JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. This writ application has been filed by the father of an applicant applied against an advertisement made by the opposite party No.5 calling for applications for admission into the Post Graduate Diploma in Business Analytics (in short PGDBA), a discipline jointly offered by the I.I.M, Kolkata-opposite party No.3, I.I.T., Kharagpur - opposite party No.4 and I.S.I, Kolkata-opposite party No.5. 2. Facts as reveals from the writ petition is that the brochure introduced for the purpose at Annexure-2 discloses that the PGDBA course is a two years full time course jointly offered by the opposite party Nos.3 to 5. Eligibility criteria as prescribed by the opposite party Nos.3 to 6 and as mentioned in clause 'I' of the Annexure-2 (series) reads as follows: "A candidate must hold a graduate/post graduate degree with a minimum of 10+2+4 years of formal education. Candidates, who are in the final year, are also eligible to apply provided they complete their formal education as specified above by 30th June, 2015." 3. Petitioner claims that his son is a graduate under the pattern 10+2+3 and by such restriction in calling for application for the course of PGDBA particularly confining to 10+2+4 curriculum, there is a clear restriction by the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 so far it relates to the students / applicants in the 10+2+3 stream, an All India Standard of Education for all disciplines except Engineering and Medicine, thus the petitioner claims that his son has been discriminated in the matter of such admission for no lawful reason. In substantiating his son's case the petitioner further submitted that the said post has been launched for the first time by a joint venture collaboration between the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 under the administrative control of the opposite party No.1. Petitioner further contended that the national policy of education has been issued by the opposite party No.1 clearly stipulating an all India standard 10+2+3 pattern of education for all disciplines except Engineering and Medicine and thus 10+2+3 pattern is the universally acceptable criteria for being a graduate so also for getting into admission to the post graduate courses throughout India. The condition set limiting the admission to the 10+2+4 pattern is contrary to and in violation of the National Policy of Education. The condition set limiting the admission to the 10+2+4 pattern is contrary to and in violation of the National Policy of Education. It has been designed only to suit only the Engineering Students and patently designed to prevent the students from Humanities, Science or Arts disciplines. Further substantiating his son's case the petitioner also submitted that an attempt made by the University of Delhi to change the 10+2+3 pattern to 10+2+4 pattern i.e. from a three years undergraduate course to four years undergraduate course in the academic year 2013-14 met with stiff resistance from all concerns for which the University of Delhi was ultimately compelled to cancel such innovations. Further case of the petitioner is that in the country there are only two statutory Universities established under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 namely, the Symbiosis International University, Pune and the Bharateeya Vidyapeeth University, Pune offer PG courses in Business Analytics till last academic year 2014-15 and the course introduced by the opposite party No.3 to 5 in their joint venture is being introduced for this year for the first time. The Symbiosis International University, Pune offers a similar course with identical name of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Analytics (in short PGDBA) introduced by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 and invites applications from graduates in any discipline of any statutory University with minimum 50% marks for general candidates and 45% marks for SC/ST candidates. Similarly, Bharateeya Vidyapeeth University, Pune also offers a similar programme with name "MBA Business Analytics" where also eligibility criteria for a student is that a candidate either has passed Bachelors Degree or Masters Degree from any recognized University with minimum 50% marks in aggregate for general candidates and 45% marks in case of SC/ST candidates. Petitioner next contended that the statutory Universities follow the 10+2+3 criterion as per the National Education Policy as prescribed by O.P. No.1 being universal in India, the opposite party Nos.3 to 6 being government public institutions functioning under the control of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 cannot violate the said National Education Policy issued by opposite party No.1 by prescribing irrational eligibility criterion for similar type of courses. 1 & 2 cannot violate the said National Education Policy issued by opposite party No.1 by prescribing irrational eligibility criterion for similar type of courses. Petitioner next contended that when the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 themselves allows candidates, already applied through CAT, GMAT, GATE, GATE and GRE and agrees for the cutoff marks for the various qualifying examinations from CAT, GMAT, GATE, GRE and since the CAT, GMAT, GATE, GRE allow all graduates inclusive of 10+2+3 pattern there cannot be a self imposition by the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 restricting the applications by only the 10+2+4 candidates. 