JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Writ Petition No. 50029 of 2009 has been filed on 15th September, 2009 by Anjuman Upadhayay for a direction upon the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Principal’) to permit the petitioner to appear at the First Semester BTC-2004 Examination scheduled to commence from 25th September, 2009. 2. Writ Petition No. 57384 of 2009 has been filed by Guru Priya Singh, for a direction upon the Principal to cancel the admission of Anjuman Upadhayay and to admit her to the B.TC-2004 Course. 3. Writ Petition No. 57384 of 2009 was connected with Writ Petition No. 50029 of 2009 by the order dated 30th October, 2009 and both the petitions have, accordingly, been heard together. 4. The stand taken by Anjuman Upadhayay in the petition filed by her is that pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications for selection to the B.TC.-2004 Course, she submitted an application claiming reservation under the Sports Category and the result was declared on 7th January, 2009. Three lists were notified with cut-off marks and on the basis of her merit, the Principal issued a letter dated 12th February, 2009 asking her to report for counselling on 16th February, 2009. On the basis of the counselling held on 16th February, 2009, she was selected and was given admission in B.TC.-2004 Course. The First Semester Session started in February, 2009. On 8th September, 2009, the examination forms of the First Semester Examination were distributed to all the other admitted candidates but as it was not supplied to her she filed the petition and on 17th September, 2009, when the petition was taken up, the Court passed the following order : “It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was selected and admitted to the B.TC.-2004 Batch and the first semester of the said Batch started in 2008-09. This was done on 16th February, 2009. The Examination of the first semester are to commence from 25th September, 2009 but the petitioner has not been permitted to fill the examination form which has been filled by other students on 9th September, 2009. According to the petitioner, there is no infirmity in the admission of the petitioner and all her certificates had been examined. The Examination of the first semester are to commence from 25th September, 2009 but the petitioner has not been permitted to fill the examination form which has been filled by other students on 9th September, 2009. According to the petitioner, there is no infirmity in the admission of the petitioner and all her certificates had been examined. As the examination are to commence from 25th September, 2009, the petitioner may provisionally be permitted to appear at the first semester examination but the result shall not be declared. It is made clear that the appearance at the first semester examination is purely provisional and shall be entirely dependent upon the decision of the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Sri Prahalad Kumar Bhardwaj appears for respondent No. 2. They pray for and are granted three weeks’ time to file the counter-affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List this petition for admission/hearing on 26th October, 2009.” 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 by the learned Standing Counsel to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. An application dated 4th April, 2010 has also been filed by Anjuman Upadhayay for a direction upon the Principal to accept the examination form of the Second Semester Examination which were to commence from 15th April, 2010. 6. Guru Priya Singh, has filed Writ Petition No. 57384 of 2009. It is her case that she had also submitted an application for admission to the B.TC.-2004 Course claiming reservation under the Sports Category. Pursuant to the letter dated 7th January, 2009 issued by the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow, the Principal published a notice dated 29th January, 2009 in the newspaper indicating the cut-off merit and required the male candidates to report for admission to the B.TC. Course-2004 on 1st February, 2009 while the female candidates were required to report for admission on 31st January, 2009. The cut-off marks for female candidates in the Sports Category was mentioned as 192.77 in the aforesaid notice dated 29th January, 2009 and the candidates were required to report for counselling on 31st January, 2009. 7. On 2nd March, 2009 the second list containing the cut-off merit was published by the Principal in the newspaper. The cut-off marks for female candidates in the Sports Category was mentioned as 192.77 in the aforesaid notice dated 29th January, 2009 and the candidates were required to report for counselling on 31st January, 2009. 7. On 2nd March, 2009 the second list containing the cut-off merit was published by the Principal in the newspaper. The cut-off merit for female candidates under the Sports Category was mentioned as 183.42 and the date of counselling for the female candidates was mentioned as 6th March, 2009. Her merit in accordance with the guidelines, is 183.53 and, therefore, she appeared for counselling on 6th March, 2009 as her merit was above 183.42 mentioned in the notice dated 2nd March, 2009 issued by the Principal. She was, however, told that she cannot be admitted as her name did not appear in the list of female candidates under the Sports Category and only an assurance was given to her that an enquiry will be made in her matter. On 28th August, 2009, she came to know that candidates below her in merit had been admitted in the Sports Category and, therefore, she filed a representation before the Principal and the District Magistrate. As no reply was given, she moved an application under the Right to Information Act, before the Principal on 3rd October, 2009 and after receiving a reply that she was not granted admission on 6th March, 2009 because she did not report for counselling, she filed a representation dated 7th October, 2009 before the District Magistrate that she had actually reported for counselling but she was informed that she cannot be admitted as her name was not included in the Sports Category candidates. She represented that she had applied under the Sports Category which fact could be verified from her OMR Sheet and that Anjuman Upadhayay had been wrongly admitted by the Principal even though she was lower in merit as she had obtained only 183.42 marks. She, therefore, claimed that under the 2% reservation for Sports Quota, she should have been selected for admission instead of Anjuman Upadhayay. 