Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 issued a Prospectus for admissions to degree course of B. Tech (Dairy Technology) for the Session 2009-10. Admissions were to be made on the basis of Common Entrance Test. The minimum qualification for common entrance test as prescribed in the Prospectus is 10+2 or its equivalent with subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and English from a recognised Board/University with at least 50% marks for General Category and 40% marks for Reserved Categories. The petitioner who possesses 10+2 qualification having more than 50% marks applied for Common Entrance Test in General Category. He was found eligible and issued Roll No. 2003 for appearing in the Common Entrance Test which was notified to be held on 19.6.2009. However, the test was postponed to 23.6.2009. The petitioner Participated in the Entrance Test and his rank was 51. As many as 23 seats were notified for admission to the Degree Course Bachelor of Technology (Dairy Technology). The first counselling was held on 1.7.2009 the second on 11.8.2009 and the third on 1.9.2009. It is alleged that the petitioner appeared for first counselling, but his name was below in the merit of the candidates appearing for first counselling and thus his presence was not marked even though he remained present for first counselling. The petitioner appeared for 2nd counselling again. His merit was lower then the candidates, but his presence was marked in the register maintained for the purpose. The petitioner again appeared in the third counselling. It is stated that out of 23 notified seats, 22 seats were filled up in the first two counsellings and only one seat remained unfilled. In the meanwhile, eight more seats were added to the Course. Third counselling was held for nine seats. Out of nine seats, only five seats were filled up. Three seats were kept unfilled. The petitioner was denied admission on the ground that he did not attend the first counselling held on 1.7.2009. The petitioner has placed on record specific affidavit (Annexure P-2) stating therein that he attended the first counselling conducted on 1.7.2009, but his candidature was not considered on account of his lesser merit. However, his presence was not marked by the staff of respondent No. 2 - University being lower in merit. 2. The petitioner has placed on record specific affidavit (Annexure P-2) stating therein that he attended the first counselling conducted on 1.7.2009, but his candidature was not considered on account of his lesser merit. However, his presence was not marked by the staff of respondent No. 2 - University being lower in merit. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that three seats are still lying vacant and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for admission against available vacancies. 3. The respondent-University in the reply has stated that there were only 20 seats in Open quota and three seats were meant for Indian Council of Agriculture Research (hereinafter referred to as I.C.A.R.). The I.C.A.R. nominees did not join. Thus three seats meant for ICAR and 5 additional seats which were added to the intake capacity and one unfilled seats out of 20 were to be filled up in third counselling. Thus, it is admitted that as many as nine seats were available at the time of third counselling. The respondents denied the appearance of the petitioner in the first counselling as also in the second counselling. Though it is admitted that during the second counselling. Though it is admitted that during the second counselling, the petitioner entered his name in the register kept there. It is stated that candidates from Sr. Nos. 1 to 57 came for first counselling, but the petitioner being at Sr. No. 51 did not mark his presence. The first counselling was held on 1.7.2009. Petitioners presence has been duly marked in the attendance sheet for the second counselling held on 11.8.2009, though his presence is disputed by the respondents. In any case, the participation position of the petitioner in the third counselling is not in dispute. Respondents have relied upon Condition No. 7 of the prospectus to deny consideration to the petitioner. Condition No. 7 reads as under :- "7. Procedure for Selection for admission : (a) Undergraduate Programmes A Consolidated merit list of all candidates based on the score/marks obtained in the entrance test shall be prepared. Merit list of candidates eligible to appear in the first counselling will be displayed on the notice board of Registers Office and same can be seen on the university website (WWW. gadvasu.in). The candidates who appear in the first counselling but are not selected are eligible to appear in the subsequent counselling. Merit list of candidates eligible to appear in the first counselling will be displayed on the notice board of Registers Office and same can be seen on the university website (WWW. gadvasu.in). The candidates who appear in the first counselling but are not selected are eligible to appear in the subsequent counselling. However, the candidates absent in the first counselling will not be eligible to appear in the subsequent counselling. The relative merit of the candidates shall be determined only on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test except for sports persons. The admission of sports persons who qualify the entrance test shall be governed by criteria Annexures A to D". 4. It is provided in the aforesaid condition that the candidate absent in the first counselling will not be eligible to appear in the subsequent counselling. However, the aforesaid clause provides for admission on the basis of relative merit of the candidate and the marks obtained in the entrance test, except for sports persons. The dispute that narrows down is whether the petitioner was absent in first counselling and whether mere absence per se is sufficient to deny the admission and participation in the subsequent counselling. 5. Every condition in the Prospectus has to be meaningful and purposeful. Regarding participation of the petitioner in the first counselling, there is a dispute on fact. The petitioner claims that he was present for the counselling, but on account of his lower merit, his candidature was not considered nor his presence was marked. Specific affidavit has been filed in this regard. The respondents, however, denied the very presence of the petitioner during the first counselling. The respondents even denied the presence of the petitioner in the second counselling. However, the attendance-sheet maintained by the respondents reflect the name of the petitioner during the second counselling. It is also admitted position that the petitioner could not have been admitted in the second counselling being lower in merit. His participation in third counselling is admitted position. There is no dispute that Condition No. 7 of the Prospectus lays down that a candidate who is absent up first counselling will be permitted to participate in second and subsequent counselling. This condition is purposeful where