1. There is much ado about nothing. The Respondent-authorities have unnecessarily forced the petitioner in the litigation. Petitioner was declared to have passed graduation examination on October 20, 2010 in a supplementary examination conducted by Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. 2. Respondent-University issued advertisement notice no. B.Ed. Admission/2010/4048 dated 25.10.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for seeking admission in B.Ed course. The petitioner is a non-local resident of 5/118, Avinash Bhawan, Pratap Nagar Beawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan). The petitioner was selected and was admitted to undergo B.Ed course. It is not in dispute that petitioner has completed B.Ed course and has taken examination also. The result has not been declared by the respondent-University for the reason that his admission along with other candidates was to be cancelled. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid action of the respondent-University, petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has filed objections/reply affidavit. ." 5. Mr. Nargal learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that in view of the Statute 17 of the Statute and Regulation framed under Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1969, the petitioner who had become graduate by qualifying his Supplementary Examination was to be given admission along with successful candidates of the next Annual Examination. 6. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was not eligible for being granted admission in session 2010-11, and as per the submission of learned counsel he was eligible for being granted admission in session 2011-12. 7. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the respondents Statute 17 is taken note of: "17. The successful candidates of the Biannual/Supplementary examination shall be granted admission to the next higher class along with the successful candidates of the next annual examination." 8. The plane reading of the Statute 17 would show that it refers to the admission to the "next higher class". B. Ed course is a technical course and is not next higher class to that of graduation. The next higher class to that of graduation would be post-graduation in any of the disciplines. The application of the Statute 17 in the facts of this case is misplaced. Petitioner has not been granted admission to the next higher class. The attempt of the respondent-University to cancel admission of the petitioner by placing reliance of Statute 17 cannot be countenanced in law. The application of the Statute 17 in the facts of this case is misplaced. Petitioner has not been granted admission to the next higher class. The attempt of the respondent-University to cancel admission of the petitioner by placing reliance of Statute 17 cannot be countenanced in law. The action initiated by the respondent-University on the face of it is illegal. 9. For the above stated reasons, this writ petition is disposed of in following manner; By issuance of writ of Certiorari the order/letter No. Regn. 3077-87 dated 18.11.2011 is quashed. The respondent-University is directed to declare the result of the petitioner and if found to have passed, to issue necessary certificate in his favour. The certificate be issued within one week from the date copy of this order is served upon them.