Judgment :- (1) THE petitioner had appeared in the Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred to as the CLAT) held pursuant to a Memorandum of understanding entered into by seven National Law Schools situated in various parts of India. By the said understanding it was resolved that for the purpose of admission to the seven National Law Schools a common admission test- CLAT- would be held which would be conducted on rotation by each of,the said schools. As the National Law School of India University, bangalore (for short nlsiu) was the oldest law school, process was set in motion by the said school by giving an undertaking to conduct the admission test for the academic session 2008-2009. (2) THE petitioner being a member of the scheduled caste community filled up the form for appearing in the Admission Test. His preferences for the institutions were (1) National Law School of India University, Bangalore, (2) NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and (3) The West Bengal National university of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (for short nujs). The admission test was held on 11th May, 2008. Thereafter, the results were declared and published on the website. The petitioner obtained 90 marks. His rank in the general category was 3891 and 62 in the scheduled caste category. (3) ON 31st May, 2008, after such publication, the Convenor of CLAT, 2008 and the Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU the respondent No. 3 intimated that the petitioner has been provisionally selected for the admission to the gujarat National Law University. Thereafter, on 26th June, 2008 in Order to fill up the vacancies caused by the withdrawal of the candidates selected in the first list, a second list was published. Allegation is candidates securing lesser marks than the petitioner in the scheduled caste category were given option to join NUJS, Kolkata ignoring his legitimate claim for NUJS, Kolkata- his third option. According to the petitioner after noticing such error and illegal deprivation, on 27th June, 2008 his father telephonically contacted the respondent No. 3 and requested him to take corrective measures regarding the list of selected candidates for NUJS, Kolkata. Submission is oral assurance was given. However, being dissatisfied the petitioner rushed to Bangalore, visited the office of the CLAT, 2008 and again requested to look into the matter. Submission is oral assurance was given. However, being dissatisfied the petitioner rushed to Bangalore, visited the office of the CLAT, 2008 and again requested to look into the matter. Moreover, on 27th June, 2008 by fax as well as by e-mail the petitioner sent a letter to the office of the CLAT 2008 ventilating his grievances. The Coordinator of the CLAT 2008 after going through the records assured the petitioner that mistakes would be rectified and he was requested to contact the NUJS, Kolkata. (4) ON 30th June, 2008, the petitioner visited the office of the Vice-Chancellor, NUJS, Kolkata, the respondent No. 1. He came to learn that a letter had been sent from the office of the respondent No. 3 recommending the name of the petitioner for admission in NUJS, Kolkata. (5) ON 1st July, 2008 when the petitioner met the respondent No. 1, he acknowledged the fact that on 30th June, 2008 he had received a letter by fax from the respondent No.3 admitting mistakes on their part and requesting the NUJS, Kolkata to admit the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 1 intimated that as on 28th June, 2008 admission to NUJS was over and all seats in scheduled caste or scheduled tribe category were filled up, the request of the respondent No. 3 could not be acceded to. A note to that effect was written on the letter of the petitioner. (6) BEING aggrieved by such action of the respondent No. 1 in not giving the petitioner a placement in NUJS, Kolkata, on the basis of his option and rank in the examination, the instant writ petition was moved on 14th July, 2008 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits. In the said order the respondents were directed to spell out in their affidavits whether the marks obtained by the petitioner enabled him to get admitted to NUJS, kolkata. Pursuant to the directions, affidavits have been exchanged and are on record. (7) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 referring to his affidavit-in-opposition has submitted since the respondent No. 1 insisted that NUJS would start classes on 7th June, 2008 and for that purpose demanded results in advance which according to the respondent No. 3 was unreasonable demand (Paragraph 3 (d) of the affidavit-in-opposition) they had no other option but to publish the results. "this unreasonable insistence by NUJS according to the said respondent, "led to all these problems" [paragraph 3 (e) of the affidavit-in-opposition]. It has been submitted that though the office of the CLAT was not responsible in any manner whatsoever regarding the mistake committed and the matter could have been solved had the mobile number of petitioner, stated in the application form, been operational, the marks obtained by the petitioner made him eligible for consideration in the second list of