A. K. YOG, J. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4/smt. Vineet Sirohi. 2. The petitioner, Smt. Kaushal claiming to be of O. B. C. Category has approached this Court by filing present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, on the ground that her admission in two years B. T. C. Course, on the basis of entrance/competitive examination 2001, has been cancelled by means of impugned order dated 30-4-2004/annexure 5 to the writ petition, in pursuance to the order passed by the Sachiv Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari, U. P. Allahabad dated 28-4-2004. Copy of the order dated 28-4-2004, referred to above has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition, which shows that said authority passed aforesaid order on the basis of judgment and order of this Court dated 27-2- 2004 in C. M. W. P. No. 54877 of 2003 (Km. Vineeta Sirohi and another v. State of U. P. and others ). Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28-4-2004/annexure 6 to the writ petition. 3. Entire exercise leading to the cancellation of the petitioners admission to the aforementioned B. T. C. Training Course has been undertaken on the basis of aforementioned judgment and order of this Court dated 27-2-2004. A copy of the said judgment and order of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition No. 54877 of 2003 (in which present petitioner Smt. Kaushal was not impleaded) has been filed as Annexure SA-2 to the Supplementary Affidavit (sworn by one Dharmendra Singh -husband of the petitioner ). For convenience relevant extract of the said judgment and order dated 27-2-2003 is reproduced: "petitioners claim admission in B. T. C. Course for Session 2003-04. Petitioner No. 1 contends that she belongs to the OBC/female/art category. Petitioner No. 2 belongs to the OBC/male/art Category. Petitioners contend that in spite of the fact that they belong to the aforementioned category, their candidature has not been considered in the aforementioned category on the ground that petitioners has not filled up category in Data-sheet. " Registrar Departmental Examination had issued circular letter mentioning therein that in case some wrong Code has been filed up by any candidate then he should be considered in original Code. " Registrar Departmental Examination had issued circular letter mentioning therein that in case some wrong Code has been filed up by any candidate then he should be considered in original Code. Petitioners contend that seats are still lying vacant against respective category from which they applied for. In this view of the matter, in case, in the respective category from which petitioners belong, the seats are still lying vacant and petitioners are in the merit list then the claim of the petitioners be considered within three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and necessary communication be sent to the petitioners. With these observations/direction present writ petition is disposed of. " 4. Aforequoted judgment and order dated 27-2-2004 passed by this Court directed for considering the case of Smt. Vineeta Sirohi/respondent No. 4 for admission against seat lying vacant on the basis of such stand taken on her behalf. 5. It is, therefore, clear that said judgment and order dated 27-2-2004 did not require consideration of the case of those candidates who were already admitted (including petitioner) and/or said candidates who were pursuing training on the basis of originally granted admission or to be disturbed in any manner. Besides it, the judgment and order procured by Smt. Vineeta Sirohi/respondent No. 4 (without impleading present petitioner Smt. Kaushal) cannot effect the said candidate without giving her opportunity of hearing. 6. It is abundantly clear that the authorities have misinterpreted and over-stretched the judgment and order dated 27-2-2004 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 54877 of 2003 (Petition filed by Smt. Vineeta Sirohi ). 7. There is another aspect of the matter. The concerned authority, while passing the impugned order dated 30-4-2004 has extended benefit of admission to Smt. Vineeta Sirohi in the forthcoming academic session and not in academic session 2003-04 in which present petitioner Smt. Kaushal was admitted. This Court finds no conflict in the interest of these two candidates and hence there is no occasion for the said authority to cancel admission of Smt. Kaushal while according admission to Smt. Vineeta Sirohi (apparently for the reason that training session itself was at close when she was asked for admission on the basis of the seat lying vacant ). This clearly shows that authorities could not disturb the candidates who have already admitted unless there was some independent order of the Court holding such candidates being regular or irregular. 8. In view of the above impugned order dated 28/29-4-2004 Annexure 6 to the writ petition and consequential order dated 30-4-2004/annexure 5 to the writ petition suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record. Apart from if the same has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence nullity. 9. The impugned orders dated 30-4-2004 and 28/29-4-2004 (Annexures 5 & 6 respectively) are hereby quashed only to the extent these orders effect right of the petitioner, Smt. Kaushal to continue her B. T. C. Training Course in question. 10. Admission of Smt. Vineeta Sirohi/respondent No. 4 in the following academic session (as directed vide impugned order dated 28/29-4-2004/annexure 6 to the writ petition) is hereby maintained. 11. Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. A certified copy of this order may be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days from today. Petition allowed. .