ORDER : Replication to the written statement is taken on record. CM stands disposed of. Main Case : 2. All the petitioners were persons, who claim admission to Engineering Course, claiming that the examination result announced by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has introduced new conditions, which were not part of the prospectus. The allusion is to the results announced, setting out the marks secured in the entrance examination and the overall ranks obtained by candidates by taking into account 60% for entrance examination and 40% for the marks secured in +2 examination. The CBSE has stipulated that the persons, who shall not be permitted for filling up their choices online for counseling, shall be the persons, who secured less than the cut-off marks and also sets out in three categories of persons, who are eligible for filling up choices online, viz. :-persons in Common Merit List Category 62 marks, OBC Category 52 marks, SC/ST Category 32 marks. All the petitioners, who claim under the Sports Quota, were persons who secured less than 62 marks and according to them, the stipulation may amount to a new criterion, which was not already found in the prospectus. The prospectus reveals the minimum marks that would be necessary for being eligible and also states that reservation in their respective states shall be as per the reservation policy. The petitioners-contention is that the persons belonging to the Sports Quota are an independent category and there cannot be any cut-off marks for those persons to be eligible for filling up the choices online. The petitioners have argued that at a previous occasion, the University issued a Corrigendum setting out 62 marks as the minimum eligibility criterion for applying online. This Court, in a judgment titled Ritesh Bindal v. Punjab University - C. W. P. No. 14760 of 2013 held that introducing new criterion, which was not found in the prospectus, would be impermissible and quashed the Corrigendum. The Court, in its judgment dated 23.07.2013, relied on Full Bench rulings of this Court, which are again relied by the counsel, viz. The Court, in its judgment dated 23.07.2013, relied on Full Bench rulings of this Court, which are again relied by the counsel, viz. Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab 1993 (2) PLR 213 and also in the case of Raj Singh v. The Maharishi Dayanand University 1994 (2) PLR 32, holding that new criterion cannot be introduced in the course of selection process for admission, which were not part of the criterion at the time, when the prospectus was released. 3. The counsel for the petitioners has argued making reference to the eligibility conditions declared by the University, where it is set forth as under :- Inter-se Merit for Admission The inter-se merit of the candidates for admission will be determined on the basis of All India Rank obtained in JEE (Main) 2014 only, except in the Sports Category and the Defence Categories. 4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the University would point out that there is no breach of any condition in the prospectus and the University allows itself to be wholly guided, as indeed bound to apply the eligibility criterion, which is set forth by the CBSE of only that person, who claims admission on a special category, such as Sports Quota, would become eligible in order that he fills up this choice online for counseling. The eligibility of what the CBSE declares shall be fixed only on the basis of the results which the CBSE announces and if the CBSE has prescribed such marks as eligible for online counseling, the University does not make any condition when it sets out that inter-se merit would be decided on the basis of rank except in Sports Category and the Defence Categories. The learned counsel would explain the exception as arising in a situation, where within the persons, who are eligible as per CBSE results, the merit position or ranking relevant for all the General Category students but would be irrelevant for Sports Category students, as admission to them shall be on the basis of gradation issued by the Department of U.T. for Sports. He would, therefore, explain the exception, as applicable for Sports Quota only for inter-se merit. There will be no exception for the eligibility itself. 5. I would find that the reliance on the judgment of this Court, when it was making an interference for a Corrigendum brought by the University, is not appropriate. He would, therefore, explain the exception, as applicable for Sports Quota only for inter-se merit. There will be no exception for the eligibility itself. 