8. Sri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Guru Priya Singh submitted that it is not in dispute that the merit of Guru Priya Singh is 183.53 while that of Anjuman Upadhayay is 183.42 and that both the candidates had applied for admission under the Sports Category. 8. Sri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Guru Priya Singh submitted that it is not in dispute that the merit of Guru Priya Singh is 183.53 while that of Anjuman Upadhayay is 183.42 and that both the candidates had applied for admission under the Sports Category. In such circumstances, none of them could have responded to the first notice dated 29th January, 2009 published in the newspaper since the cut-off merit indicated in this notice for female candidates under the Sports Category was 192.77 but both of them could respond to the second notice which was published in the newspaper on 2nd March, 2009 which required the female candidates under the Sports Category having marks upto 183.42 to report for counselling on 6th March, 2009. Guru Priya Singh should, therefore, have been admitted when she reported for counselling on 6th March, 2009 but she was wrongly denied admission. He further submitted that Guru Priya Singh has been denied admission in order to accommodate Anjuman Upadhayay with lesser merit and a false case has been set up by the Principal that Guru Priya Singh did not report for counselling on 6th March, 2009. In support of his contention that the Principal had colluded with Anjuman Upadhahay to grant her admission, he pointed out that in the writ petition filed by Anjuman Upadhayay, she had enclosed a copy of the communication dated 12th February, 2009 sent by the Principal to her requiring her to report on 16th February, 2009 for counselling with all the original documents even though under the first notice dated 29th January, 2009 the female candidates under the Sports Category having cut-off merit above 192.77 were required to report for counselling on 31st January, 2009 and it was only pursuant to the second notice dated 2nd March, 2009 published in the newspaper that female candidates having merit upto 183.42 could have reported for counselling on 6th March, 2009. 9. Sri V. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Anjuman Upadhayay, however, submitted that Guru Priya Singh cannot raise any grievance as she had not reported for counselling on 6th March, 2009 and even otherwise she had waited for a sufficiently long period as it is only in August, 2009 that she represented to the Authorities for the first time that admission had been wrongly denied to her. He, therefore, submitted that in such circumstances, no relief should be granted to Guru Priya Singh particularly when Anjuman Upadhayay had been granted admission and had also appeared at the First Semester Examination under the interim order passed by this Court on 17th September, 2009 and had also studied in the Second Semester. 10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Principal submitted that Guru Priya Singh was not admitted as she did not report for counselling on 6th March, 2009 which was the date fixed in the notice published on 2nd March, 2009. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 12. There is no dispute between the parties that Guru Priya Singh had obtained 183.53 marks while Anjuman Upadhayay had obtained 183.42 marks and that both the candidates had applied under the Sports Category for which there was a reservation of 2%. There is also no dispute between the parties that the first notice was published by the Principal in the newspaper on 29th January, 2009 requiring the female candidates under the Sports Category having marks upto 192.77 to report for counselling on 31st January, 2009 and that the second notice was published by the Principal in the newspaper on 2nd March, 2009 requiring the female candidates under the Sports Category having marks upto 183.42 to report for counselling on 6th March, 2009. 13. Guru Priya Singh and Anjuman Upadhayay could not have reported for counselling on the basis of the first notice since their marks were less then 192.77. However, both of them could have reported for counselling on the basis of the second notice dated 2nd March, 2009. The case of Guru Priya Singh is that she reported for counselling on 6th March, 2009 but she was not permitted to participate in the counselling as her name was not included in the list of Sports category candidates available at the Counselling Centre. The case taken up by the Principal in the counter-affidavit as well as in the information supplied to Guru Priya Singh under the Right to Information Act is that she did not report for counselling on 6th March, 2009 and, therefore, the candidate with lesser marks, namely Anjuman Upadhayay, was admitted. This is also the stand of Anjuman Upadhayay. 14. The case taken up by the Principal in the counter-affidavit as well as in the information supplied to Guru Priya Singh under the Right to Information Act is that she did not report for counselling on 6th March, 2009 and, therefore, the candidate with lesser marks, namely Anjuman Upadhayay, was admitted. This is also the stand of Anjuman Upadhayay. 14. This stand of the Principal and Anjuman Upadhayay is not correct in view of the other averments made in the counter-affidavit and the documents available on the record. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal to the writ petition filed by Guru Priya Singh it has been stated that the first merit list was published on 29th January, 2009 in which for the 2 seats earmarked for Sports Category candidates, the first place was occupied by Deep Mala Singh having 192.77 marks and the second place was occupied by Anjuman Upadhayay with 183.42 marks. Deep Mala Singh was admitted and after waiting for sometime and when no representation was filed by any candidate, the letter dated 12th February, 2009 was sent to Anjuman Upadhayay whose name was in the first list, to report for counselling with the relevant documents and seek admission. It has also been mentioned that as Anjuman Upadhayay was admitted, there is no vacancy. This stand of the Principal finds support from the documents filed by Anjuman Upadhayay in her Writ Petition in which she has annexed a copy of the communication dated 12th February, 2009 sent by the Principal to her which mentions that pursuant to the communication dated 7th January, 2009 of the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow, and pursuant to the notification dated 29th January, 2009, a communication dated 2nd February, 2009 was sent to her to report with the relevant documents but as she did not report, she was being again informed to report for counselling on 16th February, 2009 with all the documents failing which it shall be presumed that she was not eager to take admission. Anjuman Upadhayay in her petition has stated that it is pursuant to the aforesaid communication that she reported for counselling on 16th February, 2009 and she was granted admission. The Principal has stated that there were only two seats reserved for Sports Category and, therefore, both the seats stood filled up on or before 16th February, 2009. Anjuman Upadhayay in her petition has stated that it is pursuant to the aforesaid communication that she reported for counselling on 16th February, 2009 and she was granted admission. The Principal has stated that there were only two seats reserved for Sports Category and, therefore, both the seats stood filled up on or before 16th February, 2009. There was, therefore, no seat vacant for Guru Priya Singh on 6th March, 2009 and the stand taken by the Principal that she was not admitted on 6th March, 2009 because she did not report for counselling is, therefore, not correct. 15. What needs to be also noticed is that under no circumstances Anjuman Upadhayay could have been asked to report for counselling on 16th February, 2009 since the first notice dated 29th January, 2009 only required the Female Sports Category Candidates having merit upto 192.77 marks to report for counselling on 31st January, 2009. The cut-off merit was lowered only by the notification dated 2nd March, 2009 to 183.42. The merit of Anjuman Upadhayay was 183.42 and, therefore, she could not have been offered admission before 6th March, 2009 which was the date notified for reporting for counselling in the notice dated 2nd March, 2009. Yet the Principal sent a letter to her on 12th February, 2009 asking her to report for counselling on 16th February, 2009. It is also surprising that this letter even refers to the earlier letters dated 2nd February, 2009 and 3rd February, 2009 sent to her to report for counselling. No satisfactory explanation whatsoever has been given by the learned Standing Counsel for sending this communication dated 12th February, 2009 except making reference to paragraph-11 to the counter-affidavit that in the merit list declared on 29th January, 2009, the names of Deep Mala Singh and Anjuman Upadhayay were only mentioned under the Female Sports Category Candidates. Thus, the stand of Guru Priya Singh, that she was not given admission on 6th March, 2009 as her name did not find place in the list of candidates under the Sports Category finds support from the stand taken by the respondents. 16. The discussion made above leaves no manner of doubt that the Principal has given undue benefit to Anjuman Upadhayay while granting her admission to the B.TC-2004 Course even though she had obtained lesser marks than Guru Priya Singh who was otherwise entitled to be given admission. 17. 16. The discussion made above leaves no manner of doubt that the Principal has given undue benefit to Anjuman Upadhayay while granting her admission to the B.TC-2004 Course even though she had obtained lesser marks than Guru Priya Singh who was otherwise entitled to be given admission. 17. It is true that Guru Priya Singh did wait up to August, 2009 before filing any representation to the Authorities for grant her admission but she has stated that she could not represent earlier as she had no access to the records. It is her case that on 6th March, 2009 she was not permitted to participate in the counselling as her name did not appear in the list and that she was given an assurance that the matter will be enquired into. Later on, when she came to know that all the seats of Sports Category Candidates had been filled up, she made a representation to the Principal as well as to the District Magistrate and it is only when she was given information under the Right to Information Act that she was not granted admission as she did not report for counselling, that she filed the present petition. 18. It has been found as a fact that she was entitled to be admitted on the basis of the second notice dated 2nd March, 2009 issued by the Principal as Anjuman Upadhayay had lesser marks. It has also been found as a fact that though the Principal had been writing continuously to Anjuman Upadhayay to report for counselling but the Principal has not placed any letter which may have been sent by the Principal to Guru Priya Singh to report for counselling. 