JudgmentJudgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges an alleged incongruous part of the stipulations of Section: B of the Joint Admission Brochure issued for Admission to various courses including the First Semester of B.E. Course for the academic session 2009-10 (P-1). The alleged incongruity clubs together 5% seats of the U.T. Pool Quota and All India Quota reserved for sons/daughters/spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel, relating to admission in PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of similar provision contained in Section C of the aforementioned brochure concerning admissions in the Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh (P-l). Still further a prayer has been made for directing the respondents to admit the students in accordance with the direction/clarification issued by the Chandigarh Administration vide its letter dated 15.7.2009, which clarifies that reservation of seats under the aforementioned category would be calculated separately for the U.T. Pool Quota and All India Quota. 2. The petitioners are wards of serving Army Personnel. They have passed their 10th, 11th and 12th examinations from the schools located in Union Territory of Chandigarh and also qualified the AIEEE-2009 Examination. For admissions to the First Semester of B.E. Course in various institutions including Punjab Engineering College University of Technology, Chandigarh (PEC), Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Sector 26, Chandigarh (CCET) and Chandigarh College of Architecture, Sector 12, Chandigarh (CCA), a joint admission brochure for the session 2009-10 was issued laying down various admission procedures for admission to under Graduate Courses. 3. At page No.1 Sr. No.5 of the brochure, under the heading Important Points, it has been prescribed that the candidates who have passed their qualifying examination (10+2) from schools/colleges located in the Union Territory, Chandigarh and recognised by the Chandigarh Administration, would be considered under the Chandigarh Quota (for PEC/CCET/CCA only) and all other students, who have passed their qualifying examination from elsewhere, would fall under the All India Quota. It has further been mentioned that there would be no Chandigarh Quota for University Institute of neering and Technology (UIET) and University Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology (UICET). 4. Under Clause 1.1 of the brochure, general eligibility conditions were mentioned. It has further been mentioned that there would be no Chandigarh Quota for University Institute of neering and Technology (UIET) and University Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology (UICET). 4. Under Clause 1.1 of the brochure, general eligibility conditions were mentioned. For B.E. Courses following two conditions were prescribed:- "The admission to the First Semester B.E. Courses will be open to a candidate, who (i) has qualified in the AIEEE-2009, conducted by the C.B.S.E., for admission to these courses. (ii) has passed +2 or its equivalent examination with at least 60% marks in aggregate (55% marks in case of S.C/S.T./Physically Challenged), conducted by a recognized Board/University/Council in March/April 2009 and not earlier than March/ April 2006." 5. As per Clause 1.1.1 relating to Inter-se Merit for Admission, inter-se merit of the candidates for admission was to be determined on the basis of rank obtained in AIEEE-2009 only, except in the Sports Category and the categories of Code 8 to 26 given in Annexure-I attached to the brochure (P-1). It is pertinent to notice that Code 8 to 26 of Annexure-I refers to various sub-categories of wholly dependent.sons/daughters/spouses of military personnel and paramilitary personnel. 6. Section: B and Section: C of the brochure contains general information about seats and categories relating to PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh respectively. The total number of seats meant for PEC as given in Section: B is 385. Fifty percent of the said seats were required to be offered to candidates in the following manner: "(a) Chandigarh Quota: for all those candidates who have passed their qualifying examination (+2) from schools/colleges located in the Union Territory, Chandigarh and recognized by the Chandigarh Administration. (b) All India Quota: for candidates who have passed their qualifying examination (+2), but are not covered under category (a) above." 7. (b) All India Quota: for candidates who have passed their qualifying examination (+2), but are not covered under category (a) above." 7. Section: B further bifurcate the seats to the extent of 50% quota in different categories in Chandigarh Quota and All India Quota, which reads thus: "S.No. Category (a) Chandigarh Quota % of Reservation Seats (i) Scheduled Castes 14% 27 (ii) *Sons/Daughters/ Spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel* 5% 10 (iii) Physical Handicapped 3% 06 (iv) Children/Grandchildren of Freedom Fighters 2% 04 (v) Sports persons 2% of the total seats 08 (vi) Open seats - 138 Total Seats (Chandigarh Quota) 193 (b) All India Quota (0 Scheduled Castes 15% 29 (ii) Scheduled Tribes from all states and UTs of India 5% 09 (iii) Sons/Daughters/ Spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel* 5% 10 (iv) Physical Handicapped 3% 06 (vj Children/Grandchildren of Freedom Fighters 2% 04 (vi) Open seats - 134 Total Seats (All India Quto) 192" 8. It is pertinent to notice that in the category of Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel there is a specific deviation mentioned under both quotas i.e. (a) Chandigarh Quota and (b) All India Quota, at Sr. Nos.