admission is made to multi-discipline course in more than one institutions. His participation in third counselling is admitted position. There is no dispute that Condition No. 7 of the Prospectus lays down that a candidate who is absent up first counselling will be permitted to participate in second and subsequent counselling. This condition is purposeful where admission is made to multi-discipline course in more than one institutions. However, one fails to understand the logic, the object and purpose of similar condition for admission to a single discipline course in one institution alone. In a multi-discipline course in various colleges/institutions, if a meritorious candidate fails to participate in the first counselling and opts to participate in subsequent counselling and in the meanwhile, a candidate with lesser merit is already admitted to a course and institution which may be opted by a candidate with higher merit, who did not participate in the first counselling, it is bound to disturb the sequence of events and will have the impact on the admissions already made which may have to be reframed and may require the de novo exercise. But such a condition is totally illogical, irrelevant and unnecessary where admission is to a single discipline and a single institution like the present one. Assuming a candidate with lower merit has been considered and admitted in the first counselling as against a candidate with higher merit, who did not participate in the counselling and if a candidate with higher merit appears in the second counselling and is considered for admission and the vacancies are available in the discipline and the institution, it is not going to disturb the sequence of events nor does it affect, the right of any candidate or the allocation of discipline/institution in any manner. Invoking such a condition which has no purpose or object to be achieved to deny admission to a meritorious candidate is itself violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and such a condition is arbitrary in nature. No doubt the petitioner has not specifically challenged the conditions of the Prospectus, but has definitely challenged the action of the respondents as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Under such a situation the condition has to be read down if it is unnecessary, superfluous and dose not serve and purpose. 6. The prospectus framed by the University or by any Body has no statutory backing. Even then, the conditions are normally binding. Under such a situation the condition has to be read down if it is unnecessary, superfluous and dose not serve and purpose. 6. The prospectus framed by the University or by any Body has no statutory backing. Even then, the conditions are normally binding. However, it is the constitution obligation of the court to examine each and every condition and its true object, purport and applicability. Absurdity has to be ignored. This is true about the statutes also. What to say of a non-statutory condition. Condition No. 7 to the extent it mandates that the candidate absenting in first counselling shall not be eligible to appear in second and subsequent has absolutely no relevance an objectivity for the Course in question. In view of the observations made here-in-above, this condition is to be read down. There is another reason to declare the petitioner as eligible. The petitioner was present during the second counselling which fact thought disputed in the reply, but is established from the record. His participation in the third counselling is an admitted fact. If the petitioner was ineligible, he should not have been permitted in third counselling at least, but he has been permitted to participate in third counselling and was even considered, but he has been permitted to participate in third counselling and was even considered, but denied admission only on be ground that he did not participate in first counselling. Denial of admission is not on merit but on irrelevant consideration not germane to the merit of the petitioner. Thus, I declare the petitioner to be eligible notwithstanding his absence form the first counselling. Availability of three vacancies has been admitted in the reply. However, it is stated that these vacancies belong to the I.C.A.R. In view of the reply of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents was asked to seek instruction regarding filling of the three available vacancies and consideration of the petitioner on the basis of his merit, vide order dated 20.10.2009. Thereafter, Mr. Gill reported that the available vacancies are to be filled up by I.C.A.E. and not by the University. He was asked to file an affidavit in this regard. In response to the direction of Court, an affidavit has been filed. The relevant extract of the affidavit reads as under :- "3. Thereafter, Mr. Gill reported that the available vacancies are to be filled up by I.C.A.E. and not by the University. He was asked to file an affidavit in this regard. In response to the direction of Court, an affidavit has been filed. The relevant extract of the affidavit reads as under :- "3. That the three reserved seats for Indian Council of Agricultural Research quota could not be filled as the candidates admitted in the said quota did not join the course. 4. Unfilled seats of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research quota shall be offered to the candidates competing on open merit basis". 7. This affidavit has made clear that three reserved vacancies to be allegedly filled up by Indian Council of Agricultural Research could not be filled as the candidates admitted against the said quota did not join the course. The affidavit further says that the unfilled seats of I.C.A.R. quota shall be offered to the candidates competing on open merit basis. The petitioner is candidate in the open merit category. The petitioner is candidate in the open merit category. He has a right of consideration against the available three seats on the basis of his merit. In view of the clear averments made in the affidavit the respondents have no option, but to accord consideration to the petitioner for admission to the course on the basis of his merit and the three available vacancies. As a matter of fact, the petitioners candidature has already been considered in the third counselling, but he has been denied admission only on alleged only totally extraneous and irrelevant plea of his non-participation in the first counselling which condition of the Prospectus has already been examined here-in-above and found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners merit is not disputed. However, with a view to provide a fair opportunity to the respondents, it is directed that the petitioner shall be considered for admission against the available three vacancies within a period of one week from today and if there is no meritorious candidate than him or he has sufficient merit for admission against the available three vacancies, he shall be admitted to the course. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of.