JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on second stay petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 29.7.13 passed by the Dean & Faculty Chairman, College of Agriculture, Bikaner, whereby the petitioners admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, stands cancelled. 3. The relevant facts are that the respondent-Swami Keshvanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner ("the University) conducted Joint Entrance Test (JET) 2013 for admission to various degree programmes, including B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Sc. (Home Science). As per the Scheme of Examination, the candidates were required to attempt a single question paper for seeking admission in under graduate programme in Agriculture, Home Science, Horticulture, Forestry, Fisheries, Dairy Technology, Food Technology and Bio Technology. The question paper was to be framed in any three of the six subjects specified as per the candidates choice. It was clarified in unequivocal terms that the candidates desiring admission in Agriculture/Horticulture/Forestry/Fisheries have to attempt any three subjects except Home Science. It was further clarified that the female candidates attempting the questions of Home Science will only be entitled to take admission in Home Science and she will not be eligible for admission in other degree programmes. 4. The application form for appearance in JET-2013 was to be submitted online only, by following the instructions provided on web portal. The petitioner opted for the subjects Agriculture, Biology and Home Science and submitted the application form online. Obviously, since the candidates who had opted for the subject Home Science were entitled for admission to degree programme in Home Science and therefore, in the column No. 15 of the online form submitted by the petitioner, the details of the degree automatically appeared as B.Sc. Home Science (Honours) at Udaipur. 5. The petitioner appeared in the JET-2013, the result whereof was declared by the University. As per the result sheet issued, in the subjects Biology, Agriculture & Home Science, the petitioner secured 14, 12 & 58 marks respectively and her total average percentile comes to 33.48. 6. After declaration of the result, option forms were invited from the short listed candidates. The candidates were required to fill up the option for the colleges in order of their choice. 6. After declaration of the result, option forms were invited from the short listed candidates. The candidates were required to fill up the option for the colleges in order of their choice. The petitioner having opted for the degree programme in Home Science and there being only one college conducting the said degree programme, the petitioner was not required to fill up the Option Form for allotment of the college. However, the petitioner filled up the Option Form online giving option for the colleges conducting degree programme in Agriculture. 7. It appears that the Option Form of the petitioner was processed by the respondents and taking into consideration the marks obtained by the petitioner in the JET for admission to the degree programme in Home Science, she was granted admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme provisionally and allotted the college of Agriculture, Mandore, Jodhpur for pursing her studies of the course. The petitioner was required to report to the allotted college upto 22nd Juiy, 2013. The petitioner deposited the fee for admission to the course, however, vide order dated 29.7.13, the petitioners admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme was cancelled vide order dated 29.7.13 issued by the Dean & Faculty Chairman, College of Agriculture, Bikaner observing that the petitioner having opted for the subjects Physics, Chemistry and Home Science, as per her result of JET-2013, she could be granted admission only in B.Sc. Home Science Programme in MPUAT, Udaipur. The petitioner served the respondent with a notice for demand of justice claiming allotment of College of Agriculture, Mandore or any other college conducting the B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme in the State of Rajasthan, which was not responded to. Hence, this petition. 8. On 19.8.13, while issuing notices to the respondents, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner by a coordinate Bench of this court in the following terms: "In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order Annex.7 dated 29.7.2013 shall remain stayed. The petitioners studies in the said College of Agriculture, Mandore in B.Sc. (Ag.) shall not be discontinued by the respondents without the leave of this Court." 9. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that action of the respondents in cancelling her provisional admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, without giving an opportunity of hearing, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. (Ag.) shall not be discontinued by the respondents without the leave of this Court." 9. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that action of the respondents in cancelling her provisional admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, without giving an opportunity of hearing, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a rural area and not having adequate knowledge of the computer operation, opted for the subject Home Science, whereas, she intended to take admission in B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme. It is submitted that on account of respondent allotting the College of Agriculture, Mandore, for pursing the course of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, the petitioner acted to her prejudice and obtained transfer certificate from the Government P.G. Bangur College, Pali, where she was pursuing B.Sc. Course and therefore, the cancellation of her admission is not justified. It is submitted that it was only a technical error on the part of the petitioner in opting for the subject Home Science, while submitting the application form online for appearance in the JET-2013. It is submitted that the petitioner has scored 33.47 percentile whereas, cut off for admission to the course of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme for SC category candidate was only 18.44 and therefore, it will be unjust to deny her admission to the said course. That apart, it is submitted that 5 seats in B.Sc. Agriculture, II Semester, are still lying vacant in the College of Agriculture, Mandore, Jodhpur and therefore, there is no reason, why the petitioners admission to the course should be cancelled. 10. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the petitioner had applied for admission to B.Sc. Home Science (Honours) at Udaipur, which is evident from the application form (Annex. 2). It is submitted that in para 6 of the General Instructions issued by the University for JET-2013, it was specifically mentioned that there are six subjects specified for Entrance Examination and the candidates desiring admission in Agriculture/Horticulture/Forestry/ Fisheries have to choose any of the three subjects except Home Science. It is submitted that the petitioner consciously opted for Home Science subject wherein usually candidates score higher marks. It is submitted that the petitioner consciously opted for Home Science subject wherein usually candidates score higher marks. Drawing the attention to the result sheet of the petitioner, it is submitted that in the subject Biology and Agriculture, the petitioner has secured 14 & 12 marks respectively whereas, in the subject Home Science, she has secured 58 marks. It is submitted that admission granted to the petitioner was provisional and was to be confirmed after verification of the testimonials. It is submitted that while informing the petitioner regarding admission to the course, it was specifically mentioned that on producing false certificate/mark sheet or information, the admission would be cancelled at any stage. It is submitted that due to an error in the communication dated 29.7.13, the subjects opted by the petitioner were mentioned as Physics, Chemistry and Home Science in place of Biology, Agriculture and Home Science but that does not affect validity of the order dated 29.7.13 cancelling the provisional admission of the petitioner. Precisely, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner having opted for admission to the B.Sc. Home Science was not eligible to be admitted to the B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme and therefore, the cancellation of her admission is absolutely justified. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the petition noticed as above, contended that it was only a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner, who hails from rural area, in filling up the subject Home Science in the online application form as one of the three subjects opted for. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner intended to take admission in B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme and there, she had filled up the online Option Form giving her preference for the colleges conducting the B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the petitioner had opted for Home Science subject in the application form was well within the knowledge of the respondents and therefore, if the petitioner was not entitled for admission to the course, the respondents could have refused admission to the petitioner in B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme at the very threshold. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the assurance of the respondents in granting provisional admission, the petitioner has acted to her prejudice and obtained the transfer certificate from Government P.G. Bangur College, Pali, where she was pursuing her studies of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme at the very threshold. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the assurance of the respondents in granting provisional admission, the petitioner has acted to her prejudice and obtained the transfer certificate from Government P.G. Bangur College, Pali, where she was pursuing her studies of B.Sc. and therefore, if at this stage, the cancellation of petitioners admission is maintained, her one valuable year will go waste. Learned counsel submitted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted in the matter and the respondents cannot be permitted to penalise the petitioner for no fault on her part. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner was admitted to the course and she had already pursued the studies of the course for more than six months till the cancellation of the petitioners admission vide order dated 28.3.14, on the interim order being not extended after 19.3.14, during the pendency of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, preferred on behalf of the University and therefore, at this stage, it would be unjust to deprive the petitioner from the benefits of the interim order moreso when, five seats of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme are still lying vacant in the College of Agriculture, Mandore. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of Honble Supreme Court, in the matters of "A Sudha v. University of Mysore & Anr.", (1987) 4 SCC 537 , "Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra" (1976) 1 SCC 311 , "Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University & Anr.", 1986 (Suppl) SCC 740 , K.Sujatha v. Marathwada University & Ors.", 1995 Suppl(1) SCC 155 , "Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati & Ors.", (1983) 3 SCC 517 , Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur & Ors.", (1989) 1 SCC 399 , "Smita Johnbhai Master & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.", AIR 1981 SC 1633 , "Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University & Ors.", (1990) 3 SCC 23 and decision of this court in the matters of "Ashok Kumar Sharma v. University of Jodhpur", RLW 2003(1) Raj. 257 , "Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur v. Rajesh Kumar Makhija & Anr.", 2006(3) WLC (Raj.) 43 and "Vijay Ramawat & 2 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.", 1984 WLN (UC) 534 . 