JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of. The appellant writ petitioner wanted a change of stream on the engineering side of Banaras Hindu University after having successfully completed his first year on the Civil Engineering side. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner applied in time for such change to the stream of Metallurgy. The date of application was on or before 31.7.2005. 3. It has been explained by the appellant-writ petitioner that his father has a foundry business, he could be engaged in the industry and that his father himself is a Metallurgical Engineer of his time from IIT, Delhi. The appellant-writ petitioner would like to join that business with appropriate qualification. The first year result showed that he had got sufficiently high grade to qualify him for the change of the stream. The appellant-writ petitioner, who had applied for the change, was the sixth in order of merit from the Civil Engineering stream, who wanted a change of stream. 4. The first four students had been permitted to change; the fifth one, whom we do not even wish to name, wanted a change to any one of the four streams namely Electrical, Computer, Mechanical and Chemical. It seems that the Electrical side was full; information is not available fully about the three other streams. The fifth student has not pressed his claim, if any, we would be the last persons to drag such a student into the Court when he is happily pursuing his course and has not himself chosen to come into this contrary place. The sixth student in order of merit was the appellant-writ petitioner. The only one of the rules permitting the change from one branch to another which created the problem is as follows: “3. Change of branch will be permitted as long as the strength in any branch does not increase by more than 10% of the sanctioned strength or decrease by more than 10% of the actual strength.” 5. On Civil Engineering side, the sanctioned strength is 50, the actual strength on the basis of first year admission was 37. The case of the respondent University is that the decrease of the seats by 10% i.e. 3.7, i.e. 4 seats (because there can be no fraction of a student), was permitted. On Civil Engineering side, the sanctioned strength is 50, the actual strength on the basis of first year admission was 37. The case of the respondent University is that the decrease of the seats by 10% i.e. 3.7, i.e. 4 seats (because there can be no fraction of a student), was permitted. What happened at the end of the first year was that though four students then left the Civil Engineering stream, one student came from Mining to the Civil Engineering side. According to the University, since four had left and the decrease of 10% had already occurred, the appellant-writ petitioner had become ineligible to leave and joining of the extra student from Mining to Civil Engineering side was irrelevant. The Hon’ble Single Judge has expressed his view in the impugned judgment is as follows : “............and thus decrease of 10% had already taken place and no further decrease was permissible,..................” 6. A plain reading of the rule would show that subject of the sentence is neither of the words ‘increase’ or ‘decrease’, but the word ‘strength’. One has to look not at the decrease or increase but what the actual strength during the first year was, and what the actual strength is going to be after shifting is permitted. On this basis, the actual strength would have to be computed after taking into consideration the student who joins from the Mining side to the Civil Engineering because he is definitely a part of the Civil Engineering student strength in the second year. 7. The appellant-writ petitioner clearly has a good case and the University did not construe its own rule correctly. One problem of a certain lapse of time of about five months has occurred, the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the first semester of the second year but we cannot construe time against him when the respondents themselves caused the delay, inspite of the appellant-writ petitioner being in the right. The judgment impugned is thus set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant-writ petitioner be allowed to change the stream immediately from Civil to Metallurgy, at the latest within a period of one week from the date herein. Appeal Allowed. ———