Judgment :- Anand Byrareddy, J 1. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group is considered for final disposal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The petitioners are commonly aggrieved and have filed this Writ Petition jointly. The petitioners are studying in the 1st year D. Pharmacy course in the second respondent institution and have questioned the declaration made by the respondents that they were not eligible to be admitted to the said course, after having been so admitted. 4. It is contended that the petitioners had completed their Intermediate Examinations in the year 2009. Both the petitioners were admitted to the D. Pharmacy course for the Academic year 2009-2010 in the second respondent college. To their surprise and shock, they were informed that they were ineligible for admission, as they had not completed the age of 17 years, as on 31.12.2009. It is contended that the first petitioner was short of a few days of completing 17 years of age which could have been condoned by the respondents. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, it is contended that, it is incorrect that she had not completed 17 years but she had indeed completed 17 years as on 31-12-2009, as is evident from a certificate subsequently produced by her. 5. The only question that remains for consideration is, whether the first petitioner should be denied admission to the course on account of not having completed 17 years as on 31-12-2009. 6. Since the first petitioner was short of a few days to complete 17 years as on 31-12-2009, but having been permitted by the respondents to take the examination for the first year, the objection now raised may no longer be relevant. It does not render the first Petitioner ineligible to pursue the said D. Pharmacy course. Given this infirmity, which does not disentitle the petitioner to take the examination and complete the course, the objection raised by the respondents cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03-2010 in No. RGUHS/SWF/EC-18/Pharm-D/2009-10 passed by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed. The Petitioner’s admission to the course is held to be valid. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03-2010 in No. RGUHS/SWF/EC-18/Pharm-D/2009-10 passed by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed. The Petitioner’s admission to the course is held to be valid. The Respondents are directed to permit both the Petitioners to pursue their course. Incidentally, there is not indication as to why the University has fixed the minimum age of 17 years, especially in the absence of any such prescription in many other Universities. It is possible that a student is admitted to school, inadvertently by over eager parents, at an earlier age than expected and in the result the student completes school early and therefore, to punish the student by belatedly informing him or her that he or she is not old enough is illogical and for no fault of the student. Hence, the first respondent University is directed to reconsider such prescription and make necessary correction in the Regulations for the advantage of entire student community, who may be eligible for admission otherwise.