JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Anwar Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel for the University. 2. The petitioner applied for admission in Bachelor of Science (Honours) in the Women’s College of the Aligarh Muslim University for the Academic Session 2009-10. The petitioner submitted the application form and upon the declaration of the result of the qualifying examination, the petitioner filed an Internet mark sheet of the qualifying examination, which was duly received by the office of the University on 4.6.2009. Under the guidelines issued by the University, the last date for the submission of a duly attested photo copy of the mark sheet was 11.7.2009. The merit list/select list and Chance Memo list is prepared thereafter. It transpires that the petitioner’s name was not found in the merit list or the Chance Memo list and, upon an inquiry, the petitioner came to know that her application form was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had filed an Internet mark sheet instead of filing a photostat copy of the original mark sheet. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents University, has filed the present writ petition, praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioner in the course of Bachelor of Science (Honours) for the academic session 2009-10. 3. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit and, as per the direction of the Court, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on the record. The bone of contention is, that under the admission guidelines, the petitioner was required to submit an attested photo copy of the original mark sheet and that the mark sheet obtained from the Internet was not permissible. Consequently, the application form of the petitioner, being incomplete, was rightly rejected by the authorities. 4. Annexure CA-3 is an extract of the guidelines for admission in a “Non Test Course” which provides that in the event the final result of the qualifying examination has not been declared at the time of filing of the application form, the candidate was required to submit a “photostat copy of mark sheet”. The application form also provides that the mark sheet may be self attested. Under Clause 7(k) of the said guidelines the criteria for admission in B.Sc. The application form also provides that the mark sheet may be self attested. Under Clause 7(k) of the said guidelines the criteria for admission in B.Sc. (Honours) is based on the merit of the candidate, prepared on the basis of marks obtained in English and three subjects other than the vocational subjects, offered in various Faculties of the University. The guidelines further provides that external candidates would be admitted to the extent of at least 30% of the approved intake on merit which would be determined on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination upon the declaration of the select list. Upon the declaration of the selected list, the candidate is required to appear before the Verifying Officer, on the date of admission, for verification of the mark sheet, on which date, the original mark sheet and other certificates, documents, etc. are required to be produced, failing which, the offer of admission to the candidate would be cancelled by the University. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear, that in the application form, the candidate was only required to submit attested photo copies of the mark sheet. Normally, photo copies of the original certificates are filed, but, with the advancement of the technology, marks of a candidate are displayed on the Internet by various educational institutions, which marks are downloaded and are filed along with the application forms. This Court had directed the University to file an affidavit as to whether the University was accepting the Internet mark sheet in the previous academic session and a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the University, in fact, was accepting the Internet mark sheet which was subject to verification at the time of the admission by the production of the original mark sheet. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it was further brought to the notice of the Court that a meeting of the Deans of Faculties of Arts, Social Science, etc. was held on 3.7.2009 and the following decisions was taken, namely : “1. The mark sheets downloaded through INTERNET shall not be considered for the purpose of admission in the University. This information will be uploaded on the INTERNET and will also be given to the press, through PRO Officer, for general information of the candidates.” 6. was held on 3.7.2009 and the following decisions was taken, namely : “1. The mark sheets downloaded through INTERNET shall not be considered for the purpose of admission in the University. This information will be uploaded on the INTERNET and will also be given to the press, through PRO Officer, for general information of the candidates.” 6. It was also stated that pursuant to the said decision, a news item was published in various local dailies and since the last date for the submission of the mark sheet of the qualifying examination was 11.7.2009, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to file a photostat copy of the original mark sheet which she did not do so and, consequently, the University was obliged to reject the application form on the ground that the application form was incomplete. 7. In my opinion, from a perusal of the records which has been placed in the writ petition and the affidavits filed by the opposite parties, it is clear that the authorities has arbitrarily rejected the application form of the petitioner, on the ground that the Internet mark sheet of the qualifying examination was filed by the petitioner. From a perusal of the guidelines framed by the University for admission to the said course and even as per the decision taken by the Deans of Faculties of Arts and Social Science on 3.7.2009, there is nothing to indicate that the mark sheet downloaded from the Internet would not be accepted along with the admission form. The resolution of 3.7.2009 is only for the purpose of admission of the candidate in the University which comes into play after the select list has been prepared and admission is offered to a candidate. It is at that stage, that the University or its authorities, could refuse to give admission to the candidate, if the candidate does not produce the original mark sheet and only places the Internet mark sheet. 8. Further, the Court finds that the Internet mark sheet was being accepted by the University in the previous academic session. The candidates are not well versed in the admission procedure and unless clear instructions are issued in the application form or in the guidelines, it is not expected from the candidate to imagine that Internet mark sheet are not permissible when, in previous years, the same was accepted by the University. The candidates are not well versed in the admission procedure and unless clear instructions are issued in the application form or in the guidelines, it is not expected from the candidate to imagine that Internet mark sheet are not permissible when, in previous years, the same was accepted by the University. If the University does not want the candidates to file an Internet mark sheet, the University must make it clear in its application forms as well as in the admission guidelines prohibiting the filing of the Internet mark sheets. Further, the decision taken by the Faculties of Arts and Social Science, on 3.7.2009, has been published in the newspaper as a news report. The University ought to have published a separate advertisement in the leading news papers. 9. The learned counsel for the University has made a feeble attempt that the University, in any case, cannot grant admission because the admission process has come to an end and that no seats are available. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it has been stated that out of 155 seats, 154 seats have already been filled up and that one candidate in the sports quota has been offered admission, for which, the last date is 5.9.2009. 10. Be that as it may. Since the University has wrongly rejected the application form of the petitioner and the admission process is still going on since the 155th candidate is yet to be admitted on or before 5.9.2009 and even otherwise, the session has just begun and further, the petitioner has approached the Court immediately and there had been no delay on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the Court is inclined to issue a writ of mandamus. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion, that the University committed an error in rejecting the petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner had filed an Internet mark sheet. The University should have accept the application which was subject to verification at the time of admission, if the petitioner was selected on the strength of her marks. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The University should have accept the application which was subject to verification at the time of admission, if the petitioner was selected on the strength of her marks. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the University to consider the application of the petitioner for admission in a course of Bachelor of Science (Honours) for the academic session 2009-10 within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order and in the event the University finds that the petitioner, on the basis of her marks, is eligible for admission, which is more than the last candidate admitted in the course, the University will admit the petitioner. ————