JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Agrawal, J.—These cases remind us to the famous word “Eureka” proclaimed by the renowned ancient Greek scholar Archimedes when he stepped into a bath tub and noticed that the water level rose and he suddenly understood that the volume displaced must be equal to the part of his body he had submerged. This meant that the volume of irregular objects could be measured with precision which was previously an intractable problem. He was so eager to share his realisation that he leapt out of his bathtub and ran through the streets of Syracuse naked. This incident occurred sometimes in third century B.C.. The same still holds good in the present 21st century when students belonging to the rural area of our country particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh where the problem of unemployment amongst graduates is alarming. The ecstasy is reflected as the students having got admission in pre teaching course who without noticing the fine prints in the allotment letter issued to them intimating that they have been provisionally admitted in the respective colleges subject to fulfilling the formalities mentioned therein and instead rushed to the colleges for admission. 2. Special Appeal Defective No. 460 of 2011 filed by Sachin Arora and Nitesh Kumar is against the order dated 31st January, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by them challenging their cancellation of admission in B.Ed. Course 2010 by the Lucknow University has been dismissed. 3. 2. Special Appeal Defective No. 460 of 2011 filed by Sachin Arora and Nitesh Kumar is against the order dated 31st January, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by them challenging their cancellation of admission in B.Ed. Course 2010 by the Lucknow University has been dismissed. 3. Special Appeal No. 251 of 2011 has been filed by Anurag Mishra and Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia is against the order dated 18th January, 2011; Special Appeal No. 839 of 2011 has been filed by Ravi Prakash and Susheel Kumar Chaurasia is against the order dated 6th April, 2010; Special Appeal No. 383 of 2011 has been filed by Dinesh Chandra Mishra is against the order dated 17th January, 2011; Special Appeal No. 539 of 2011 has been filed by Kuldeep Kumar and four others is against the order dated 7th March, 2011; Special Appeal No. 620 of 2011 has been filed by Dinesh Singh is against the order dated 7th March, 2011; Special Appeal No. 767 of 2011 has been filed by Indu is against the order dated 11th April, 2011; Special Appeal No. 768 of 2011 has been filed by Maithali Sharan and three others is against the order dated 11th April, 2011; Special Appeal No. 473 of 2011 has been filed by Sudhakar Verma and six others is against the order dated 21st February, 2011;Special Appeal Defective No. 379 of 2011 has been filed by Kishore Kumar and four others is against the order dated 10th March, 2011; Special Appeal Defective No. 380 of 2011 has been filed by Akhilesh Kumar Singh and seven others is against the order dated 7th March, 2011; Special Appeal Defective No. 382 of 2011 has been filed by Prem Narayan Tiwari and thirty others is against the order dated 7th March, 2011; Special Appeal Defective No. 388 of 2011 has been filed by Suresh Ram is against the order dated 31st January, 2011and pecial Appeal No. 957 of 2011 has been filed by Shikha Tyagi is against the order dated 13th April, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge. 4. Special Appeal No. 588 of 2011 has been filed by Ritu Raj P.G.College, Johina Road, Fatehpur challenging the order dated 13th March, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 7 to 12 allowing them to pursue their course. 5. 4. Special Appeal No. 588 of 2011 has been filed by Ritu Raj P.G.College, Johina Road, Fatehpur challenging the order dated 13th March, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 7 to 12 allowing them to pursue their course. 5. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9448 of 2011 has been filed by Ajay Kumar and four others, who have been allowed admission in B.Ed. Course in the second counselling by the Lucknow University in respect of the seats declared vacant on account of not getting the confirmation slips by the allottees by the first counselling. 6. As all these appeal except Special Appeal No. 588 of 2011 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9448 of 2011 raise common question of law and facts the facts of Special Appeal Defective No. 460 of 2011 is being treated as leading case and the facts of this case are being given below: 7. According to the appellants, a Joint Entrance Examination for admission B.Ed. Course 2010 in various colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh was conducted by the Lucknow University, Lucknow. The appellants being eligible had applied for the same. They qualified in the entrance examination and were placed high in the merit list. First counselling started from 3rd August, 2010 to 27th August, 2010. The appellant had appeared for counselling on 3rd August, 2010. At the time of counselling they were required to deposit counselling fee of Rs. 500/- and advance admission fee of Rs. 5,000/- through bank draft in favour of Finance Officer, University of Lucknow which they deposited. After the requisite amount had been deposited in the Bank they were issued registration certificate in which they were required to lock their choices of Institution by 5.00 p.m on 3rd August, 2010 failing which the candidature was not to be considered for seat allotment. The appellant locked their choices of Institution within the prescribed period. They were issued allotment letters on 4th August, 2010. The appellants were allotted Handia Post Graduate College, Handia, Allahabad. The allotment letter was addressed to the Principal/Dean/Head of the Department of the Institution, where the candidate was to report for getting admission after fulfilling the other formalities. The appellant locked their choices of Institution within the prescribed period. They were issued allotment letters on 4th August, 2010. The appellants were allotted Handia Post Graduate College, Handia, Allahabad. The allotment letter was addressed to the Principal/Dean/Head of the Department of the Institution, where the candidate was to report for getting admission after fulfilling the other formalities. According to the appellants they approached the counselling authorities for issuing of receipt of negative balance but were informed that as the advance fee deposited by them was more than the fee payable to the college/institution no such receipt is required. Under the bona fide belief that they were entitled to refund of the excess amount and nothing further was required to be done on their part the appellants had reported to the