JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his admission in M.Tech. Programme in B.Sc. in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The petitioner, while appearing in his VIIIth semester of B.Tech. Programme from Rai Foundation Engineering College, applied for the M.Tech. Programme, after appearing in GATE examination which was an essential requisite for applying for M.Tech. course. On the basis of the marks obtained in GATE examination as well as in the scores obtained in seven semesters, the petitioner was offered an admission in M.Tech. Programme by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur on 28th May, 2007. The relevant portions of the offer is quoted hereinunder : “With reference to your application for admission and subsequent interview, I am glad to inform you that you have been selected for admission to the M.Tech Programme in Biological Sciences & Bioengineering Department subject to your accepting this offer and paying the full amount of fees positively by June 20, 2007. The admission is subject to your having a valid GATE/CEED Score that you must produce in original at the time of registration. Please note that the admission offer will stand cancelled, if (i) You fail to accept this offer by sending a demand draft for the amount as applicable by the date indicated above or (ii) You fail to produce any of the documents required to be presented at the time of registration. You may, however, on application, be allowed to produce documents by October 1, 2007 failing which your admission will be cancelled or (iii) You fail to register by August 3, 2007.” 2. Based on the aforesaid offer the petitioner joined the M.Tech. course. The admission as per the offer were subject to passing the final qualifying examination and submission of the requisite documents on or before the 1st October, 2007. 3. It transpires that by another order of 28.5.2007, the Head of the Department of B.S.B.E. recommended an assistanceship of Rs. 5000/- per month to the petitioner. Based on the aforesaid admission, it transpires, that the petitioner has given the first semester examination in which he has passed. 3. On the other hand, Rai University went into trouble and the Supreme Court by orders dated 11.2.2005 and 7.9.2005 directed the colleges which were affiliated to Rai University to seek affiliation with other Universities within its jurisdiction. Based on the aforesaid admission, it transpires, that the petitioner has given the first semester examination in which he has passed. 3. On the other hand, Rai University went into trouble and the Supreme Court by orders dated 11.2.2005 and 7.9.2005 directed the colleges which were affiliated to Rai University to seek affiliation with other Universities within its jurisdiction. Pursuant to the said judgment, Rai Foundation Colleges of Faridabad and Gurgaon applied for affiliation to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Maharshi Dayanand University requested the All India Council of Technical Education University, A.I.C.T.E. for granting one time approval which was granted by an order dated 19.2.2007. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, in turn, intimated the Rai Foundation Engineering College about the one time approval and also laid down certain conditions for the students who had passed out different semesters and, based on the conditions imposed by the University, directed the students of the Vlllth semester to give a re-examination of the final semester, namely, the Vlllth semester. As a result of this direction, the petitioner who had already given the Vlllth semester examination in May 2007, and whose results were expected to be declared in July, 2007 was not declared, and now, he has been directed to appear in the re-examination which is being conducted by the Maharshi Dayanand University. It has come on record, that the re-examination was conducted in which the petitioner sat and gave his examination in the third week of January, 2008. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the results are likely to be declared in 4 to 6 weeks time. 5. On the other hand, the last date for the submission of the documents, namely, the results of the qualifying examination was extended from 1.10.2007 to 20.12.2007. The petitioner made an application intimating the authorities about the re-examination being conducted by the University. The respondents, by an order dated 22/24.12.2007 terminated the admission of the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of the degree of the last qualifying examination. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected by an order dated 15.1.2008. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition. 6. From a perusal of the application form, it transpires, that the candidates were permitted to apply for M.Tech. course while appearing in the final semester of the B.Tech Programme subject to having a valid GATE score. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition. 6. From a perusal of the application form, it transpires, that the candidates were permitted to apply for M.Tech. course while appearing in the final semester of the B.Tech Programme subject to having a valid GATE score. The petitioner had a valid GATE score and had given his VIIIth semester examination of B.Tech and therefore, was competent to apply for the M.Tech. course. The authorities by an order dated 28.5.2007 selected the petitioner for admission in the M.Tech. programme on the basis of a valid GATE score and on the basis of his scores in the seven semester examinations of B.Tech. The admission was however subject to the conditions that the petitioner should pass the qualifying examination, namely, the B.Tech. course. 7. Admittedly, as on the date of the impugned order, the petitioner had not qualified for admission but as per the admission policy, the respondents had admitted the petitioner for M.Tech. course. It is a settled position that the educational institutions normally permit the candidates for admission in a higher course subject to the candidate passed out the qualifying examination. The reason is not far to see. The whole idea of permitting the students for admission in a higher course is to ensure that the students does not loose a year on account of the delay in the declaration of the results. In the present case, this is exactly what has happened and the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the delay in the declaration of the results by the educational institution. The college in which the petitioner was studying was directed to get fresh affiliation with another University. The said University has accorded affiliation after seeking approval from AICTE and has also decided to hold a re-examination of the final Semester. The examination of the final Semester has already been conducted and the results are awaited. The M.Tech. course is of two years. The petitioner has already successfully completed the first semester. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion, that the petitioner should be permitted to continue with the Educational Programme in M.Tech. course till the declaration of the result of the VIIIth semester of B.Tech. course. In the event the petitioner is successful in the B.Tech. course, the University authorities will formally admit the petitioner in the M.Tech. course. 8. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion, that the petitioner should be permitted to continue with the Educational Programme in M.Tech. course till the declaration of the result of the VIIIth semester of B.Tech. course. In the event the petitioner is successful in the B.Tech. course, the University authorities will formally admit the petitioner in the M.Tech. course. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. By cancelling the admission of the petitioner the respondent institution is not gaining anything at this stage. They cannot admit another candidate in place of the petitioner. Consequently, on humanitarian consideration and, even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that the offer dated 28.5.2007 for submission of the requisite documents by 1.10.2007 which had been extended till 20.12.2007 was not a mandatory clause. Consequently, the admission cannot be cancelled on the ground of non-submission of the documents, especially when the results are awaited, for which the petitioner is not at fault. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cancelling the admission of the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue with his studies in M.Tech. course till the declaration of the B.Tech. results. ————