4. The petitioner assails the action of the opposite parties as discriminatory, arbitrary leading to favoritism in the selection besides the action of the opposite parties also lack of transparency, lack of notice and the disclosures as well as the restrictions made therein leads to inevitable conclusion that there is some oblique an improper motive on the opposite party Nos.3 to 6. Further looking to the eligibility criteria for selection to PGDBA course it clearly discloses that the candidate must have a valid score for at least one of the following examinations: CAT : CAT 2014 held in November, 2014. GMAT : Score not earlier than two years from April 17, 2015. GRE : Score not earlier than two years from April 17, 2015. GATE : Score not earlier than two years from April 17, 2015. OR Qualified for any Masters level entrance examination conducted by ISI not earlier than three years from April 17, 2015 and the candidates are also asked to provide multiple scores for the above qualifying examinations. The score that maximizes the chance for selection will be considered. It cannot restrict the Student eligible for above Examinations from appearing the PGDBA course in the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 institutions. 5. Per contra on its appearance the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 in filing a detailed counter affidavit while making serious objections to the jurisdiction of this Court over the matter in view of the position of the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 outside the jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa, further submitted that the PGDBA course has been designed to help specially the emergent profession of Business Analytics by delivering a cutting age inter disciplinary educational experience to Graduate applicants with an aspiration of building a career in the field. It is further contended that the PGDBA course has been carefully designed over a year by the three institutes after taking into consideration the industry feedback. The three premier institutions named above have tied up to offer this unique programme in the emergent area of Business Analytics and is a first of its kind in India. While describing the utility of the course it is submitted that the eligibility criterion was being discussed and upon an objective assessment of the entire issue, the eligibility criteria was agreed upon. The petitioner's reliance on the National Policy on education has no relevance to the present case. There has been a substantial expansion in the National Policy on Education and the PGDBA is one of such course which was not conceptualized of forcing at the point of time of introduction of National Policy on Education. The idea is rather treating this degree equivalent to a M.Tech. degree. The requirement of which is 10+2+4 years of academic study. These opposite parties also contended that since the eligibility criteria have been year marked and fixed by three institutions in their highest level independently and objectively considering the modalities there is no chance to doubt with such initiatives and such decisions of expert bodies ought not to be ordinarily interfered. The PGDBA programme is treated as 2 years 600 levels inter institutional programme and its curriculum includes 600 levels subjects. B.Sc. three years programme in IIT is treated as a 300 level, B.Tech. programme a 400 level and M.Sc. at 500 level course. Further in IIT all 600 level post Graduate programmes such as MBA, M.Tech and MHRM can be offered only after 10+2+4 or 10+2+5 or 10+2+3+2 years. These opposite parties thus contended that allowing a 10+2+3 entry into PGDBA programme will create a serious anomaly in the overall curriculum structure of IIT, Kharagpur and a precedent with consequence that can potentially alter the overall fabric of the 600 level post Graduate programme not only in IIT, Kharagpur but also in leading institutes of the country including other IITs and Indian Institute of Sciences. As regards the submission of the petitioner on the eligibility criteria laid down by the Symbiosis International University, Pune and Bharateeya Vidyapeeth University, Pune, these opposite parties submit that these are their self decisions and these opposite parties have nothing to controvert the same further since the PGDBA course in Symbiosis International University, Pune being a one year, week-end contact programme stands completely different with the course offered by these opposite parties. In referring to Misc. Case No.6565 of 2015 these opposite parties submitted that even though the application of the petitioner has been accepted following the interim direction of this Court on scrutiny of the same it is observed that the petitioner's son has the CAT score at 152.25. On verification of the applications it is observed approximately 390 candidates have higher percentile than the petitioner's son. There are extremely limited numbers of seats and there is opportunity only to the best amongst equals will have to be followed in selecting the candidates. During course of argument the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 by producing the decision of the Admission Committee in the matter of fixing cutoff marks submitted that since the cutoff mark so far it relates to CAT is fixed at 163.74 in the general category, the petitioner failed in meeting the cutoff marks. Therefore, he remains outside the zone of the consideration. It is on these premises, the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 submitted that since the petitioner is found to be ineligible during short-listing of candidates, his case cannot be considered and the writ petition should not be entertained on this score alone. 