Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. The petitioner is a graduate from the Kurukshetra University. He is serving with City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, Ambala Cantt., a private concern. He applied for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) pursuant to the Prospectus issued by respondent No. 1-University for the Session 2007-08. His application was accepted and he was issued Admit Card with Roll No. 300198 for appearance in the Entrance Test scheduled to be held on 15.07.2007 (Annexure P-5). He appeared in the Entrance Test and was placed at Rank No.48 out of 300 candidates. He reported for counselling held on 03.08.2007. During the course of counselling on scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner, his candidature was rejected on the ground that the Certificate of Employment has been issued by a private company which is not an autonomous organisation. It is alleged that the petitioner again approached respondent No.3. However, he was informed that autonomous organisation in the University prospectus refers to only Government Organisation and not private autonomous companies like the one where the petitioner is serving. The grievance of the petitioner is that a number of candidates with lessor merit and below in rank in the Entrance Test have been admitted for in the course in question ignoring the right and claim of the petitioner. The petitioner served a legal notice dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-7) which was followed by other communications. It is stated that legal notice and the subsequent communications made by the petitioner through his counsel remained unattended as no response was received by him. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this petition seeking a direction for quashing the eligibility criteria of the Prospectus for the year 2007-08 provided for reservation to Government/Recognised Educational Institution Employees for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) being violative of Articles 14 and 15(4) read with Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India with a further writ of mandamus for a direction to respondents to admit the petitioner to the course in question. 2. The petition is being resisted by the University on the grounds of delay and laches, the same having been filed after a period of two years of denial of admission and on the grounds of petitioners ineligibility under the conditions of Prospectus. 3. 2. The petition is being resisted by the University on the grounds of delay and laches, the same having been filed after a period of two years of denial of admission and on the grounds of petitioners ineligibility under the conditions of Prospectus. 3. The Prospectus issued by the University during the Session 2007-08, prescribes the eligibility for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening), the same is quoted hereunder :- "III. ELIGIBILITY. A. LL.B. (PROFESSIONAL) 3-YEAR DEGREE COURSE MORNING/EVENING. Bachelors Degree or Masters Degree (2- Year Course) Examination of the Kurukshetra University or any Examination recognized as equivalent thereto, with at least 45% marks in the aggregate (40%) for SC/ST candidates) (One Year Degree/Diploma Courses like, D.P.Ed., M.Ed., B.Ed., B. Lib. Sc. etc. shall not be considered as equivalent to Bachelors Degree). The candidates seeking admission to the Evening shift are required to submit an Employment Certificate of minimum two years regular service experience and of being bona fide and whole time regular employees of Government/Semi-Government/Autonomous Organizations/Recognized Educational Institutions as per the Specimen of Employment Certificate attached. The following note was also given in the prospectus : Note : The course in the Evening Shift in University Campus will be confined to the bona fide and whole time regular employees of Government/Semi-Government/Autonomous Organizations/Recognized Educational Institutions whose place of Employment should be within 70 kms. from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and with minimum two years regular service." 4. The eligibility, thus, prescribed in the Prospectus is Bachelor or Masters Degree from Kurukshetra University or any other recognised Institution with at least 45% marks in aggregate for the general candidates and 40% for SC/ST candidates. For admission to Evening Course, a further condition was imposed that the candidate is required to submit an employment certificate of minimum two years regular service being a bona fide and whole time regular employee of Government/Semi Government/Autonomous Organisation/Recognised Educational Institution. The note appended to the aforesaid clause further clarifies that the admission to the course during the Evening Shift shall be open to whole time regular employees of the organisations mentioned hereinabove for such an employee whose place of employment is within 70 kms. from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. 5. The note appended to the aforesaid clause further clarifies that the admission to the course during the Evening Shift shall be open to whole time regular employees of the organisations mentioned hereinabove for such an employee whose place of employment is within 70 kms. from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. 5. The petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents, primarily, on two counts : (i) that the Autonomous Organisation contemplated by the Prospectus, inter-alia, include even a private company/organisation and (ii) that even if the private organisation is not included in the expression Autonomous Organisation, the condition of the Prospectus is discriminatory in nature and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 15(4) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that confinement of admission to the evening course to the employees of the Government/Semi Government/Government Controlled Organisation amounts to 100% reservation for them which is totally illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. 6. In so far the question of admission to the employees of only Government/Semi Government/Government Controlled Organisations is concerned, the issue has been set at rest by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Sibal v. Panjab University and another, AIR 1989 SC 903. The petitioner in the said case, was an employee of Agro Chemical Punjab Limited. While being an employee of the said corporation, he applied for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) during the academic Session 1988-89. The Prospectus for admission issued by the University contained the following stipulation :- "Admission to evening classes is open only to regular employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions/affiliated colleges/Statutory Corporations and Government Companies. A candidate applying for admission to the evening classes should attach No Objection/Permission letter from his present employer with his application for admission." 