ORDER 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 27th April, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, we are disposing of the same by this common order. 2. As per the appellant he was a student of LL.B. First Year in the Campus Law Centre. He claimed that even though he ranked sufficiently high, and had applied for accommodation in Universitys hostels, yet, was not selected. As per the appellant, though there were seats available, the law students had not been given their full entitlement for the quota. The appellant continued to avail of the Hostel accommodation under interim orders of the Writ Court. 3. The University in its counter-affidavit submitted that no student ranking below the appellant, or less merited than him, was admitted to any of the Hostel. The learned Single Judge after discussing the rival contentions concluded that the University had acted in an arbitrary manner in denying admission to the appellant. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that as per the rules, it was clear that admission to the Hostel was on a year vise bases. Further the rules clearly state that if a student fails to take re-admission within ten days after declaration of his result or the due date, whichever is later, he will be charged Rs. 5/ - per day as late admission fee and after the expiry of one month from the due date of declaration of results, he will forfeit his right to re-admission and will be evicted. 4. Thus as per the rules, the eligibility or entitlement of each student, once selected, to continue in the Hostel, is conditional upon whether he applies for re-admission and a time limit is prescribed for this purpose. If the student does not apply, he forfeits his admission, and is liable to eviction. The right is, therefore, not a "vested" or an unqualified one. The appellant did not apparently apply for admission, at any time during the second year. The Hostel had also stated that he could so apply. The learned single Judge rightly held that the appellants construction of the rule about unqualified right of those students selected and allotted a seat could not be accepted. A notice inviting applications from all LL.B. students was issued and the appellant consciously risked not applying. The Hostel had also stated that he could so apply. The learned single Judge rightly held that the appellants construction of the rule about unqualified right of those students selected and allotted a seat could not be accepted. A notice inviting applications from all LL.B. students was issued and the appellant consciously risked not applying. The learned single Judge correctly concluded that if the appellant had made an application, it would have shown the relative merits of the parties. The appellants contention that a person who was having a hostel accommodation had right to continue in the second year as a hostel inmate automatically was clearly contrary to the rules. The assumption was not borne out by the rules. As a result the hostel allotted one seat to Rajat Mor. The learned Single Judge rightly held that these intervening circumstances deter the Court from granting the relief of direction to allot a seat to the appellant and resultantly, the relief sought for by the appellant was rejected. 5. We see no infirmity in the findings of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, appellant is given four weeks time to vacate the hostel premises which he is occupying. The cost imposed on the Delhi University is waived. With these observations, both the appeals stand disposed of and all pending applications stand disposed of as well. Appeals dismissed & Applications disposed of.