12. 257 , "Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur v. Rajesh Kumar Makhija & Anr.", 2006(3) WLC (Raj.) 43 and "Vijay Ramawat & 2 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.", 1984 WLN (UC) 534 . 12. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the petition, submitted that in para 6 of the General Instructions issued by the University, it was specifically mentioned that the candidates desiring admission in Agriculture/Horticulture/ Forestry/Fisheries have to attempt three subjects except Home Science and that apart; it also stands clarified in unequivocal terms that the female candidates attempting the questions of Home Science will only be eligible for admission in Home Science and will not be eligible for admission in other degree programmes. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had consciously opted for the subject Home Science while filling up the examination form online and therefore, she cannot be permitted to contend that it was a bona fide mistake on her part. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the B.Sc. Home Science Programme being c. 'available only in one college, in the column no. 15 of the application form, the details of degree automatically appeared as "B.Sc. Home Science (Honours) at Udaipur" and therefore, while taking the print out of the application form, it became known to the petitioner that she is not required to fill up the Option Form for admission to the course. Learned counsel submitted that the attempt of the petitioner in filling up the Option Form, while knowing fully well that she is not entitled to be admitted to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, apparently lacks bonafides and thus, the petitioner having obtained admission by committing fraud, the cancellation of her admission within a few days, after verification of the testimonials, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, every candidate applying for a particular college is expected to go through the instructions laid down thoroughly including the eligibility criteria prescribed for each course and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit for her own wrong. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of "Priyadarshni College of Computer Science & Anr. v. Manish Kumar & Ors.", (2013) 11 SCC 802 . In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of "Priyadarshni College of Computer Science & Anr. v. Manish Kumar & Ors.", (2013) 11 SCC 802 . Learned counsel submitted that even if the seats remained vacant, a candidate cannot claim admission by relaxation of the eligibility criteria fixed by the University. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of "Visveswaraya Technological University & Anr. v. Shinde Ajinkya Tangai & Ors.", AIR 2011 SC 1429 . Learned counsel submitted that no right is created in favour of the petitioner on account of provisional admission being granted to her, subject to verification of the testimonials. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot claim admission in B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) on the basis of the marks obtained by her while appearing in the JET for admission to B.Sc. Home Science Programme. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been granted admission taking her average percentile to be 33.48, arrived at while adding the 58 marks obtained by her in the subject Home Science. Learned counsel submitted that had the petitioner not admitted somebody else standing in merit would have been admitted to the course in the College of Agriculture, Mandore, Jodhpur. Learned counsel submitted that the ex par'e interim order passed in favour of the petitioner does not create any right or equity in her favour and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue her studies of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, on the strength of the interim order passed in her favour, which was obviously subject to final decision of the matter. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of "National Council for Teacher Educational & Anr. v. Venus Public Education Society & Ors.", (2013) 1 SCC 223 . 13. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. Indisputably, all the candidates appearing in JET-2013 for seeking admission in undergraduate programme in Agriculture, Home Science, Horticulture, Forestry, Fisheries, Dairy Technology, Food Technology and Bio Technology were required to attempt only one question paper consisting of three subjects of their choice, out of the six subjects namely, Agriculture, Biology, Chemistry, Home Science, Mathematics and Physics. 14. Indisputably, all the candidates appearing in JET-2013 for seeking admission in undergraduate programme in Agriculture, Home Science, Horticulture, Forestry, Fisheries, Dairy Technology, Food Technology and Bio Technology were required to attempt only one question paper consisting of three subjects of their choice, out of the six subjects namely, Agriculture, Biology, Chemistry, Home Science, Mathematics and Physics. It was specifically laid down in the General Instructions issued that a female candidate desiring admission in Home Science can opt any of the three subjects, however, the female candidates were entitled to opt for any three subjects of their choice out of the six subjects specified but, the female candidates attempting the questions of Home Science were not entitled to be admitted to any other degree programme except B.Sc. Home Science. 15. It is to be noticed that the procedure for submitting the online application form was also explained in detail in the General Instructions issued by the University. As per clause (4) of the General Instructions (Step 2), it was clarified that the changes (if required) in the online application form will be allowed before final submission, but the web page will not accept any changes after final submission of the application form. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner consciously opted for subject Home Science and accordingly, in the online application form in column no. 15, the details of degree were automatically generated as B.Sc. Home Science (Honours) at Udaipur" inasmuch as, the admission to the B.Sc. Home Science was permissible only for female candidates and that too, only in one college i.e. MPUAT, Udaipur. It is pertinent to note that on the online form being submitted by the petitioner, admit card for JET-2013 was issued to the petitioner, wherein the subjects for examination were specifically mentioned as Biology, Agriculture and Home Science. The petitioner appeared in the examination in the three subjects and the result sheet was issued in her favour showing the average percentile arrived at on the basis of the marks obtained by her in all the three subjects. Thus, the stand of the petitioner that it was a bona fide error on her part in giving the option for the subject Home Science, appears to be incorrect. 16. Thus, the stand of the petitioner that it was a bona fide error on her part in giving the option for the subject Home Science, appears to be incorrect. 16. It is pertinent to note that Guidelines for Filling Option Forms (Online) for admission in different colleges under the University and MPUAT, Udaipur was issued, wherein the eligibility criteria for various degree programmes was specified as under: SN Subjects in JET (stream) Degree Programmes for which the candidate is eligible 1. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM) I. B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture II. B.Sc. (Hons) Horticulture III. B.Sc. (Fisheries) IV. B.Sc (forestry) V. B.Tech. (Dairy Technology) VI. B.Tech. (Food Technology) VII. B.Tech. (Biotechnology) VIII. B.Sc. (Home Science for Female candidates only) 2. Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB) I. B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture II. B.Sc. (Hons) Horticulture III. B.Sc. (Fisheries) IV. B.Sc. (Forestry) V. B.Sc. (Home Science for Female candidates only) VI. B.Tech. (Biotechnology) 3. Agriculture, Biology and Chemistry (ABC) I. B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture II. B.Sc.(Hons) Horticulture III. B.Sc. (Fisheries) IV. B.Sc. (Forestry) V. B.Sc. (Home Science for Female candidates only) 17. It is to be noticed that since, the female candidates who had opted for the subjects other than Home Science were entitled for admission to the various degree course including Home Science, the were required to give the option and therefore, in the column specifying the degree programmes for which a candidate in eligible, B.Sc. Home Science was specifically mentioned but, the candidates who had opted for Home Science as one of the subjects were not required to give the option and therefore, in the column giving the details of the subjects in JET (Stream), the Home Science has not been mentioned as one of the three subjects in different streams. Thus, apparently the female candidates who had opted for the Home Science subject were not required to submit the online Option Form. But then, the petitioner for the reasons best known to her filled up the online Option Form and thus, was able to get admission in B.Sc. Agriculture inasmuch as, on account of securing higher marks in the subject Home Science, the percentile obtained by her was much higher than the cut off percentile arrived at for admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, for the candidates belonging to SC category. 18. Agriculture inasmuch as, on account of securing higher marks in the subject Home Science, the percentile obtained by her was much higher than the cut off percentile arrived at for admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, for the candidates belonging to SC category. 18. It is pertinent to note that in the Guidelines issued it was specifically mentioned that before filling option, the candidate should make sure that he/she fulfills all the requirement for admission and all the entries made in the Option Form are correct and further that on the basis of the information submitted in the Option Form, the candidate will be allotted college as per their priority of choices/options order for admission at respective colleges. It was further clarified that if some deficiency in eligibility on the basis of the original documents is found at the time of reporting, the candidate himself/herself will be responsible for rejection of his/her admission in degree programme. That apart, while allotting the College of Agriculture, Mandore, Jodhpur to the petitioner for pursuing the studies of degree programme in Agriculture vide Annexure 6, it was specifically mentioned that the candidates found producing false certificate/mark sheet/information on at any stage, his/her admission will be cancelled and no claim will be entertained. Further, 1 pursuant to the allotment of the college made as aforesaid, the candidates were required to report to the allotted college upto 22.7.13 and were entitled to submit an application for upward movement in the allotted college upto 24.7.13. Admittedly, after granting admission to the petitioner on the basis of the Option Form submitted by her, within a few days when it came to the notice to the authority concerned that the petitioner was not entitled for admission to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme, her admission was immediately cancelled by the order impugned dated 29.7.13. Thus, the action of the respondent which is absolutely in conformity with the General Instructions and Guidelines issued governing the appearance of the candidates in JET- 2013 and grant of admission to various degree programmes, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. 