1. With agreement of learned counsel, the matter is admitted to hearing and taken up for final disposal. 2. Claiming to have applied for LL.B course in respondent-university under RBA category, the petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of admission to him as such, and accordingly, seeks a direction against respondents for according him admission as aforesaid, on the ground that being resident of Karna district Kupwara he belongs to RBA category and having entertained his application as such, the respondent-university could not consider him in open merit category, which, in facts attending the matter, resorted in refusal of admission to him, even though he had highest marks among the candidates selected in said category, certificate whereof he produced, only one day after the cut of date fixed for production of such certificate, as he could not manage it in time due to unavoidable reasons. 3. In their reply, the respondents, while denying petitioners right to admission as claimed, plead that category candidates were expressly required to annex relevant certificate to their application forms, while petitioner annexed under process certificate only. Since he failed to furnish the certificate till last date fixed for the same, his candidature was considered in open merit category, as he furnished his category certificate on 11th April 2005 after finalization of the select list, and since he was trailing behind in open merit category he could not find a seat in the course applied for. During course of their brief submissions the learned counsel reiterated the contents of their pleadings with reference to annexures appended therewith. 4. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. As per admitted position, the petitioner, as a matter of fact, applied under RBA category, but failed to file requisite certificate before the date appointed therefor, with the result that respondent-university did not consider his candidature in the reserved category and instead counted him along with open merit category candidates with which he could not compete in merit and missed the seat, despite having furnished the requisite category certificate later. The fact that he belongs to backward area of district Kupwara is however not denied. That being so the respondent-university would perhaps have acted more properly had they considered petitioners candidature in the category, subject of course to production of the requisite certificates, which they do not appear to have done. The fact that he belongs to backward area of district Kupwara is however not denied. That being so the respondent-university would perhaps have acted more properly had they considered petitioners candidature in the category, subject of course to production of the requisite certificates, which they do not appear to have done. Instead, they have very strictly stuck to the dates and deprived the petitioner of his right to consideration in the reserved category. It would be appropriate to mention here, that as a matter of fact the petitioner did belong to the reserved category "RBA" even on the date of filing of his candidature in that category. The only thing required to be done was to have the same certified by the competent authority. That such certification had not been done would not ipsofacto mean that the petitioner had as a matter of fact ceased to be a resident of backward area. The benefit of the category, logically is due to petitioner as being resident of backward area and not merely because of being a certificate holder in that behalf. In other words the status required for his consideration in the RBA category was available to petitioner due to fact of his birth in the backward area and was not required specifically to be conferred upon him by a certificate to be issued in that behalf. The difference between a particular status available to a person inherently, and the one that requires to be conferred upon him by some act of competent authority, is by now well drawn by various judicial pronouncements on the subject. That being so, the refusal of respondent-university to consider petitioners candidature in the reserved category appears to be wrong in substance and a result of mere technical adherence to the technicalities involved. 5. That being so, the refusal of respondent-university to consider petitioners candidature in the reserved category appears to be wrong in substance and a result of mere technical adherence to the technicalities involved. 5. In that view of the matter, plainly speaking the petitioners claim of admission in the category has considerable substance, which would automatically result in an order accordingly, but for the practical constraint, that by now the academic year of the course to which the petitioner applied has elapsed, and the candidates admitted are reported to have taken examinations of the first semester and preparing for the second one, which makes it practically difficult to order petitioners admission to the said course in this session, because even if ordered that would remain on paper only because he cant have the benefit of attendance and having attending the classes for the reason that same has been rendered impossible by mere afflux of time. 6. In the circumstances, therefore, the petition s disposed of with a direction to respondent-university to accord admission to petitioner in RBA category without prejudice to other candidates which may apply therefore, in next academic session, even if that means addition of a seat to the seats specified in that quota.