institution where the authorities after being satisfied granted admission to B.Ed. Course 2010. The admission was granted in the month of August, 2010 itself and they started attending their classes which started from 16th August, 2010. According to the appellants a list of allotted students of B.Ed. Course 2010-11 was also sent by the Lucknow University to Handia, Post Graduate College, Handia, Allahabad in which names of the appellants also find mentioned. However, a notification was published in Amar Ujala dated 30th September, 2010 in which it was mentioned that the candidates of first counselling who have not obtained confirmation receipts with negative balance to conform their allotment, their allotment stood cancelled. However, they were entitled to participate in the counselling. The order cancelling their allotment was subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition. In the meantime second counselling was done treating those allotment as cancelled resulting into seats becoming vacant. Fresh allotment had been made to the candidates who were much below in the merit list. 8. The appellants have challenged the action of the authorities before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 536 of 2011 giving rise to the present appeal. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition by holding that the procedure prescribed for counselling had to be carried out and if the candidates have not obtained receipt with negative balance, the allotment stood cancelled. 9. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition by holding that the procedure prescribed for counselling had to be carried out and if the candidates have not obtained receipt with negative balance, the allotment stood cancelled. 9. In Special Appeal No. 588 of 2011 the appellant, Ritu Raj P.G.College, Johina Road, Fatehpur is aggrieved by the order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent Nos. 7 to 12 has been disposed of with a direction to the institution to admit the said respondents and allow them to pursue their course as they have been issued confirmation slips by the Lucknow University in the second counselling. The grievance of the appellant is that as the admission process has not been over till 30th September, 2010, in view of the order of thie Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.11.2010, the appellant was entitled to fill up remaining vacant seats under the management quota and, therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge requires to be set aside. 10. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9448 of 2011 has been filed by Ajay Kumar and four others in which the learned single Judge directed it to be placed before the Division Bench alongwith other Special Appeals involving similar question for being decided. In the writ petition the case of the petitioners is that they have been issued allotment letters in the second counselling and have also been issued confirmation slips in which they have been allotted Ratansen Degree College, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar as the Institute but the Institute is arbitrarily not permitting them to attend the classes. In the writ petition they have sought a direction commanding the Principal of Ratansen Degree College, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar to allot teaching classes to the petitioners and also permit them to appear in the final examination. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the respective impugned orders passed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present appeals, grounds taken in the memo. of appeals and the documents filed alongwith them as also the short counter-affidavit filed by the Lucknow University in the leading case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the appellants have been issued call letters for appearing in the Joint Entrance Examination of B.Ed. Course 2010 conducted by the. of appeals and the documents filed alongwith them as also the short counter-affidavit filed by the Lucknow University in the leading case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the appellants have been issued call letters for appearing in the Joint Entrance Examination of B.Ed. Course 2010 conducted by the. They appeared in the examination and were placed very high in the merit list. They have deposited requisite registration fee and full amount of Rs. 5000/- as admission fee and they have been allotted institution also. As the fee payable in the Institution so allotted was less even though the confirmation slip have not been issued, they having been admitted in the Institution, their admission cannot be canceled making them to suffer for no fault of theirs. They further submitted that in the information brochure the procedure for counselling had not been given and they were under the impression that zero confirmation receipt or negative balance receipt as given in the counselling procedure would not be strictly followed. Thus, the learned single Judge is not correct in holding this condition to be mandatory so as to result in the cancellation of their allotment of seats. 13. Sri Saumitra Singh, learned counsel appealing for the University, however, submitted that even though in the information brochure for the Joint Entrance Examination of B.Ed. Course 2010 there was no such information given regarding counselling but at the time of counselling every candidates has been specifically informed about the process of seat confirmation which was as follows: “SEAT CONFIRMATION FEES (1) The allotment letter will be issued to the candidates the day after the choice filling has been carried out. (2) All candidates allotted a seat have to deposit a Seat Confirmation fees at the SEAT CONFIRMATION COUNTER within four days of choice filling. (3) The amount of seat confirmation fees will be mentioned on the candidate’s allotment letter. (4) If the candidate fails to deposit the seat confirmation fees within the stipulated time, he/she will have no claim over the seat any more. (5) The candidates have to report to the SEAT CONFIRMATION COUNTER for confirming their seats even if the amount of college fees is less than the advance fees of Rs. 5000.00. (6) Several aided colleges have fees less than the advance fees of Rs. 5000.00. from the respective college after they report there.” 14. (5) The candidates have to report to the SEAT CONFIRMATION COUNTER for confirming their seats even if the amount of college fees is less than the advance fees of Rs. 5000.00. (6) Several aided colleges have fees less than the advance fees of Rs. 5000.00. from the respective college after they report there.” 