(ii) & (iii) respectively, which is made discernible by an asterisk (*). It has been defined to mean as under :- "*Chandigarh Administration has decided to waive of domiciliary restriction of minimum stay in the states/UT and condition of passing 10th and 12th standard examination from the same state/UT in respect of wards of serving defence personnel/ ex-servicemen, seeking admission in the institutions of UT Chandigarh. Hence the quota is open to all." 9. Similar is the position with regard to Section: C although number of seats and percentage of reservation of various categories is different. 10. The petitioners applied for admission in the B.E. course under the category of Sons/ Daughters/ Spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel against the seats meant for the colleges situated in Chandigarh. The counselling was scheduled for 15.7.2009. 11. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Joint Admission Committee did not adhere to the Chandigarh Quota and All India Quota in the manner provided in the brochure and all the reserved seats meant for the aforementioned category were clubbed together. For PEC the percentage of quota is 50% for each of the two quota and for the CCET the percentage for Chandigarh Quota is 85% and All India Quota is 15%. For PEC the percentage of quota is 50% for each of the two quota and for the CCET the percentage for Chandigarh Quota is 85% and All India Quota is 15%. The aforementioned fact was brought to the notice of the Chandigarh Administration by making representations by the candidates. Whereupon, the Chandigarh Administration- respondent No.1 issued a communication on 15.7.2009 clarifying that vhe reservation of seats under the said category was to be calculated separately for U.T Pool Quota and All India quota (P-2). It has been alleged that despite the clarification dated 15.7.2009 (P-2) the Admission Committee is bent upon to admit the students in the category of Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel on the presumption that there are no separate quotas, namely, Chandigarh Quota and All India Quota. In that regard, a representation by the petitioners was also sent on 17.7.2009 (P-3). On 23.7.2009, at the time of hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners also placed on record a computer down-loaded hard copy of information (Mark-A) wherein the Admission Committee has notified that the counselling would be held according to the original joint admission brochure. 12. In the short reply filed on behalf of respondent No.l it has been pointed out that in the PEC 50% seats are filled on All India Quota basis and 50% from U.T. Pool candidates, whereas in CCET 85% seats are filled from U.T. Pool candidates and 15% from All India Quota. In the PEC 20 seats in all are reserved for the sons/ daughters/spouses of military/para-military forces and 12 seats in all are reserved for the said category in CCET. It has further been asserted that uptil 2007 seats reserved under defence quota category were filled from both All India Quota and U.T. Pool Quota separately by keeping the admission restricted to 50% quota in each pool. The position was similar in CCET uptil 2009. 13. It has further been asserted that uptil 2007 seats reserved under defence quota category were filled from both All India Quota and U.T. Pool Quota separately by keeping the admission restricted to 50% quota in each pool. The position was similar in CCET uptil 2009. 13. On 12.6.2007, the Minister of Defence, Union of India, addressed a communication to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, stating that in certain States/UTs admission into colleges/institutions were restricted to those students only who were either domicile of that State/UT for a minimum specific period and/or to those who have passed both 10th and 12th standard examination from an institution/school located in that State/U.T. It was also pointed out that the wards of armed forces personnel are unable to fulfill the said requirements for admission because of arduous nature of job of their parents which involve frequent transfers/postings. It was, thus, requested to do away with these restrictions (R-l). In para 6 of the reply it has been mentioned that keeping in view the reference dated 12.6.2007 (R-l), the Chandigarh Administration has issued a letter dated. 14.9.2007 conveying its decision to waive off the domiciliary restrictions of minimum stay in the States/UTs and condition of passing 10th and 12th standard examination from the same State/Union Territory in respect of the wards of serving defence personnel/exservicemen (R-2). It has been claimed that on the basis of letter dated 14.9.2007, the PEC has abolished the U.T. Pool defence quota after 2007 and CCET though indicated the U.T. Pool seats and All India Pool seats separately for the year 2009 but it was indicated in the note in the Joint Admission Brochure that these seats would be clubbed and filled up without assigning any quota of 50% each on the basis of joint counselling. 