6. Upon receipt of the counter from the opposite party Nos.3 to 5, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit. 6. Upon receipt of the counter from the opposite party Nos.3 to 5, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit. Reading of the rejoinder affidavit discloses that it is merely a repetition of the submissions made in the writ petition except advancing a submission with regard to the contention of the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 on the jurisdiction of this Court over the matter and next contended that since the matter involves fundamental rights of the petitioner under articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the applications were to be downloaded at the place of the petitioner's son with permission of the opposite parties and liberty to the applicants to upload the applications at his place of residence which being part of Odisha, results being known to the candidates at their own place, several part of cause of action having taken place in Odisha, he has every right to agitate the issue in this Court and this Court has also jurisdiction over such litigation. 7. Since the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 has raised the question of jurisdiction of this Court in the particular issue, this Court feels it appropriate to decide the question of jurisdiction of this Court ahead of delving into the other issues and accordingly proceeds as follows: As appears the petitioner's son was an applicant may be pursuant to interim direction of this Court, in response to a notification by the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 inviting the applications for the PGDBA course. Appendix-I of the notification as available to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 permits the applicants to download their applications available at the Website identified as http://www.iimcal.ac.in/ pgdba. By clause-e the applicants are also permitted for making payment through the payment get way available from the Website and mention the details in the application forms or send a demand draft of the requisite amount in favour of the institutions. Under clause 'F' of the said document applicants are also allowed to upload their filled in applications from their places and result of such examinations are also to be available in the Website and available at the applicants' place of residence. Under clause 'F' of the said document applicants are also allowed to upload their filled in applications from their places and result of such examinations are also to be available in the Website and available at the applicants' place of residence. It is needless to mention here that applications were called for from the candidates allover India and this being a public institution and remain under control of the opposite party No.1, it is too late at this stage to raise the question of jurisdiction of the particular High Court in such matters. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the applicant has applied from his place of residence in the State of Odisha. There is also no dispute that neither the document vide Annexure-A nor the brochure supplied to the petitioner through the Website stipulates condition with regard to place of jurisdiction nor specified any particular Court's jurisdiction. Since the petitioner was an applicant from the State of Odisha and under the above stated circumstances this Court is of the view that the petitioner has cause of action from within the State of Odisha and thus the writ petition is very much maintainable in the High Court of Orissa. Now coming to the constitutional aspect as well as decisions of different Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears from the Constitution of India that the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 226 to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. "(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 8. 8. Constitution was in fact amended in 1963 known as 15th amendment of the constitution introducing Clause-1A in to Article 226 by stating that the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose could also issue writs notwithstanding that the seat of government or the authority or the residence of the person was not within their territory and after 44th amendment of the constitution, this position has not been altered rather retained as Clause-2 of the Article 226 which reads as follows: "The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 9. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh ILR (1889) 16 Cal. 98, 102 Lord Watson said: " . . . . . .. the cause of action has no relation whatever ill the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour." Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition." 10. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition." 10. The expression "Cause of Action" is tersely defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure: "The cause of Action" means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court". 11. Now coming to discuss on law of the land, in the case between Cooke -vrs- Gill (1873) LR 8, C.P.l07 speaks "cause of action had been held from the earliest time to mean every fact which is material to be provided to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, every fact which the defendant would have a right to traverse". 12. In the case between M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd -vrs- Union of India & Others decided on 01.08.2011 in W.P.(C).Nos. 6570 of 2010, 8399 of 2009, 2447 of 2010, 2448 of 2010 and 6953 of 2010, a five Judge Bench decision of Delhi High Court in deciding similar issue therein has observed as follows: "xxx xxx xxx From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small faction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a "part of cause of action", nothing less than that" 13. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 254 , this Court elaborately discussed Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly the meaning of the word 'cause of action' with reference to Section 20(c) and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed:- "9. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 254 , this Court elaborately discussed Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly the meaning of the word 'cause of action' with reference to Section 20(c) and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed:- "9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts. 10. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter." Their Lordships further observed as under.- "29. In view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now if a part of cause of action arises outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, it would have jurisdiction to issue a writ." 14. In Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India and Another (2006) 6 SCC 207 , answering a similar question Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that on a plain reading of Clause(2) of Article 226 it is manifestly clear that the High Court tan exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territory. In para 7 this Court observed:- "7. In para 7 this Court observed:- "7. The question whether or not cause of action, wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof." 15. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by different Courts, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that event if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a "part of cause of action", nothing less than that. 16. In the present case, there is a specific pleading by the petitioner that his son is a resident of the State. He has come across the Advertisement of the Opp. party Nos.3 to 5-Institutions calling for necessary application while residing in the State. His son was also permitted to down load the application form as well as syllabi and the Brochure for the purpose of filling up the application form in this State alone. Not only that his son was also permitted to up-load the application form in the website of the Opp. party Nos.3 to 5 and there is no denial to this cause of action by the Opp. party Nos.3 to 5 either in the pleadings or during course of argument. Not only that his son was also permitted to up-load the application form in the website of the Opp. party Nos.3 to 5 and there is no denial to this cause of action by the Opp. party Nos.3 to 5 either in the pleadings or during course of argument. Under the circumstances, it can very well be said that the above cause of action are all essential, integral or material facts so as to constitute a part of cause of action within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, further inviting application from the eligible candidates from the entire country and the opposite party Nos.3 to 6 being a public authority remaining under the domain of opposite party No. 1 cannot claim that their such action confines to a particular State. We, therefore, reject the contention of the opp. party Nos. 3 to 5 so far as their objection to the jurisdiction of this Court in the present issue is concerned and hold that this Court has jurisdiction over the lis involved. 17. Now coming back to the merit of the case at hand this Court observes that the petitioner has provided information regarding his score obtained in CAT Exam. It is found that the petitioner has scored less than the required cutoff mark so far it relates to CAT Examination and he has not appeared in any of the other examinations. Learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 submitted that in view of the fixation of the cutoff marks and the petitioner scoring below the cutoff mark in the CAT examination he is ineligible to be considered and the writ petition should be dismissed on this score alone. Under the circumstances, since this is an application by an individual such as the petitioner alone and the petitioner did not match the cutoff mark, this Court declines to entertain this writ application and grant relief in favour of the petitioner in the matter of admission in the course. Since the petitioner is found to be ineligible to be considered for the course though the petitioner has raised certain other vital issues relating to his candidature being academic, this Court is not inclined to enter into such allegations. It is open to the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 to go ahead with the selection process for the present year. Since the petitioner is found to be ineligible to be considered for the course though the petitioner has raised certain other vital issues relating to his candidature being academic, this Court is not inclined to enter into such allegations. It is open to the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 to go ahead with the selection process for the present year. However considering the other vital issues such as the procedure adopted by the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 in the matter of selection of candidates for the PGDBA course and the fixation of cutoff marks, this Court after hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, proceeds as follows and the observations as well as the directions made herein below are only for the future academic years. 