19. It is also important to notice that Anjuman Upadhayay was permitted to provisionally appear at the First Semester Examination under the interim order dated 17th September, 2009 passed by this Court but it was made clear in the interim order that the result should not be declared and that her appearance at the First Semester Examination was purely provisional and would depend upon the decision of the writ petition. No benefit, therefore, can be derived by Anjuman Upadhayay merely because she had appeared at the First Semester Examination under the interim order passed by the Court when it has been found that she was wrongly admitted. No benefit, therefore, can be derived by Anjuman Upadhayay merely because she had appeared at the First Semester Examination under the interim order passed by the Court when it has been found that she was wrongly admitted. This apart, despite the specific order that her result of the First Semester Examination shall not be declared, the Principal has permitted Anjuman Upadhayay to study at the Second Semester Classes. This only confirms the stand of Guru Priya Singh that the Principal was interested in giving admission to Anjuman Upadhayay and it is for this sole purpose that she was denied admission as there were only two seats and one seat had been filled up by Deep Mala Singh. 20. It has, therefore, to be seen what relief can be granted to Guru Priya Singh at this stage and whether the admission of Guru Priya Singh has to be cancelled. 21. If no interference is made in this matter merely because Anjuman Upadhayay has studied for some time when it has been found as a fact that Anjuman Upadhayay had been wrongly admitted, then this will have the effect of approving a wrong decision which has not only conferred an undue benefit upon Anjuman Upadhayay but has also deprived another candidate Guru Priya Singh from seeking admission. 22. The Courts have repeatedly held that misplaced sympathy should not be shown in such matters. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurdeep Singh v. State of J.& K. and others, AIR 1993 SC 2638 , in which the selection of a candidate wrongly admitted was cancelled and the plea of sympathy was repelled and the observations are : “The contention of the appellant, therefore, that the whole exercise was gone through for the benefit of one candidate, namely respondent No. 6, is difficult to discount. In all probability, this was the purpose of the whole exercise. From these facts and circumstances, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the whole exercise of the Sports Council in recognising mountaineering as an approved sport on 4th November, 1991 and recommending the candidature of respondent No. 6 on 7th November, 1991 was geared up only for achieving the ulterior objective of accommodating respondent No. 6. It was not proper for the selecting authorities to have accepted that recommendation and considered respondent No. 6 as eligible under that category. It was not proper for the selecting authorities to have accepted that recommendation and considered respondent No. 6 as eligible under that category. In the result, we find that the denial of the seat to the appellant in the sports category, cannot be justified. As respondent No. 6 was not eligible, there was no question of a tie. Appellant should now be given the seat. By an earlier interlocutory order, a seat had been directed to be kept vacant for appellant’s benefit in the event of his success. We direct the authorities to admit appellant to the course within two weeks from today. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 10th August, 1992 of the High Court and grant the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent No. 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the Courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in Courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself; engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analyses embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of respondent No. 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of respondent No. 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of respondent No. 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We think in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we should quash the selection and admission of respondent No. 6. We do so though, however, reluctantly.” 23. In this context it will also be useful to reproduce a passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Dharam Bir, JT 1998 (4) SC 363, wherein it has been observed : “The plea that the Court should have a “human approach” and should not disturb a person who has already been working on this post for more than a decade also cannot be accepted as the Courts are hardly swayed by emotional appeals. In dispensing justice to the litigating parties, the Courts not only go into the merits of the respective cases, they also try to balance the equities so as to do complete justice between them. Thus the Courts always maintain a human approach. In the instant case also, this approach has not been departed from. We are fully conscious that the respondent had worked on the post in question for quite a long time but it was only in ad hoc capacity. We are equally conscious that a selected candidate who also possesses necessary educational qualification is available. In this situation, if the respondent is allowed to continue on this post merely on the basis of his concept of “human approach”, it would be at the cost of a duly selected candidate who would be deprived of employment for which he has striven and had ultimately cleared the selection. In fact, it is the “human approach” which requires us to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does not possess even the requisite qualification.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the admission of Anjuman Upadhayay is cancelled and a direction is issued to the Principal to grant admission to Guru Priya Singh. As the First Semester and Second Semester courses are over, special courses shall be conducted for her so that she completes the training. Guru Priya Singh is also entitled to damages of Rs. As the First Semester and Second Semester courses are over, special courses shall be conducted for her so that she completes the training. Guru Priya Singh is also entitled to damages of Rs. 10,000/- from the Principal for wrongly denying her admission. The Principal shall pay the said damages to Guru Priya Singh within one month. Consequently, the writ petition filed by Anjuman Upadhyay is dismissed while that of Guru Priya Singh is allowed. ————