JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved from the action of the respondent in not issuing him admit card for appearing in the entrance test to JBT Course held on 18.4.2004. Petitioner claims that he being eligible, cannot be denied admit card. By interim order dated 13.4.2004 petitioner was provisionally allowed to sit in the examination. 2. Admitted facts of this case are that respondent-Board issued an advertisement (Annexure P-4), on 20.1.2004 for admission to JBT Course. Essential educational qualification for entrance test as per Annexure P-4 was, Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent examination, 10+2. 3. Another admitted fact that emerges from the record of this case is, that the petitioner passed higher secondary from the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. Petitioners further case is that he has passed B.A.I examination also. Since his name was missing in the result of ex-servicemen category when he appeared in the entrance test conducted by the Board under Roll No. 123748 in the previous year, he filed CWP No. 944 of 2003. On being successful, he was called for interview. In this background, action gf the respondent is not only illegal, but is arbitrary also, therefore, petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. When put to notice, only defence set up by the respondent-Board is, that higher secondary pass is not equivalent to Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent examination, 10+2. On this ground alone, respondent-Board has tried to justify its action in not issuing admit card to the petitioner. 5. Here in this behalf stand of the respondent in CWP No. 944 of 2003 and which is relevant, as well as material for the purpose of this case needs to be extracted. It is as under: "Para 1........The petitioner No. 1 Sh. Suman s/o Sh. Kishan Singh stands selected for personal interview under Roll No. 123748 under OBC (Ex-serviceman) category...... Para 2. That as already submitted in para 1 above petitioner No. 1 stands selected for Personal interview from OBC Ex-serviceman category but the petitioner No. 2 has been considered under General ward of defence personnel in view of facts submitted in para 1 above..... Para 5. As already submitted in paras 2 and 3, the petitioner No. 1 Suman Kumar under Roll No. 123748 stands selected for personal interview to be conducted as yet under OBC (ex-serviceman) category......" 6. Para 5. As already submitted in paras 2 and 3, the petitioner No. 1 Suman Kumar under Roll No. 123748 stands selected for personal interview to be conducted as yet under OBC (ex-serviceman) category......" 6. When confronted with its earlier stand (supra), Shri Kanwar submitted that in view of the reply filed to the present writ petition, petitioner was ineligible in the earlier year. As such, no benefit can be derived from the stand of his client in CWP No. 944 of 2003. 7. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, this plea of the respondent is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. It was not disputed that Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent examination, 10+2, are also classes wherein a student after passing matriculation has to undergo further study for another two years. Thereafter any one of the above, certificates are issued in which a student like petitioner has studied and successfully passed the same. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Board was called upon to explain as to why higher secondary is not equivalent with 10+2, Intermediate or Senior Secondary School Certificate, he was not in a position to point out any reasonable, muchless rational basis for denying equivalence to higher secondary with any of the above Courses. No Rule, Regulation or any other provision of law was brought to our notice at the time of hearing on the basis of which action of the respondent can be upheld so as to justify the denial of admit card to the petitioner because of higher secondary pass being not equivalent to Senior Secondary School Certificate/Intermediate/ or its equivalent examination/10+2. Even otherwise, there is no rational basis to uphold this contention urged on behalf of the respondent-Board. This stand of the respondent-Board that petitioner was not earlier eligible to have appeared under Roll No. 123748, prima facie appears to be purely an afterthought, with a view to defeat his (petitioners) claim in this writ petition. 9. No other point is urged. 10. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. This stand of the respondent-Board that petitioner was not earlier eligible to have appeared under Roll No. 123748, prima facie appears to be purely an afterthought, with a view to defeat his (petitioners) claim in this writ petition. 9. No other point is urged. 10. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner was allowed to appear provisionally under the orders of this Court passed on 13.4.2004, in view of the orders passed in this writ petition, his result will now be declared and in case he is successful respondent-Board is further directed to deal with the petitioner In accordance with law. No order as to costs. 11. CMP, if any, will also stand disposed of in view of disposal of the writ petition and interim order, if any shall also stand vacated. Petition allowed.