14. It has, however, been admitted that the matter was again considered and clarification dated 15.7.2009 has been issued by the Chandigarh Administration (R-3). In para 9 it has been mentioned that the matter was again discussed in the meeting at the level of the Adviser to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh, wherein the Director, Punjab Engineering College has informed that the admission can only be carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Prospectus or the Joint Admission Brochure and no deviation could be made therefrom. Accordingly, on 20.7.2009, again a letter has been issued advising the Director, PEC to complete the admission process strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Joint Admission Brochure and from the next academic session, admission would be regulated separately for U.T. Pool quota and All India Pool quota (R-4). 15. On 4.8.2009, during the course of arguments, Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 also brought to our notice three communications dated 24.7.2003, 9.9.2003 and 12.9.2003 relating to the proposal forgranting Deemed University status to the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. The aforementioned communications are taken on record as Mark B, C and D respectively. 16. On 4.8.2009 itself, Mr. R.S.Bains, learned counsel for PEC-respondent No. 3 filed a written statement, which is also taken on record, taking the stand that it has followed the principle of doing away separate quota for Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel between UT Pool Quota and All India Quota. Accordingly, the domiciliary restriction of minimum stay in the State/UTs and condition of passing 10th and 12th standard examinations from the same State/UT in respect of wards of serving defence personnel/ex-servicemen, seeking admission in the institutions of Union Territory, Chandigarh, has been abolished. Accordingly, Joint Admission Brochure for the Session 2009-10 was amended, which is made clear by the asterisk (*) underneath the table of distribution of seats, appearing at page 22 of the Information Brochure. Respondent No.3 has also furnished a list of 832 candidates arranged in order of tentative merit (R-3/2). The events leading to issuance of letter dated 15.7.2009 by the Chandigarh Administration directing that the admissions be made as per the reservation of seats under the UT Pool Quota and All India Quota of seats in respect of the sons/daughters/spouses of military/paramilitary personnel have been detailed. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 20.7.2009 (R-3/6) advising that the admissions for current session be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Admission Brochure. Accordingly, decision was taken to hold counselling on 30.7.2009 after issuance of advertisement in leading newspapers (R-3/7). A reference has also been made to the stay order passed by this Court on 29.7.2009 wherein the counselling slated for 30th was ordered to be deferred till further orders. 17. Mr. Accordingly, decision was taken to hold counselling on 30.7.2009 after issuance of advertisement in leading newspapers (R-3/7). A reference has also been made to the stay order passed by this Court on 29.7.2009 wherein the counselling slated for 30th was ordered to be deferred till further orders. 17. Mr. H.S.Mattewal, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that a bare look on the table at page 22 of the Information Brochure Section: B shows that seats have been divided on the basis of 50% quota in each category, namely (a) Chandigarh Quota; and (b) All India Quota. According to the learned counsel for Chandigarh Quota the only stipulation made is that the candidates must have passed their qualifying examination of +2 standard from schools/colleges located in UT Chandigarh and recognised by the Chandigarh Administration. He has drawn our attention to Item at Sr. No. (ii) under category (a) Chandigarh Quota pertaining to sons/daughters/spouses of military/paramilitary personnel, which has been allocated 5% of the seats and 10 seats have been given to the Chandigarh Quota. Likewise in the quota underneath All India Quota, Item No.(iii) specify 5% reservation in favour of the All India Quota allocating 10 seats. He has further argued that separation of these quotas by asterisk (*) to club these seats in fine print is astonishing and presents an affront to the equality clause, which has been interpreted to mean that both these quotas are merged and the counselling has to be held on the basis of joint merit for these 20 seats. 18. Mr. Mattewal has then argued that the Chandigarh Administration by letter dated 15.7.2009 (P-2) in unmistakable terms accepted that clubbing of quota by PEC or CCET was patently wrong and it was required to be calculated separately for UT Pool Quota and All India Quota @ 50% each. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no law that prospectus once issued cannot be modified by the State authorities, especially when in the present case the prospectus is not in accordance with the direction issued by the Chandigarh Administration. In that regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Kapoor v. State of Haryana, (2000)9 S.C.C. 115. In that regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Kapoor v. State of Haryana, (2000)9 S.C.C. 115. According to the learned counsel Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993-2)104 P.L.R. 212, has been watered down by Honble the Supreme Court in Rajiv Kapoors case (supra). To buttress his stand, learned counsel has drawn our attention to paras 10 and 11 of the judgment wherein it has been held that modification in the prospectus could be introduced and the prospectus with mistakes cannot be the sole basis for making admissions. He has further argued that mistake does not confer any right on any party and can be corrected. In that regard reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on para 23 of the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. S.R. Dhingra, (2008)2 S.C.C. 229. He has maintained that the prospectus can not prevail over the Government instructions. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005)9 S.C.C. 779, and argued that any technicality should not come in the way of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel, Honble the Supreme Court redressed the grievance of Dolly Chhanda where she possessed the necessary qualification on the last date fixed for filing application or for a post for availing benefit of reservation or weightage. Accordingly, Dolly Chhanda was granted relief as she possessed the qualification but could produce the certificate only at the time of interview instead of attaching the same with her application. 19. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the candidates should not suffer on account of conflicting provisions made in the prospectus by their author. Placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Deepak Makkar v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 2001(8) S.L.R. 74, learned counsel has argued that once the condition of the brochure has been relaxed then there is no going back from that situation by refusing to admit the candidates. Placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Deepak Makkar v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 2001(8) S.L.R. 74, learned counsel has argued that once the condition of the brochure has been relaxed then there is no going back from that situation by refusing to admit the candidates. Learned counsel by placing reliance on para 5 of the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of P.K. Goel v. UP. Medical Council,(1992)3 S.C.C 232, has argued that no indefeasible and vested right would accrue merely on the basis of participation in the examination. He has urged that before admission of any candidate in the category under dispute the mistake can be rectified by the authorities any time prior to the admissions. 20. While concluding his arguments Mr. Mattewal has stressed that after rectifying the mistake the Chandigarh Administration cannot go back by issuing yet another letter on 20.7.2009 restoring the mistake and correcting it only from the next academic session, sermonizing the Admission Committee for admitting the candidates under the defence quota in accordance with the prospectus, which by asterisk mark given in the fine print, has abolished the quota. 21. Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Chandigarh Administration-respondent No.1, has argued that in order to avoid legal complications letter dated 20.7.2009 (R-4) was issued and the admissions were required to be made for current session strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Admission Brochure. Learned counsel has argued that once it is conceded as per the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Admission Brochure can be amended by the Chandigarh Administration then it necessarily follows that the letter dated 20.7.2009 would also be binding on everybody and admissions have to be held in accordance with the provisions of the prospectus. 22. Mr. Anupam Gupta also referred to the PEC Information Booklet Volume-1 and in all fairness drew our attention to the letter dated 24.7.2003 (Mark B) on the subject of proposal for granting Deemed University status on PEC. According to para 1(b) of the said letter, it is stipulated that 50% of the seats at the undergraduate level were to be filled through a national level test. According to para 1(b) of the said letter, it is stipulated that 50% of the seats at the undergraduate level were to be filled through a national level test. He has also drawn our attention to letters dated 9.9.2003 and 12.9.2003 (Mark C & D respectively) addressed by the Home Secretary of the Chandigarh Administration to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, New Delhi, which are to the same effect. Accordingly, the Deemed University status was conferred on PEC vide notification dated 16.10.2003, which is taken on record as Mark E. 23. Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel for PEC-respondent No.3 has argued that the letter dated 14.9.2007 (R-3/1), issued by the Home Department of the Chandigarh Administration, asking every institution including respondent No.3 to waive off the domiciliary restriction of minimum stay and condition of passing 10th and 12th standard examination from U.T. Chandigarh, cannot be ignored and accordingly Admission Committee had incorporated the aforesaid condition by marking the quota for defence personnel with asterisk and clubbed the same. He has also pointed out that deferring of counselling has caused inconvenience to the defence personnel who have come from various parts of the country. He has also apprised the Court that the next counselling is now scheduled to be held on 17.8.2009 in respect of admissions to BE courses of the colleges of UT Administration. 24. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration on the rival contentions of the parties. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be necessary to refer to the conditions which were imposed and accepted at the time of conferring Deemed University status on PEC. