JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Respondent No. 3-College in original writ petition is appellant in the present appeal. The respondent No. 3-College is aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.8.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 29 of 2011, whereby it has been fined @10, 000/- for each irregularity committed while admitting two candidates, namely, Ms.Anamika and Bhim Singh in M.Ed course during academic session 2010-2011 and also the costs to the tune of ''50, 000/- on account of fabrication of documents to get the above said two students admitted in the course. 2. The Respondent No. 3-appellant/college is admittedly affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University, first respondent, in the matter of admission to post graduate courses. Process was initiated for admission in M.Ed course for the academic session 2010-11. The counseling for the purpose has taken place on 20.12.2010 in the premises of respondent-appellant. The candidates in the list Annexure R-2 appeared for counseling. The names of aforesaid Ms.Anamika and Bhim Singh does not figure in this list, meaning thereby they were not present on the date of counseling before the Counseling Committee. They however were later on granted admission in the course. Such action of respondent-appellant and respondent-University was challenged by respondent No. 3 herein-writ petitioner Ms.Anu Rana on the ground that she being more meritorious to aforesaid Anamika and Bhim Singh should have been called for counseling and consequently granted admission to the course. She therefore, sought the relief that respondent-appellant be directed to grant her admission in M.Ed course for the academic session 2010-11. 3. Respondent-Appellant and University when put to notice, have filed their respective response to the writ petition. Learned Single Judge on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and also the other material placed on record, has concluded that two candidates namely Ms.Anamika and Bhim Singh were neither present in person on the date of counseling nor represented by any authorized person and the authority letters, which respondent-appellant college subsequently placed on record were held to be fabricated and engineered. The Respondentappellant college has therefore, been found to have committed irregularity in getting the aforesaid Anamika and Bhim Singh admitted to the course. Although, their admission was not disturbed, yet on the recommendation of respondent-University, respondent-appellant College has been fined @ 10, 000/- for each irregularity committed while getting the two candidates admitted to the course. The Respondentappellant college has therefore, been found to have committed irregularity in getting the aforesaid Anamika and Bhim Singh admitted to the course. Although, their admission was not disturbed, yet on the recommendation of respondent-University, respondent-appellant College has been fined @ 10, 000/- for each irregularity committed while getting the two candidates admitted to the course. Since the authority letters in the opinion of learned Single Judge were fabricated lateron, therefore, costs to the tune of ''50, 000/- was also imposed upon the appellant-college. 4. On having gone through the record and also hearing learned counsel on both sides, admittedly both Anamika and Bhim Singh were not present on the date of counseling before the Counseling Committee. The record reveals that the counseling fee @ 100/- each was deposited on their behalf on the same date i.e. 20.12.2010 in the college. The receipts issued by respondentappellant College in this regard are available on record. The authority letters allegedly issued by both Anamika and Bhim Singh, authorizing thereby their representatives to produce the documents is no doubt under suspicion, because had it been so, the names of such authorized representatives would have reflected in the list of candidates, who attended the counseling (Annexure R-2) . The explanation as forthcoming that they were not allowed to put their signatures on the list, cannot be believed to be true. The facts however remains that there was no rule, guideline or instruction requiring the personal attendance of the candidates on the date of counseling. It is again the admitted case of the parties that as per the practice prevalent, the documents could have been produced even by the authorized representative(s) also in the event of a candidate(s) prevented by any reason to attend the counseling. In the authority letters available on record, no reason which prevented Anamika and Bhim Singh from attending the counseling finds mention. 5. Therefore, it is doubtful that these documents were produced before counseling committee by two candidates through their authorized representatives. The fact however remains that they have deposited the counseling fee on the same date. They were eligible for being considered for admission as they had applied for the same. 5. Therefore, it is doubtful that these documents were produced before counseling committee by two candidates through their authorized representatives. The fact however remains that they have deposited the counseling fee on the same date. They were eligible for being considered for admission as they had applied for the same. Not only this, as per list Annexure R-3 of the candidates admitted for M.Ed course on 20.12.2010 sent to the University on the next date i.e. 21.12.2010, contains the names of two students, namely, Anamika and Bhim Singh also. Therefore, in case both of them were not present when the counseling was in progress, they seems to have appeared later on, on the same day and produced their documents. The respondent-appellant College no doubt has made an effort to straighten in the record by way of manipulation as we already noticed and for that it has been appropriately fined i.e. @ 10, 000/- for each irregularity they committed. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, as noticed herein above, while taking a lenient view of the matter, we deem it fit and proper to waive of the cost of ''50, 000/- imposed upon the respondent-appellant college. 6. In view of above this appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment to the extent of imposing cost to the tune of ''50, 000/- is quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondent-appellant College to deposit the fine i.e. ''10, 000/- for each irregularity it committed with respondent No. 2-University within four weeks from today. 7. Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj, learned standing counsel has stated on instructions that respondent-University has not yet made any provision in its statutes or ordinances providing for personal appearance of the candidates at the time of counseling for seeking admission in any course, save and except unavoidable circumstances, as has been directed by learned Single Judge. Therefore, we now direct the respondent-University to make such provision in its statutes/ordinances within three months from today, so that any such irregularity is not committed by any institution or student in future. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s) , if any.