19. This takes this court to consider the contention of the petitioner that it was only a bona fide error on her part in giving the option for the subject Home Science and thereafter, in filling the Option Form for admission to the B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programmed and therefore, having been permitted to pursue the studies of the B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, at this stage, she cannot be deprived of the benefits thereof, particularly, keeping in view the fact that the seats in B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme are still lying vacant in the college allotted to her. 20. In this regard, in the first instance, it will be appropriate to consider the various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and this court, cited by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 21. In Shri Krishnans case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contain and allowed the candidate to appear in examination then by force of the university statute, the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the student. The court observed that it is not fraud if a person on whom fraud is committed was in position to discover the truth by due diligence. 22. In Smita Johnbhai Masters case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the cases of the unwary students not guilty on their own part of an improper conduct who had completed one year of study under the interim order passed by the court observed : "4. Undoubtedly a grievance is being made now that those who benefit by the Courts interim order should not be allowed to take any advantage of it if the petition in which interim order was made is liable to be rejected. Another grievance equally meritorious is that those who secured admission which is found to be unjustified but continued to receive training under the interim orders of the Court, would enjoy an unfair advantage over those who failed to get admission because of the invalid admissions of the first mentioned persons. Conversely if interim arrangement is not directed what an oppressive outcome it would be if the challenge initially made in the petition to the Court turns out to be effective and valid. Conversely if interim arrangement is not directed what an oppressive outcome it would be if the challenge initially made in the petition to the Court turns out to be effective and valid. These are come unavoidable consequences of the system which howsoever one may disapprove, cannot be wished away. Even if we do not grant any relief to the petitioners whose petition is being dismissed, those who could not secure admission would not be compensated or restored by any process known to law. Clock cannot be put back howsoever one may ardently desire. 5. Therefore, with a view to mitigating the harashness of law blended by the fairness of equity, we direct that all those who secured admissions under the aforementioned five orders of the Director of Education and have completed first year course and have also appeared at the examination held at the end of first academic year should be treated as admitted for the limited period of first year. Theri results should be declared. However, it is made distinctly clear that on his account they would not be entitled to claim, even if they have passed the examination, admission in the second year course. They will have to seek admission in the second year course in case they are declared successful in the first year examination on merits and at the discretion of the management of the institutions." 23. In Punjab Engineering Colleges case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted illegally admitted students to continue their studies, whose admissions were struck down by the High Court keeping in view of the fact that they had already completed one or two semesters. 24. In Rajendra Prasad Mathurs case (supra), the court having arrived at the finding that fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the students because the Principal of the Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for sake of capitation fee in some of the cases, they granted admission to them and, therefore, the court observed that the students cannot be made to suffer for the sins of the management of Engineering Colleges. 25. 25. In A Sudhas case (supra), where the college itself was responsible for admitting on ineligible candidate without any fault of the candidate and the candidate was continuing his/her studies by virtue of the interim orders of the court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the candidate to pursue the course. 26. In Ashok Chand Singhvis case (supra) where a candidate concealed nothing from the university and authorities granted admission to him after considering all relevant facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that he cannot be made to suffer by putting in abeyance or cancelling his admission after his joining the classes for the mistake committed by the authorities themselves in granting the admission on the basis of a resolution which was contrary to university statutes. 27. In Sanatan Gaudas case (supra), where appellant student was admitted and allowed to appear in examination and later admitted to final year course but at the stage of declaration of his result of pre-Law and inter-Law examinations objections to his ineligibility to be admitted to the law course was raised by the university on the basis of its own interpretation of the relevant regulations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that university is estopped from refusing to declare the results of the students examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. The court observed that university cannot punish the student for negligence of Principal or the University authorities. 28. In K. Sujathas case (supra), where on account of ambiguity in operation of the rules providing for different eligibility for the candidates admitted from different sources, a student was admitted to the course in discretionary quota of the management and had persuaded the studies for quite sometime keeping in view that seat was lying vacant and nobody else could utilise the seat in case the appellant is not permitted to join, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed respondent-Medical College to continue the studies of the candidate from the point where she left in accordance with the rules. 