5. I would find that the reliance on the judgment of this Court, when it was making an interference for a Corrigendum brought by the University, is not appropriate. There is no deviation from the fundamental principle that the 2% quota for Sports Category itself is not sought to be breached. On the other hand, there is specific statement that addresses the issue, namely Rule 3.4, which talks of reservation of seats, where it is stated that the candidates belonging to stipulated reserved categories are alone to be admitted to seats reserved for them and though there is no category reserved for candidates under the Sports Category, they will be brought for consideration later. It is explained in para 6 of the statement, which states that only after a candidate gains the eligibility as per the prospectus and for further admission, after passing the test of eligibility, the admission of Sports and Defence Categories have to be made through a procedure delineated therein. The counsel for the University states on instructions that they have set a different date i.e. 16.08.2014 as the last date for counseling for Sports and Defence Quota. 6. It must be remembered that apart from Scheduled Caste candidates or special categories that enjoy the benefit of vertical reservation, it shall not be possible to assign 2% quota Sports Category to be enlisted separately from the General Category. It is thus well possible that even within the General Category, there are enough number of candidates, who would qualify within the Sports Quota and such of those persons, who come within such General Category, would be considered not on the basis of inter se merit but on the basis of gradation issued by the Sports Department. This is keeping in view the constitutional scheme, as proposed by the States. 7. The counsels argument that eligibility of marks prescribed as 62 conflicts with reservation of the seats provided in the prospectus is fallacious. This is keeping in view the constitutional scheme, as proposed by the States. 7. The counsels argument that eligibility of marks prescribed as 62 conflicts with reservation of the seats provided in the prospectus is fallacious. The reservation of seats as provided under Clause 3.1 reads as thus :- 3.1 Eligibility for Admission to NITs, IIITs and Other Institutions participating through Central Counseling Board Admission to the NITs, IIITs and other institutions participating through Central Counseling Board will be based on All India Rank as explained above in section 2.10 along with the criteria of subject combinations mentioned in the table below. Subject combinations required in the qualifying examination for admission to B.E./B. Tech. and B. Arch/B. Planning Courses in NITs, IIITs, and other CFTIs shall be as under:- (Tabullar Matter Is Omitted......Ed) 8. All that this says is that a person, subject to qualification required in the common examination, shall be required to undergo the criteria based on Class 12th or equivalent examination and at least 45% marks in the above subjects taken together. The misunderstanding is on an assumption that this shall dictate also that the persons would be eligible for counseling. This eligibility found in para 3.1 is the minimum, below which there could be no consideration at all, but the number-limit may vary depending upon the candidates that have appeared and the marks that they have all secured. If 62 marks has to be the minimum for applying for counseling, it must be understood that any person securing below 62 and although above 45 will not secure consideration only because the total number of seats shall have to be filled up from among students who have secured the marks above the cut off prescribed. It is a simple rule of arithmetic that the eligibility of what CBSE prescribes must have a bearing to the number of seats, which are available. If the argument of the petitioners is to be accepted, it would require changing the base for admission, without minding the actual vacancies, which are available. Such a contention cannot, therefore, be accepted and hence rejected. 9. The 62% marks eligibility, as prescribed by the CBSE, is not introducing a new condition, as is wrongly understood. I cannot vouch for a consideration of the decision rendered by this Court in C. W. P. No. 14760 of 2013 as addressing the points raised by the counsel. Such a contention cannot, therefore, be accepted and hence rejected. 9. The 62% marks eligibility, as prescribed by the CBSE, is not introducing a new condition, as is wrongly understood. I cannot vouch for a consideration of the decision rendered by this Court in C. W. P. No. 14760 of 2013 as addressing the points raised by the counsel. The eligibility criteria is laid down taking note of the number of candidates that have taken the exam, the marks that have been obtained and the seats that are available. I am informed that even amongst the provisionally eligible candidates under the Sports Category, there are as many as 385 candidates, who fulfill the eligibility criteria of having secured 62 marks. If there are only 61 seats available to provide for consideration, all candidates such as the petitioners, who have lower marks, but who would seek consideration only on the basis of gradation, will mean undermining the issue of minimum eligibility, which the CBSE prescribes. I cannot lay any interpretation, which can give the petitioners an edge only on the basis of gradation and irrespective of the minimum eligibility prescribed by the CBSE. 10. The petitioners have no legitimate legal grievance to be redressed and accordingly all the petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.