ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners who have been denied admissions to Master of Engineering (part time course) for the year 2006-07. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 Rajeev Pandey was appointed as Sub-Engineer on daily wages in the Urban Administration and Development Department, Motimahal, Gwalior and he was regularised with effect from 10.10.1997. Petitioner No.2 Ravindra Singh Yadav was appointed as Sub-Engineer in Water Resources Department, Gwalior with effect from 10.5.2004. Petitioner No.1 passed his Bachelor of Engineering course in June 2004 while petitioner No.2 has passed his Bachelor of Engineering course in 1987. Both these petitioners have applied to their respective departments seeking permission to prosecute Master's Degree course in Engineering. After obtaining permission from their respective departments, they applied for admission to ME (Civil) two years course vide applications Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. Counsel for the first round was scheduled in June, 2006 and the last date of submission of application forms as per Annexure P-5 20.6.2006. Both the petitioners did not apply in pursuance of the said advertisement. After the first round of counselling, another advertisement Annexure P-6 was issued whereby applications for counselling were invited upto 25th July, 2006 and counselling was scheduled from 26th July, 2006. Petitioner No.1 applied in pursuance of the said advertisement on 7.6.2006 while petitioner No.2 applied on 20.6.2006. Thus, both the petitioners have applied for admission before the last date as mentioned in the advertisement Annexure P-6. 3. Respondent No.1 the Director of Madhav Institute of Technology and Science had some confusions about the eligibility criteria laid down for admission and therefore by letter dated 28.7.2006 he made certain queries from the Examination Controller, Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (RGPV). He has made queries whether as per the norms a student who has completed only 23 months after passing his BE examination is eligible for admission and whether he can consider the experience in the relevant field after passing the qualifying examination i.e. BE. 4. Admission to the course in question is governed by Ordinance No. 8 for Degree in Master of Engineering/Technology (ME/M. Tech.). annexure P-8 issued by RGPV. As per condition No.2 (3) sponsored candidates must have at least two years experience in the relevant field after passing the qualifying examination. 4. Admission to the course in question is governed by Ordinance No. 8 for Degree in Master of Engineering/Technology (ME/M. Tech.). annexure P-8 issued by RGPV. As per condition No.2 (3) sponsored candidates must have at least two years experience in the relevant field after passing the qualifying examination. Thus, as per requirement of Ordinance No.8, two years experience in the relevant field after passing BE examination is neccessary. 5. Applications filed by the petitioners were considered by the selection committee vide Annexure P-l and recommended the names of the present petitioners for admission. But this recommendation was turned down on the ground that the petitioners cannot be admitted at a very late stage. This order was passed on 22.9.2006 and thus the recommendations of the selection committee were turned down. Hence, both the petitioners have filed the present petitions. 6. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have submitted their applications for admission before the last date. The last date as per the advertisement Annexure P-6 was 25th July, 2006 and admittedly they have submitted their applications before the said date. The delay which has accrued was due to the clarifications sought by the Director of respondent No.1 institution and therefore, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the delay caused in the processing of the applications or delay caused in decision making process. 7. In reply to this argument, the respondents submitted that both the petitioners are not eligible for admission as per condition No.2 (3) of the Ordinance No.8 Annexure P-8. Said condition reads as under: "The sponsored candidates must have at least two years experience in the relevant field after passing the qualifying examination." From reading of the said condition, it is clear that a candidate should have at least two years experience in the relevant field after passing BE examination. 8. Petitioner No. 1 has passed his BE examination in August, 2004. He moved application for admission on 12.6.2006. The last date for submission of the forms was 25th July, 2006 and counselling was to be held on 26th July, 2006. As petitioner No.1 has passed BE examination in August, 2004 he had only 23 months experience after passing BE examination and thus, he is not eligible for admission to the said course. 9. The last date for submission of the forms was 25th July, 2006 and counselling was to be held on 26th July, 2006. As petitioner No.1 has passed BE examination in August, 2004 he had only 23 months experience after passing BE examination and thus, he is not eligible for admission to the said course. 9. So far as petitioner No.2 Ravindra Singh Yadav is concerned, he has moved application on 20.6.2006. As per his application, he has passed BE (Civil) Examination in the year 1987 with 75.5% marks. He had an experience of working on the post of Sub Engineering in M.P. Water Resources Department where he was regularised with effect from 10.S.2002. 10. Thus, petitioner No.2 had more than two years experience after passing BE examination. But he could not be admitted to the said course due to the delay caused by the respondents in not deciding his application within time. In such circumstances, petitioner No.2 cannot be made to suffer for the delay occurred in decision making process. 11. It is pointed out that by now the course of first semester is nearly over and no seat is lying vacant. All the seats are, by now filled by the respondents. Thus, the delay can be attributed to respondent No. 1 Clarification was sought by respondent No.1 on 28.7.2006 and from the record, it appears that due to this reason, admissions could not be granted within time which has resulted in loss of one year course of petitioner No. 2. 12. In such circumstances, even though petitioner No.2 cannot be admitted at this late stage, I find this case fit for grant of compensation to petitioner No.2 as the delay has caused on the part of respondent No.1. It is, therefore, directed that respondent No.1 shall pay costs of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs. fifty thousand) to petitioner No.2 Ravindra Singh Yadav. 13. Both the petitioners are also free to make fresh applications for admission for the course of the year 2007-08 as and when notices for counselling are published. 14. In the result, the petition stands allowed in part as indicated herein above.