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has imposed specific conditions, as is reflected in the letter dated 24.7.2003 (Mark B), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. It would be profitable to read those conditions:- "(a) The governance structure of the Institute should be similar to that of IITs. The Chairman of the Board of Governors should be an academician or an industrialist. (b) 50% of seats at UG level and 100% at PG level may be filled through a national level test. (c) The recruitment of faculty may be based on IIT pattern as has been done in NIT institutions. Also, the Institute should have a flexible cadre promotion system. (b) 50% of seats at UG level and 100% at PG level may be filled through a national level test. (c) The recruitment of faculty may be based on IIT pattern as has been done in NIT institutions. Also, the Institute should have a flexible cadre promotion system. (d) The first Director of the institute should be an eminent person preferably from the IIT system." 25. The aforesaid conditions were concurred in by the Chandigarh Administration in its letter dated 9.9.2003 (Mark C), addressed to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, New Delhi, as is evident from the following para:- "The Administration also concurs with the view that the governance structure of the Institute should be similar to that of IITs and the Chairman of the Board of Governors should be an academician or an industrialist of eminence. Regarding the filling up of 50% seats at UG level on All India basis through a National Level Test, Chandigarh Administration has already approved this. 100% seats at PG level are already being filled on All India basis. Recruitment of faculty and a flexible cadre promotion system would also be done on the IIT pattern as suggested by the UGC. The Administration also concurs with the view that the first Director of the Institute should be an eminent person preferably from the IIT system. The name of Punjab Engineering College may also be retained by the Institute as suggested by your Ministry." 26. If we view the table in the Information Brochure at page 22, which has already been reproduced in the paras 6 and 7 above, it answers the aforesaid condition except the part made distinct by the asterisk mark. The asterisk has been explained obviously with a reference to the letter dated 14.9.2007 in its reply by PEC-respondent No. 3 that it has waived off the domiciliary restriction of minimum stay in the State/UTs and condition of passing of 10th and 12th standard examination from the UT Chandigarh in respect of wards of serving defence personnel/ex-servicemen seeking admission in the institutions in UT Chandigarh. 27. 27. The aforesaid stand of PEC is further required to be viewed in the light of letter dated 15.7.2009 (P-2) where the Administration has taken categorical stand that the letter of the Administration dated 14.9.2007 has been misinterpreted in respect of the quota meant for defence personnel under UT Pool quota and All India quota by clubbing it together. The Administration has termed it as patently wrong and sought to rectify the mistake by emphasising that the reservation of seats under this category was required to be calculated separately for UT Pool Quota and All India Quota. However, the Administration relented by issuing another letter dated 20.7.2009 (R-4) by merely stating that in order to avoid legal complications separate quota of 50% would be followed from the next academic session i.e. 2010-11. 28. The question which arises for consideration is that once the Chandigarh Administration has committed itself to the condition of granting admission of 50% seats of Undergraduate level through a national level test for making PEC a Deemed University and it was accordingly incorporated by notification dated 16.10.2003 (Mark E) by conferring the aforesaid status then there cannot be any deviation from allotting 50% quota to the All India and 50% for the candidates belonging to the UT Pool quota. 29. Even otherwise the condition of 50% quota for those who have qualified 12th standard examination from UT Chandigarh, has been retained in respect of all other categories, as is evident from the table at page 22 of the Information Brochure. Those categories include (i) Scheduled Castes; (iii) Physical Handicapped; (iv) Children/Grand children of Freedom Fighters; (v) Sports persons; and (vi) open seats. The principle of classification of excluding one category from the benefit conferred on others without any rationale basis would be attracted. In order to succeed for giving hostile treatment to a category it must meet the twin tests i.e. (i) the classification is based on an intelligible differentia; and (ii) such intelligible differentia has a rationale basis for different treatment for the excluded category. In the open category as well as in the Scheduled Caste category the officers/officials of All India Services like Indian Revenue Service and Forest Service etc., who are working in the UT Chandigarh, are also transferable and could be posted outside Chandigarh anywhere in India. In the open category as well as in the Scheduled Caste category the officers/officials of All India Services like Indian Revenue Service and Forest Service etc., who are working in the UT Chandigarh, are also transferable and could be posted outside Chandigarh anywhere in India. The posting of officers/officials at All India level is a feature common to the military/paramilitary personnel who are also posted in any sector, which is the sole consideration indicated in the letter dated 12.6.2007 sent by the Defence Minister and the Chandigarh Administration in turn had issued letter dated 14.9.2007. Therefore, this itself may not constitute a sole basis for waiving off 