18. First of all for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 allowing the candidates scored in CAT, GMAT, GATE & GRE to apply as against the course since the CAT, GMAT, GATE & GRE allows the students from all discipline in 10+2+3 pattern to appear in the said examination this Court is unable to appreciate the motive of the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 in restricting application from the graduates involving 10+2+3 pattern and confining the same only to 10+2+4 pattern. Secondly considering the valid scores from the aforementioned examinations under clause 2 for different years also not only smacks arbitrariness but also smacks unreasonableness. This Court feels that there is scope for discrimination. This apprehension of the Court is justified from the indication in clause 2 under the heading eligibility, considering candidates scores in multiple examination and the score that maximizes the chance for selection will be considered. There is whole instability in the consideration process. During course of argument, learned senior counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 bringing a document to the notice of this Court filed through its counter namely a notification in the Gazettee dated 5th July, 2014 in connection with the University Grants Commission particularly in the matter of specification of degrees contended that under the said Gazettee notification there are various courses available under 10+2+4 pattern as found at page 158-159 of the brief such as B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Sc. Sericulture, Bachelor in Veterinary Sciences, Bachelor in Fishery Science, Bachelor of elementary education and on the above premises, the learned senior counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 contended that the courses introduced for the first time does not involve only the candidates from the Engineering stream hut also includes the students from all the above streams. This Court feels and observes that the students from all the above categories have nothing to do with the curriculum adopted for PGDBA. The petitioner has filed the courses provided for the PGDBA course as published in the brochure and available at page 29 of the writ petition which clearly discloses the subjects to be taught for the PGDBA course and this Court finds that the course offered to the PGDBA has no link at all with the students from B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Sc. Sericulture, Bachelor in Veterinary Sciences, Bachelor in Fishery Science, Bachelor of elementary education. This Court therefore finds no merit in the submission of the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 in the above regard. Further during course of argument, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 brought to the notice of the Court a decision of the Admission Committee of PGDBA for the 2015-17 batches met on 23.04.2015 to decide on the criteria for short-listing of the applicants for personal interview. The committee deliberated as follows: 1. The qualifying examinations for PGDBA are varied. They include CAT, GATE, GRE, GMAT and candidates with a valid interview call letter for any Masters level programme of ISI are also qualified. The cutoffs for the various examinations need to be decided in a way that there exists a sufficient pool of applicants for the program for filling up a maximum of 60 seats. 2. The committee agreed to follow the law of the land for selecting reserved candidates (including NC-OBC) SC, ST candidates) 3. Since PGDBA is an interdisciplinary program the committee decided to give preference to a mix of students coming through different examination channels. 4. For examinations like GRE and GMAT that are administered globally, the committee agreed to adopt globally acceptable cutoffs for reputed universities. 5. The admissions committee decided to shortlist all candidates with valid interview call letters issued by ISI for any Masters level program since no numerical score was available for these candidates. 4. For examinations like GRE and GMAT that are administered globally, the committee agreed to adopt globally acceptable cutoffs for reputed universities. 5. The admissions committee decided to shortlist all candidates with valid interview call letters issued by ISI for any Masters level program since no numerical score was available for these candidates. Based on the above discussion, the committee agreed on the following cutoffs for the various qualifying examinations for the different categories of candidates. CAT GATE GRE GMAT GENERAL 163.74 650.00 315.00 700.00 NC-OBC 147.37 585.00 283.50 630.00 SC 109.16 433.33 210.00 466.67 ST 109.16 433.33 210.00 466.67 DA 109.16 433.33 210.00 466.67 From perusal of the decision of the Admission Committee in the matter of short-listing the candidates as indicated hereinabove, nowhere discloses following any particular standard. The statement indicated hereinabove nowhere discloses as to what is the basis of reaching to such cutoff marks. There appears no rationality behind it and there is scope for students under performing in three of the above examinations yet get a chance for selection / admission for the reason he has scored better in a particular examination. There may be students performed better in three of the above examinations yet ignored / rejected for their not meeting the particular cutoff mark. 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Saurabh Chaudhari vs. Union of India, reported in 2003 (11) SCC 146 observed at Para 8 as follows. "8. Right of a meritorious student to get admission in a post graduate course is a fundamental and human right, which is required to be protected. Such valuable right cannot be permitted to be whittled down at the instance of less meritorious students". 20. In view of the above serious discrepancies and the position of Law narrated hereinabove, this Court directs the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 not only to allow the students from 10+2+3 pattern but also either to adopt a particular percentile in all the above examinations or adopt particular percentile in either one of the above four examinations or have its own entrance examination selecting the candidates. 21. The writ petition stands disposed of with above direction. However, there shall be no order as to cost. I agree. Petition disposed of.