29. In Vijay Ramawats case (supra), where the admission of the students who were admitted on account of bona fide clerical mistake were cancelled, this court observed that pursuant to the admission granted, the petitioner deposited the fee and were asked to attend the classes and therefore, doctrine of estoppel is attracted and the Principal cannot cancel the admission. 30. 29. In Vijay Ramawats case (supra), where the admission of the students who were admitted on account of bona fide clerical mistake were cancelled, this court observed that pursuant to the admission granted, the petitioner deposited the fee and were asked to attend the classes and therefore, doctrine of estoppel is attracted and the Principal cannot cancel the admission. 30. In Mohanial Sukhadia Universitys case (supra), where the student was granted admission to M.Ed. Course on the basis of B.Ed. degree not recognised by the University, the court observed that the authority having ample time and opportunity to find out the defect, the student cannot be held guilty of fraud and therefore, there being not a case of fundamental lack of qualification, the principle of promissory estoppel was rightly applied by the courts below. 31. In Ashok Kumar Sharmas case (supra), where the student appeared in M.Com (Previous) Examination and not being satisfied with the marks obtained in third paper thereof, applied for re-evaluation wherein the marks were reduced from 32 to 21, however, he appeared in M.Com (Final) Examination and the left out paper of M.Com (Previous) after obtaining permission and was declared passed, the court observed that there was a serious lapse on the part of the university authorities and if failed to establish the fraud played by the petitioner and therefore, the situation having become irreversible, the petitioner cannot be made to appear in the same examination after a number of years and accordingly, set aside the decision of the university in cancelling his result of M.Com. (Final) Examination. 32. In NCTEs case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reversing the order passed by the High Court directing the recognition of an institution to be retrospectively operative observed that the students who take admission who are not young in age and are graduates are expected to inquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation and accordingly, the plea for regularisation of the admission propounded was repelled. 33. In the backdrop of position of law settled by various decisions noticed above, adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was certainly not entitled to be admitted to B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme. But the fact remains that the Option For submitted by the petitioner online was entertained by the University and she was granted admission to the course. Agriculture (Honours) Programme. But the fact remains that the Option For submitted by the petitioner online was entertained by the University and she was granted admission to the course. It is not disputed before this court that relying upon the admission granted, the petitioner obtained the transfer certificate from the Government P.G. Bangur College, Pali, where she was pursuing studies of B.Sc. It is also not in dispute that after cancellation of the admission of the petitioner by the University, vide order dated 29.7.13, pursuant to the interim order dated 19.8.13 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court, the petitioner pursued her studies of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme in the College of Agriculture, Mandore, Jodhpur for a period of more than six months and the examinations of the First Semester are o scheduled to be held shortly. Of course, the Entrance Examination is conducted by the University with a view to select the best students available to pursue the various degree programmes, however, it is not the case of the University that the petitioner lacks eligibility qualification for admission to the course. It has come on record that besides the seats being vacant in other 5 affiliated colleges, five seats of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme are still lying vacant in the College of Agriculture, Mandore, where the petitioner was pursuing her studies. That apart, on being asked by the court, learned counsel appearing for the University had fairly submitted that the seats lying vacant cannot be utilised by anybody else even if the cancellation of the petitioners admission to the course is maintained. Thus, if the petitioner who has already discontinued her studies of B.Sc., which she was pursuing in the Government PG Bangaur College, Pali and has pursued the studies of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme at the college allotted, for a period of more than six months pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, is 25 permitted to pursue the studies of the course further, nobodys right is likely to be adversely affected. Thus, taking into totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court considers it appropriate to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to pursue her studies of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme. 34. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to pursue her B.Sc. Thus, taking into totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court considers it appropriate to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to pursue her studies of B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme. 34. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to pursue her B.Sc. Agriculture (Honours) Programme in the College of Agriculture, Mandore, Jodhpur. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Disposed of as above. *******