allocation of students to NUJS, Kolkata. (8) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 reiterating the statements made in their affidavit submitted that it was difficult on the part of the NUJS, Kolkata to delay its session which had commenced from 2nd June, 2008 and after repeated reminders from NUJS, the second list was sent by the respondent No. 3 on 20th June, 2008. On 21st June, 2008 the second list was uploaded on the NUJS website. The name of the petitioner was not included in the second list. Admission from the second list was completed on 28th June, 2008. Once the last date for admission from the second list is over the candidate is not eligible for admission. Moreover, there were no vacancies in the scheduled caste category and there was one vacancy in the general category. Further, as he had approached after the last date of admission from the second list and as the classes had commenced on 2nd june, 2008, if the petitioner is admitted he would have less time for preparation, less time for technical subjects such as Economics, no time for rough draft or synopsis submission and his attendance would fall short of the requirements. (9) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner had filled up the application form for appearing in the CLAT. In the said application option was exercised. He appeared in the CLAT, results were published and on the basis of the results rank was given. Though on the basis of option and the rank, a placement was allotted, it was not in NUJS, Kolkata. (10) THE only question which falls for consideration is in view of the option exercised and on the basis of the rank consequent to the result, whether the petitioner is entitled to the placement in NUJS, Kolkata as prayed for. (11) PLACEMENT means a slot or an allotted place in an arrangement. (10) THE only question which falls for consideration is in view of the option exercised and on the basis of the rank consequent to the result, whether the petitioner is entitled to the placement in NUJS, Kolkata as prayed for. (11) PLACEMENT means a slot or an allotted place in an arrangement. In my view, once a candidate, who has exercised option, secures a particular placement on the basis of marks and rank, he obtains a valuable and an inalienable right which cannot be taken away. Therefore, any action dislodging him from such placement is uncalled for. In the instant case, as admittedly there were errors in the second list, the petitioner on the basis of option, marks and rank, was entitled to placement in NUJS, Kolkata. That he is entitled to the placement in NUJS is evident as the respondent No. 3 in his affidavit (Paragraph 13) has stated that "the petitioners mark made him eligible for consideration in the second list of allocation of students to NUJS, Kolkata. " in the backdrop of such statement and facts, the submission of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in paragraph 3 (p) (e) of their affidavit that "the candidate is not eligible once the last date is over from the second list" and "moreover the petitioner approached after the last date of admission from the second list" cannot be accepted. No doubt to err is human. But that error cannot take away the right of the petitioner for the particular placement in NUJS. (12) A plea has been raised by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that since classes in NUJS have commenced on 2nd June, 2008 if the petitioner is admitted at this stage, he may face certain problems. The said respondents in paragraph 3 (p) of their affidavit have enumerated the problems which are as under : "p). . . . . . . It is stated that the petitioner would have been eligible for admission in the scheduled caste category had he approached the NUJS, before the last date for admission of candidates from the second list was over i. e. 28th June, 2008. The problems that the petitioner would face due to late admission is that the petitioner would have-a) Less time for preparation. b) Less time for technical subjects like Economics-1. c) No time for rough draft or synopsis submission. d) Attendance would be short. The problems that the petitioner would face due to late admission is that the petitioner would have-a) Less time for preparation. b) Less time for technical subjects like Economics-1. c) No time for rough draft or synopsis submission. d) Attendance would be short. e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (13) IN my view, the problems indicated are not insurmountable. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should take extra classes for making up the shortage of attendance and should allow the petitioner to do the needful for preparation and for overcoming the problems as enumerated. (14) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to admit the petitioner to NUJS, Kolkata by 4th August, 2008. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall take extra classes for making up the shortage of attendance and preparation and shall also extend the deadline for submitting the rough draft, final project, project viva and for preparation of all subjects. (15) THE writ petition is, thus, allowed. (16) THERE will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.