50% quota. Moreover, the Information Brochure firstly delineated the All India quota of 50% in each category which has led to unnecessary confusion in the minds of the candidates. If there was no quota to be given then it should have been removed from the list of 50% quota which has been reflected in the table at page 22 of the Information Brochure. In any case, neither the Administration nor the PEC could avoid the reservation of 50% quota as stipulated in the correspondence between the UT Administration and Union of India. It was on that basis that notification dated 16.10.2003 (Mark E) was issued conferring the status of Deemed University on PEC. 30. Likewise in respect of CCET, the quota fixed for Chandigarh Pool is 85% and for All India it is 15%. Although there is no commitment as in the case of PEC, yet, the same argument regarding classification for hostile discrimination would apply, as has been applicable in the case of PEC. A perusal of Section: C at pages 26 and 27 of the Information Brochure would show the same anomaly. In respect of all other categories, reservation has been provided to the extent of 85% in respect of the UT Chandigarh quota and 15% in respect of All India quota. Even in respect of sons/daughters/spouses of military/paramilitary personnel the seats have been allocated in that ratio, yet, by similar asterisk (*) the distribution of quota amongst the candidates of UT Chandigarh and All India is sought to be done away with. Therefore, such a classification would not be sustainable and the same reasoning would apply, as has been noticed in preceding para in respect of PEC. 31. We also find merit in the argument advanced by Mr. Therefore, such a classification would not be sustainable and the same reasoning would apply, as has been noticed in preceding para in respect of PEC. 31. We also find merit in the argument advanced by Mr. Mattewal to the effect that the prospectus is not a scripture and the Administration would be fully competent to issue any order to rectify a patent mistake before the admissions are actually made. The aforesaid submission made by him is amply supported by the observations of Honble the Supreme Court in paras 10 and 11 of the judgment in the case of Rajiv Kapoor (supra), which reads as under:- "10. The High Court, in allowing the writ petition purported to follow an earlier judgment of the Full Bench of the very High Court reported in Amar Deep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993-2)104 P.L.R. 212. On carefully going through that judgment, we find that the Full Bench did not doubt the competency or authority of the Government to stipulated procedure for admission relating to courses in professional colleges, particularly in respect of reserved category of seats, but on the other hand, it specifically deprecated the decision to do away with the requirement of minimum marks criteria in respect of seats reserved for sports category and that too by passing orders after the examinations were held under a scheme notified in the Prospectus. As a matter of fact the Full Bench, ultimately directed, in that case, that selections for admission be finalised in the light of the criteria specified in the Government orders already in force and the Prospectus, after ignoring the offending notification introducing a change at a later stage. 11. So far as the cases before us are concerned, the High Court, not only held that the Government order dated 21.5.1997 issued after the declaration of the results of the entrance examination held pursuant to the Prospectus issued for 1997, could not be followed but went a step further to hold that except the Prospectus in question nothing else could be looked into and that the Government orders had the effect of varying the criteria laid in the Prospectus in the matter of selections to the seats reserved for HCMS candidates. We are unable to appreciate this reasoning. We are unable to appreciate this reasoning. The Government orders dated 21.5.1997 did not introduce, for the first time, either the constitution of a Selection Committee or evolving the system of interview for adjudging the merits of the candidates in accordance with the laid down criteria. It merely modified the pattern for allotment of marks under various heads from the total marks. Therefore, even if the modified criteria envisaged under the order dated 21.5.1997 is to be eschewed from consideration, the earlier orders and the criteria laid down therein and the manner of assessment of merit by the Selection Committee after interview, were still required to be complied with and they could not have been given a complete go-by, as has been done by the High Court." 32. It is, thus, evident that the Chandigarh Administration was fully competent to issue communication dated 15.7.2009 for rectification of patent mistake. We are further of the view that no indefeasible right has been conferred on any candidate to take admission as the admissions in the category of defence personnel is yet to be made. This principle is amply supported by the observations of Honble the Supreme Court in para 5 of the judgment in the case of P.K. Goyal (supra). The relevant extract of para 5 reads thus:- "5.......There is no question of claiming any right by the candidates on the ground of having appeared in the examination on the basis of the impugned brochure issued by the University, as no admissions in the present case have been made so far in any of the colleges. This writ petition had been filed prior to the declaration of the results and after hearing Counsel for the parties we had granted stay of admissions in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh for Post Graduate Courses......." 