Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letters dated 14.2.2007, Annexures P. 4 and P. 5 issued by the Kurukshetra University cancelling the candidature of the petitioners and allowing them to sit in the examination, which were scheduled to be held from April 4, 2007. 2. Case of the petitioners is that they passed Middle Standard Examination (Purva Madhyama) in April, 2004 and were granted admission in Uttar Madhyama Part-I, which they passed in April, 2005 and Uttar Madhyama Part-II in April 2006. In 2007, they were granted admission to Shastri-I. On 14.2.2007, their candidature was cancelled on the ground that they were not eligible for admission to Shastri-I as Uttar Madhyama Part-II examination could not be treated as equal to 10+2. 3. As per Equivalence Certificate issued by the Haryana School Education Board dated 5.3.1998, Annexure P. 3, Uttar Madhyama Part-II is treated as equivalent to 10+2. As per impugned order, Uttar Madhyama was not treated as equivalent to 10+2 and thus, Kurukshetra University has taken a stand which was in conflict with the certificate issued by the Haryana School Education Board. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak also issued a letter dated 5.3.2007, Annexure P. 7 confirming that a candidate passing Uttar Madhyama Part-II was eligible for admission to Shastri Part-I. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the Kurukshetra University, it was stated that Uttar Madhyama Part II could not be treated as equal to 10+2 as per statutes of the University. Only Madhyama-III is treated as equal to Visharad, which is a qualification required for admission to the course of Shastri-I. 5. Respondent No. 4 College where the petitioners have taken admission has supported the stand of the petitioners. 6. We directed the State of Haryana to co-ordinate the matter and as per a copy of letter placed on record by the learned counsel for the State, stand taken is that Haryana School Education Board has withdrawn the recognition of the certificate issued by Gurukul Jhajjar in the year 2001. Recognition was granted in the year 1998. Since recognition of the certificate itself was not valid, the State could not take any decision. 7. Learned counsel for the Kurukshetra University referred to a judgment of this Court in Deepender Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration (UT), 1997(3) SCT 578 . Recognition was granted in the year 1998. Since recognition of the certificate itself was not valid, the State could not take any decision. 7. Learned counsel for the Kurukshetra University referred to a judgment of this Court in Deepender Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration (UT), 1997(3) SCT 578 . Therein, the petitioners acquired Uttar Madhyama of Maharshi University and Shastri Degree of MD University and sought admission to Siksha Shastri (OT). This Court noticed the stand of MD University, Rohtak that Uttar Madhyama was equal to 10+2 and Shastri was equal to B.A. (Hons.). 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. The stand of the Maharshi Dayanand University in Annexure P. 7 clearly is that Uttar Madhyama II was equivalent to eligibility for admission to Shastri Part-I. The petitioners have been duly given admission and have undergone studies on that basis and have already appeared in Shastri Part-I. Judgment of this Court in Deepender Kumar (supra), which is also based on stand of M.D. University, also supports the stand of the petitioner. 10. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the eligibility of the petitioners could not be questioned at this stage. There is nothing to show that Uttar Madhyama III was also available in MD University. There is also no clear instructions of the Kurukshetra University that Uttar Madhyama II was not equivalent to 10+2. In Annexure R.1, againt Entry No. 34, Uttar Madhyama (Part I, II and III) is shown as equal to Visharad. We are conscious that it is basically for the University to determine equivalence. Though, stand of M.D. University has been in favour of the petitioner, stand of the Kurukshetra University is not supported by clear instructions. 11. In view of above, we allow this petition and declare the petitioners to be eligible to continue their studies in the Shastri course. We, however, make it clear that Kurukshetra University will be at liberty to issue clear instructions in the matter and enforce the same for future. The petition is disposed of. Petition allowed.