7. On the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, the petitioner therein was denied admission on the ground that he was an employee of the Public Limited Company and thus, ineligible for admission to the evening course which is open only to the Government/ Semi Government/Government Controlled Organisations. Civil Writ Petition filed by Deepak Sibal and another before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dismissed. In appeal preferred before the Honble Supreme Court, the question of validity of such a stipulation was examined wherein it has been held as under :- "14. Civil Writ Petition filed by Deepak Sibal and another before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dismissed. In appeal preferred before the Honble Supreme Court, the question of validity of such a stipulation was examined wherein it has been held as under :- "14. It is difficult to accept the contention that the Government employees or the employees of Semi-Government and other institutions, as mentioned in the impugned rule, stand on a different footing from the employees of private concerns, in so far as the question of admission to evening classes is concerned. It is true that the service conditions of employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. are different and they may have greater security of service, but that hardly matters for the purpose of admission in the evening classes. The test is whether the employees of private establishments are equally in a disadvantageous position like the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. in attending morning classes. There can be no doubt and it is not disputed that both of them stand on an equal footing and there is no difference between these two classes of employees in that regard. To exclude the employees of private establishment will not, therefore, satisfy the test of ineligible differentia that distinguishes the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. grouped together from the employees of private establishments. It is true that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, in that case the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one. 20. In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view Art. 14 of the Constitution, the Court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. In the instant case, the foregoing discussion reveals that the classification of the employees of Government/ Semi-Government institutions etc. by the impugned rule for the purpose of admission in the evening classes of Three Year LL.B. Degree Course to the exclusion of all other employees is unreasonable and unjust, as it does not subserve any fair and logical objective. ........." 8. by the impugned rule for the purpose of admission in the evening classes of Three Year LL.B. Degree Course to the exclusion of all other employees is unreasonable and unjust, as it does not subserve any fair and logical objective. ........." 8. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the condition imposed by the respondents and interpretation sought to be placed regarding the Prospectus, cannot be accepted. The action of the respondents in denying the admission to the petitioner is totally unwarranted and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. It appears that realising the aforesaid legal position, the University itself has amended its Prospectus in the subsequent years. Mr. Virk has placed on record Prospectus for the years 2008-09 wherein though the eligibility clause remained unchanged, however, the Certificate of Employment require to be furnished by a candidate who is employed and seeks admission during the evening course has been prescribed as Annexure -VIII to the Prospectus. In the said Certificate the employees of the Private and created or registered or incorporated bodies are also made eligible. The relevant condition in the Certificate of Employment, thus, reads as under :- " .........is a bona fide and whole time regular employee of _______________(Name and Place of Institution) which is Government/ Semi- Government/Autonomous Organization may be Government or Public or Private and created or registered or recognized or incorporated or controlled under same statute/Recognized Educational Institution." 10. The aforesaid position has been continued for the subsequent session 2009-10. 11. In view of the above position, the petitioner is declared to be eligible for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening). 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be directed to be admitted in the course in question. He was illegally and wrongly denied admission during the Session 2007-08. Denial of admission to the petitioner during Session 2007-08 is totally unjustified . 13. Two years have passed. The Session is likely to be completed. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be granted admission with said batch. In so far admission in the current session is concerned, the course has already commenced. 14. Mr. Virk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University was asked to seek instructions regarding admission to the petitioner in the current session. The Session is likely to be completed. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be granted admission with said batch. In so far admission in the current session is concerned, the course has already commenced. 14. Mr. Virk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University was asked to seek instructions regarding admission to the petitioner in the current session. In response to the aforesaid direction issued vide order dated 21.10.2009, affidavit of Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, has been filed. It has been stated in the affidavit that all the seats have been filled up and there is no vacant seat. Apart from that, it is stated that classes commenced on 03.07.2009 and the First Semester Examination is going to be held in the month of December, 2009. 15. In Deepak Sibals case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court had directed the admission of the petitioner therein and the seat which was to be allocated to them was directed to be in addition to the normal intake capacity. Applying the same principle, I direct that the petitioner be admitted to the current academic session of the course in question forthwith and the seat shall be deemed to be an additional seat and over and above the intake capacity of the University for which the University shall make appropriate recommendation to the Bar Council. However, this additional seat shall be only during the current academic session for the purpose of adjustment of the petitioner. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.