14. He further submitted that in the allotment letters issued to each successful candidates including the appellants following condition was also mentioned: “Even if the amount of college fee is less than Rs. 5,000.00 or the candidate is allowed zero-fee he/she has to report to the fees deposition counter within three days and get a receipt with negative balance to confirm his/her allotment. The excess amount if any will be refunded to the candidate by the respective college. All candidates have to report to the college fees deposition counter at the counselling centre without which the seat allotment will be incomplete.” 15. According to him the candidates knew that if they do not obtain confirmation slip their allotment automatically stood cancelled. Therefore, the University was justified in treating their allotment as cancelled and reallotting the seats to other candidates in the second counselling. He further submitted that after the first counselling was over it came to the notice of the Lucknow University that confirmation slip in respect of 546 allotted seats have not been issued. Therefore, the University gave a second chance by issuing notification on 28th September, 2010 to participate in the second counselling which they failed to avail and, therefore they cannot turn around to say that the University had acted unfairly or in arbitrary manner. He, thus, submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge be upheld. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 588 of 2011 submitted that as the admission of the candidates who hve been allotted B.Ed. Seats in the Ritu Raj P.G.College, Johina Road, Fatehpur had been cancelled for want of allotment slip, fresh allotment had not been done by the cut off date mentioned in the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 13040 of 2010 (College of Professional Education and others v. State of U.P. and others), the college was entitled to fill up remaining seats. According to him the learned single Judge was not justified in directing the candidates in the second counselling to be admitted. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Writ Petition No. 9448 of 2011 submitted that the petitioner have got confirmation letter issued by the Lucknow University pursuant to the second counselling and, therefore, they are entitled for admission and the action of the college in not granting admission is unjustified. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties and find that it is not in dispute that in the Information Brochure the procedure for counselling had not been mentioned. The appellants had got themselves registered on the first and second day of counselling held on 3rd and 4th August, 2010 and also locked their choices of institution. They had deposited registration fee of Rs. 500/- and admission fee of Rs. 5,000/-. Thereafter allotment letter was issued by the Lucknow University which was addressed to the Principal/Director of the Institution. They were under the bona fide belief that even in the absence of negative balance confirmation slip as the Institution had admitted them it is only a mere formality which would not materially have any affect in their admission. We may mention here that in the procedure for seat confirmation as also in the allotment letter there was a mention that candidate has to report to fee deposition counter for confirmation of their seats even though requisite advance fee paid is less than 5,000/-. As already mentioned, herein before, in the opening paragraph the students hail from rural background and acted in ecstasy and taking into consideration the alarming situation of unemployed graduates, getting admission in B.Ed. Course which is a pre-teaching course has a life time achievement for them and in case they forgot to get confirmation slip it should not be taken as adverse. More so, when there are 114410 seats in B.Ed. Course 2010-11 and percentage of such cases is less than even 0.5%. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in such a circumstance the cancellation of allotment of seats was not justified and a more liberal view ought to have been taken in the matter. More so, when there are 114410 seats in B.Ed. Course 2010-11 and percentage of such cases is less than even 0.5%. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in such a circumstance the cancellation of allotment of seats was not justified and a more liberal view ought to have been taken in the matter. Therefore, the learned single Judge was not justified in upholding the action of the Lucknow University in cancelling the allotment/admission of the candidates who have been given allotment in the first counselling in the absence of negative balance confirmation clips. 19. Now the question remains what should be done with the candidates who have been granted allotment of seats in the second counselling in place of the candidates whose allotment have been cancelled for want of confirmation slips. We are of the considered opinion that these candidates should not be made to suffer. They may also be permitted to continue their studies and be adjusted in that Institution itself. However, the intake of students in that institution be reduced in the year 2011-12 by the corresponding number. 20. So far as the appeal filed by Ritu Raj P.G.College, Johina Road, Fatehpur is concerned, we may mention here that the respondent Nos. 7 to 12 were issued allotment for the year 2010 and according to them they have also approached the appellant but they have not been granted admission by the college for one reason or the other. Therefore, the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 13040 of 2010 would not come to the rescue of the College. 21. In view of the foregoing discussions all the appeals except Special Appeal No. 588 of 2011 succeed and are allowed. The orders passed by the learned single Judge impugned in those special appeals are hereby set aside and it is provided that all the appellants are entitled to pursue their course of B.Ed. 2010-11 in their respective institutions and are entitled to appear in the examination subject to fulfilling other conditions. We may mention here that the question of attendance for the period during which they have not been permitted to attend the College on account of cancellation of their allotment/dismissal of writ petition, shall be excluded while counting their attendance. 2010-11 in their respective institutions and are entitled to appear in the examination subject to fulfilling other conditions. We may mention here that the question of attendance for the period during which they have not been permitted to attend the College on account of cancellation of their allotment/dismissal of writ petition, shall be excluded while counting their attendance. Special Appeal No. 588 of 2011 is hereby dismissed and the Writ Petition No. 9448 of 2011 is disposed of in view of the observations made in Special Appeal Defective No. 460 of 2011. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. ——————