33. It is also equally well settled that no one can thrive on the mistake and it cannot constitute a basis for conferring any right. In that regard reliance has been rightly placed on para 23 of the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in S.R. Dhingras case (supra). It has been observed by their Lordships that "it is well settled that a mistake does j not confer any right to any party and can be corrected". 34. The argument of Mr. In that regard reliance has been rightly placed on para 23 of the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in S.R. Dhingras case (supra). It has been observed by their Lordships that "it is well settled that a mistake does j not confer any right to any party and can be corrected". 34. The argument of Mr. Anupam Gupta that the Administration was competent to issue letter dated 20.7.2009 (R-4) would not require any detailed consideration because it would result into re-introducing the patent mistake, which it has rectified by issuing letter dated 15.7.2009 (P-2). The issuance of letter dated 15.7.2009 makes interesting reading, which is as under:- " It has been brought to the notice of the Administration that by misinterpreting the contents of letter issued by the Chandigarh Administration vide No.l9/l/3-lH(3)- 2007/18322-23 dated 14.9.2007, the U.T. Pool quota and All India quota of seats reserved for Sons/daughters/spouses of Military/Para military Personnel has been clubbed together which was patently wrong. 2. The matter has been considered by the Administration and it is clarified that the reservation of seats under this category shall be calculated separately for U.T. Pool quota and All India quota. 3. Necessary action may be taken accordingly." 35. It is, thus, obvious that the Chandigarh Administration has clarified that the earlier letter issued by it on 14.9.2007 has been totally misinterpreted and the clubbing of two quotas was patently wrong. After considering the issue it has intimated to the Vice Chancellor, Panjab University, the Director of PEC and the Principal of CCET that the reservation of seats under the defence category have to be calculated separately for UT Pool quota and All India quota, which is obviously in line with the conditions imposed by the Ministry of Human Resource and Development Department in letter dated 24.7.2003 (Mark B), accepted by the Administration in its letter dated 9.9.2003 (Mark C). It was on the aforesaid basis that the PEC was granted the status of Deemed University. Therefore, we have no difficulty in rejecting the argument of Mr. Gupta. 36. The arguments advanced by Mr. R.S.Bains would also not require any detailed consideration, which follow the line of arguments advanced by Mr. Anupam Gupta. 37. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. Letter of the Chandigarh Administration, dated 20.7.2009 (R-4) is hereby quashed. Therefore, we have no difficulty in rejecting the argument of Mr. Gupta. 36. The arguments advanced by Mr. R.S.Bains would also not require any detailed consideration, which follow the line of arguments advanced by Mr. Anupam Gupta. 37. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. Letter of the Chandigarh Administration, dated 20.7.2009 (R-4) is hereby quashed. The incongruous portions of the Information Brochure incorporated by asterisk (*) underneath table at page 22 in Section: B as well as underneath the table at page 27 in Section: C, are declared incongruous to the letters dated 24.7.2003 and 9.9.2003 (Mark B and C) and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The aforesaid information is accordingly declared illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.. 38. The way is now paved for issuance of further directions to the Joint Admission Committee-respondent No.2 for holding of counselling and related matters. Accordingly, following directions are issued:- (a). The Joint Admission Committee-respondent No.2 shall hold counselling in respect of the Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Military/Paramilitary Personnel on 17.8.2009. All necessary steps including publication of information in that regard in the newspapers or though sending of e-mails/SMS etc. to the candidates be taken by them by 10.8.2009. It would leave with the candidates adequate time to make preparation to attend counselling on 17.8.2009; (b) The Joint Admission Committee shall also prepare separate merit list on the basis of 50% quota each for UT Pool quota and All India quota and display the same by 10.8.2009 on their notice board as well as on the website. It would be at liberty to use any other method of reaching out to the candidates of both the quotas; and (c) The Joint Admission Committee shall not consider/invite any new application(s) and the seats in each quota i.e. UT Pool quota and All India quota shall be filled up by keeping in view separate quota of 50% each for both the categories, as shown in the table in Section; B in respect of PEC at page 22 i.e. 10 seats each as well as in the table of Section: C in respect of CCET at page 27 i.e. 10 and 2 seats respectively. 39. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the order be given today itself to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. 39. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the order be given today itself to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. Petition disposed of.