the fault lies with Respondent 3 Institute in releasing the said advertisement without conforming to the Rules prescribed by the University. Yet another finding recorded by the High Court is that in the year 1998 itself soon after the commencement of the course of study on 29-10- 1998 the University had sent communication to Respondent 3 College informing of the ineligibility of the two appellants for admission to MBA course. The copies of the communication were forwarded to the two a appellants also. The two appellants have vehemently disputed the receipt of any such communication and the High Court has also not recorded a finding in regard to the communication having been delivered to the appellants excepting for the finding that the copies of the communications were forwarded to the appellants. The two appellants have vehemently disputed the receipt of any such communication and the High Court has also not recorded a finding in regard to the communication having been delivered to the appellants excepting for the finding that the copies of the communications were forwarded to the appellants. 8. Before this Court, on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, two b documents have been filed which purport to be undertakings executed by the two appellants stating that they were prosecuting their studies at their own risk and in the event of their admission being cancelled, each of them would be solely responsible for the consequence. From this an inference as to the Universitys communication having been received by the two appellants is sought to be drawn. However, something has to be said about these cundertakings. In the rejoinder, the case of the appellants is that these two documents are false and fabricated and the appellants had never executed any such undertakings. The documents which have been filed in the Court are dated "13-10-1995". The learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2 University submitted that the date appearing on the copies of the documents filed in the Court appears to be mistaken and the date ought to have been "30-10-1998" and it should be read so. The original documents have not been d made available for the perusal of the Court and in absence thereof we are not prepared to read the date in departure from the date as appearing on the documents as suggested by the learned counsel for the University. In addition, it is to be pointed out that these two documents have been filed for the first time before this Court and they were not filed in the High Court. No leave was sought for from the Court for placing these documents on record as e is required to be taken under the Rules of this Court. These two documents are, therefore, liable to be excluded from consideration and we do it accordingly. 9. From a conspectus of the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellants cannot be accused of having played any trick, much less any fraud on any of the respondents. They stated the facts correctly. If ineligible, it was for the f College to have refused admission to the appellants. 9. From a conspectus of the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellants cannot be accused of having played any trick, much less any fraud on any of the respondents. They stated the facts correctly. If ineligible, it was for the f College to have refused admission to the appellants. On the material forwarded by the College to the University, the University permitted the appellants to take not one but four examinations in sequence spread over a period of two years. If the College has been guilty of any misdeed, it does not appear from the record that any action was taken by the University against the College. In such circumstances, we do not think that the appellants who come from a downtrodden class of community, can be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. 10. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the appellants could not have been denied relief sought for from the High Court. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Respondent 2 University is directed to declare the result of the two appellants forthwith. By way of abundant caution, we make it clear that we have proceeded to decide these appeals on the facts and circumstances of this case as stated hereinabove. We have not in any manner a decided the question of eligibility of the appellants or validity of the rule enacted by the University. 11. The appeals stand disposed of above but without any order as to costs.