JUDGMENT By the Court.—Respondent No. 2-appellant, Uttar Pradesh Technical University, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50038 of 2007, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner’) appeared in the State Entrance Examination-2007 conducted by the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) for admission in various streams including B. Tech. & B. Tech. (Ag.) streams. Having secured requisite marks, he was called for counselling and in the counselling, the streams which he offered, were Electronics & Communication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. Choices offered by the writ petitioner were accepted and he was offered admission in Electronics and Communication Engineering. However, he was not admitted to the said stream on the ground that he was not eligible for admission in the said stream. Writ petitioner, then, requested for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.), but when nothing was done, he filed Writ Petition No. 43201 of 2007 before this Court. This Court by order dated 10th September, 2007 disposed off the writ petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file a representation before the University and consequential direction to the University to look into his grievance and take appropriate decision. In the light of the aforesaid order, the representation of the writ petitioner was considered by order dated 19th September, 2007 and the same was rejected on the ground that he had not given his option for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.), as such he was not entitled to be admitted to the said stream. Writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid order, which has given rise to the impugned order. The learned Judge by the impugned order, has directed for admission of the writ petitioner against any existing vacancy of 2007-2008 Batch for B. Tech. (Ag.). While doing so, the learned Judge observed that the University ought to have informed the writ petitioner with regard to his entitlement for B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge in this regard reads as follows : “Undoubtedly, the petitioner was entitled for admission to B. Tech. (Agri.). Accordingly, in case the petitioner’s entitlement for B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge in this regard reads as follows : “Undoubtedly, the petitioner was entitled for admission to B. Tech. (Agri.). Accordingly, in case the petitioner’s entitlement for B. Tech. (Electronics and Communication Engineering) was refused, then the respondents should have informed him with regard to his entitlement for B. Tech. (Agri.) course. The candidates having lower merit, have been given admission in B. Tech. (Agri.) course, but the petitioner was not informed with regard to his entitlement for B. Tech. (Agri.) course during course of counselling. In view of the above, keeping in view the plight of the petitioner, it shall be appropriate that the respondents should consider the petitioner’s case for admission against existing vacancy of 2007-2008 batch forthwith or he should be adjusted along with the next batch for B. Tech. (Agri.).” 3. Mr. Neeraj Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the stream to a candidate is allocated on the basis of choice given by him and it is not the obligation of the University to inform each of the candidates as to which stream he should offer. He points out that the information of options pertaining to the choice of stream is put on the website of the University, and a candidate is required to log on to the website and make his options accordingly. 4. Mr. Pradeep Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, however, submits that the writ petitioner belongs to a poor class and under some confusion, he gave choices of Electronics & Communication Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering and it was obligatory on the part of the University to inform him that he was eligible for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. In support of the submission, Mr. Upadhyay placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others, AIR 2004 SC 5043 , and our attention has been drawn to the following passage of paragraph 8 of the said judgment, wherein placing reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria and others v. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 , the Supreme Court observed as follows : “24. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 , the Supreme Court observed as follows : “24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanizes the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and harassment in administration flows from over-emphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the Government and the selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark-lists from universities, why, even bail orders from Courts and Government orders from public offices.......” 5. Mr. Upadhyay further submits that persons securing less marks have been given admission whereas the writ petitioner has been left out and the said action is absolutely discriminatory and in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dev Pal Singh v. Meerut University, Meerut and others, 1988(1) UPLBEC 268 and our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment, which read as follows : “3. It is, therefore, established that insofar as the marks at the B. Sc. Agriculture were concerned the petitioner had undoubtedly much higher marks than Rajendra Singh. According to the rules for admission a true copy whereof has been annexed to the petition, the marks obtained at the B. Sc. Agriculture examination alone were relevant for admission to the M. Sc. Agriculture course. There is nothing in the rules which might have authorised the Admission Committee or even the University to admit students to M. Sc. Agriculture course on the basis of Diploma held by Rajendra Singh. However, owing to the facts disclosed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit, he was granted admission as a special case. The fact remains that judge strictly on the basis of the norms statutorily prescribed under the U.P. State Universities Act the petitioner had undoubtedly a better claim for admission than Rajendra Singh. However, owing to the facts disclosed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit, he was granted admission as a special case. The fact remains that judge strictly on the basis of the norms statutorily prescribed under the U.P. State Universities Act the petitioner had undoubtedly a better claim for admission than Rajendra Singh. That being so, the petitioner has clearly been discriminated against. No valid ground has been disclosed by the respondents why and how Rajendra Singh was given a preferential treatment. It is indisputable that the admissions to these courses are to be granted strictly in accordance with the norms prescribed under Section 28. If, therefore, for Rajendra Singh an extra seat was provided by the respondents to accommodate him, we see no reason why a similar treatment cannot be meted out to the petitioner as well. 4. The question is what relief should be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as the session for which he had applied for admission, viz., 1986-87, is already over. As in our opinion the petitioner has made out a clear case for admission and was wrongly refused the same he should not be left without any remedy and relief. We think that the interest of justice will be best served if the petitioner is permitted to be admitted in the M. Sc. Agriculture (Agronomy) Part I for the Session 1987-88, which has already commenced.” 6. Having appreciated the rival submissions, we find substance in the submission of Mr. Tiwari. The writ petitioner, with his eyes wide open, had given his choices of streams, in which he wanted to take admission. According to his choice, he sought admission either in Electronics & Communication Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. In fact, his choice was accepted and he was offered admission in the first stream, which he had opted, but not being possessed of the basic qualification for admission to the said stream, he was denied admission. In fact, this aspect has not even been questioned in the writ petition. When the writ petitioner himself had offered two streams, referred to above, in our opinion, it was not the obligation of the University thereafter to apprise the writ petitioner that he was eligible to be admitted in B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. The prospectus published by the University in relation to the State Entrance Examination-2007, casts obligation on the candidate to exercise their option. (Ag.) stream. The prospectus published by the University in relation to the State Entrance Examination-2007, casts obligation on the candidate to exercise their option. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge erred in holding that the writ petitioner, being not informed with regard to his entitlement for B. Tech. (Ag.) stream, direction is fit to be granted for such admission. 7. As regards submission of Mr. Upadhyay that it was an innocent mistake on the part of the writ petitioner and, hence, direction by the learned Judge for his admission cannot be faulted placing reliance on the judgment in Dolly Chhanda (supra), is absolutely misconceived. In the said case, the question before the Supreme Court was as to whether every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof would lead to rejection of candidature, and in the background and facts of the said case, it was held that it would not be so. However, in the present case, the writ petitioner was required to indicate the choice of the stream and he, having not opted for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.), no direction for his admission in the said stream could have been granted. 8. As regards the grievance of discrimination and reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dev Pal Singh (supra) by Mr. Upadhyay, the same are also untenable. Here, it is not the case that the writ petitioner was denied admission although he had secured higher marks than those admitted having lesser merit, but he was not granted admission on the ground that he had not given his choice for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. Therefore, his plea of discrimination is absolutely misconceived. 9. We are of the opinion that the learned Judge erred in directing for admission of the writ petitioner in 2007-2008 batch or for adjustment in the next batch of B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50038 of 2007 is set aside but without any order as to costs. ————