Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 8.5.2007, Annexure P.1, cancelling the admission of the petitioners. 2. Case of the petitioners is that they were given admission by respondent No.3-College on 29.9.2005 against theft over seats. They completed first year of BDS course and also attended for Second year before issuance of the impugned order and in these circumstances, cancellation of their admissions was not justified. 3. Vide Order dated 10.5.2007, while issuing notice, the respondents were directed to issue Roll Numbers provisionally so that the petitioners could appear in Second year Annual examination commencing 11.5.2007. 4. In the reply filed, and stand taken is that PMET Test 2005 was conducted and thereafter, the petitioners were admitted against management quota seats. The college conducted counselling of its own in violation of instructions in notification dated 25.4.2005 without any participation of representative of the State Government or the University, which was mandatory. The petitioners were not eligible having not studied during 10+1 and 10+2 as regular candidates from recognised institution in the State of Punjab as per requirement of Clause 4A(vi) of the notification dated 2S.4.2005 and in such a situation. CWP No. 9326 of 2006 was dismissed by this Court on 7.122006 vide AnnexUre R 2/5 and on that account, cancellation of admissions was justified. 5. In the replication in para 3, it has been stated that father of petitioner No. 1 was employee of Punjab State Electricity Board and was serving at Ropar. Father of petitioner No. 2 was permanent resident of Amritsar but he shifted to Chandigarh. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The petitioners were given admissions in September 2005 and the University was duly informed. Immediate steps to annul the admissions were not taken and after completion of almost two years, it will not be fair and reasonable to cancel the admissions. Even according to the reply, the admissions were against management quota which was prevalent at the relevant time, though the same is no longer permissible. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, without going into the larger question, we are of the view that it will be inequitable to cancel the admissions of the petitioners at this stage. 9. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order, Annexure P-1.