JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner sought admission in Class I in A.M.U. Girls High School, Aligarh which is maintained by the Aligarh Muslim University. The petitioner’s name was found in the provisional list and her admission was subject to scrutiny of the Date of Birth Certificate and/or subject to clearance from the Medical Board for over age candidates. The petitioner’s admission was rejected by the Admission Committee on the ground that she was found to be over age. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the birth certificate was issued by the Department of Health, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh indicating that the date of birth of the petitioner was 24.8.2004. This birth certificate has been issued under Section 12/17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 8/13 of the Uttar Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2003. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the action of the Admission Committee, in rejecting the admission of the petitioner, was patently arbitrary and also illegal. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Aligarh Muslim University indicating that over age students are applying for admission in lower classes, which results in over powering the younger children, and therefore, the University has adopted a uniform policy by directing those candidates to appear before the Medical Board, who, in their opinion, appear to be over age and admit only those candidates who are certified by the Medical Board. 4. In the present case, the learned counsel for the respondent University contended that the petitioner was sent to the Medical Board, where the petitioner was examined and was found medically “unfit” for admission in Class I on the ground that her height was 134 cms. and that her weight was 29 Kgs. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent University also invited the attention of the Court to Annexure CA-3, which is a list of candidates provisionally selected for admission in Class I and the guidelines indicating that the provisional offer of admission was subject to the following conditions : (a) Fulfilment of eligibility requirement of the candidates. (b) Scrutiny of Date of Birth Certificate (Birth Certificates from Municipality would be acceptable). (c) Subject to clearance from Medical Board (for over age) (d) Date of Admission would not be extended. 6. (b) Scrutiny of Date of Birth Certificate (Birth Certificates from Municipality would be acceptable). (c) Subject to clearance from Medical Board (for over age) (d) Date of Admission would not be extended. 6. Having heard, the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the guidelines relating to admission and the Certificate granted by the Medical Board and upon a perusal of paragraph 7, 8 and 12 of the counter affidavit, the Court finds that admission in Class I is for students who are between the age of 5 to 7 years. The provisional list of admission, Annexure CA-3 provides that the offer of the admission is subject to the scrutiny of the Date of Birth Certificate and that the birth certificate from the Municipality was acceptable to the authorities. The guidelines further provides that the admission would be subject to clearance from the Medical Board for over age candidates. A harmonious reading of the guidelines would indicate that a birth certificate given by the Municipality would be accepted by the admission committee subject to scrutiny, namely, that the Admission Committee may get the birth certificate scrutinised in order to find out whether the birth certificate issued is a genuine or a forged document. Further, the admission committee may refer a candidate to the Medical Board, where it finds that the candidate appears to be over age. The question which arises for consideration is, whether the admission committee could refer a candidate to a Medical Board when the said candidate produces a birth certificate issued from a Municipality under the Registration of Death and Births Act, 1969. 7. In my opinion, neither the Admission Committee nor the University can do so. Once a birth certificate is issued from the appropriate authority under the Registration of Deaths and Births Act, 1969, the same is to be accepted by the Admission Committee/University unless the authorities scrutinise the said document and finds out that the said document was a forged one, in which case, the authorities would be justified in refusing to grant admission but, in the event, the certificate is found to be genuine, then the University Authorities are bound to accept the date of birth recorded in that document. Neither the Admission Committee nor the University could direct the said candidate to appear before the Medical Board in spite of having a birth certificate issued by an appropriate authority. Neither the Admission Committee nor the University could direct the said candidate to appear before the Medical Board in spite of having a birth certificate issued by an appropriate authority. Consequently, the Admission Committee committed an error in directing the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board. 8. Even otherwise, the Court finds that the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board only certifies that the petitioner was found unfit for admission in class I. It does not give any reason as to why the petitioner was found to be medically unfit. The rules relating to admission, requires that a candidate should be between 5 to 7 years of age. The Medical Board does not indicate that the petitioner was not between the age of 5 to 7 years. Even otherwise, the Court is of the opinion that the age of a candidate could not be find out on the basis of the height and the weight of a person. There has to be a better scientific method to determine the age. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents University submitted that all the 45 seats in Class I has been filled up, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be admitted. 10. In my opinion, this plea cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the petitioner. The petitioner has approached the Court at the earliest opportune moment. The petitioner was to appear before the admission committee on 8.7.2008. She was referred to the Medical Board and subsequently refused admission. This petition was filed on 21.7.2009. There has been no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court. Further, the admission process is still going on and the last date for admission is 13.8.2009. In the circumstances of the case, if all the seats have been filled up, one additional seat shall be created by the University for admission of the petitioner since the Court finds that the fault was of the University in denying the admission to the petitioner. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the Admission Committee committed a manifest error in denying admission to the petitioner. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the Admission Committee committed a manifest error in denying admission to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondent University to admit the petitioner in Class I, Urdu Medium in AMU Girls High School, Aligarh within a week from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order. It is made clear that this order will not be treated as a precedent for other cases. 12. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost. ————