JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. These intra-Court appeals are directed against the order dated 9.7.21 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the appellant-University of Rajasthan (‘the University’), has been directed to give provisional admission to the writ petitioners, the respondents herein, in LL.M. (General) course for academic session 2020-21 as also to accept their off-line examination forms for First Semester Examination to be held in near future. 2. The facts relevant are that the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions, questioning the legality of the action of the University in granting admission to LL.M.(General) course for the academic session 2020-21, pursuant to notice dated 19.1.21, on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination i.e. Bachelor Degree in Law. 3. Precisely, the case set out by the writ petitioners was that as per rules of the University, the admission to PG Programme in Law is required to be made through entrance test and academic merit, wherein 70% weightage is given to the marks obtained in the entrance test and 30% to the percentage of the marks secured in qualifying examination. However, during the academic session 2020-21, the admissions have been accorded solely on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in qualifying examination. According to the writ petitioners, for the purpose of grant of admission to LL.M. (General) course, the University was required to conduct the entrance test as provided under the rules and thus, the admission accorded solely on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination is patently illegal. 4. A reply to the writ petitions was filed by the University, taking the stand that though the admission to LL.M. course in the Department of Law is given through entrance test but, due to outbreak of COVID-19, during the academic year 2020-21, it was not possible to conduct the entrance test and therefore, as per directions issued by the State Government, admissions were made on the basis of academic record of the candidates. 5. On 3.2.21, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order in favour of the writ petitioners, in the following terms: “Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to serve copy of the writ petition to Dr.YC Sharma, who is present in the Court and is directed to accept notice on behalf of the respondent-University. His name be shown in the cause-list. His name be shown in the cause-list. Learned counsel for the respondent-University- Dr.YC Sharma is directed to seek necessary instructions and inform this Court about availability of LL.M. seats in the University. This Court further directs that if additional seats of 10% in LL.M. Course has not so far been filled, the respondent-University will not fill these seats till next date of hearing.” 6. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge as aforesaid, the respondent-University filed an additional affidavit clarifying that 12 seats are lying vacant in different categories for admission to LL.M. course in academic session 2020-21. Taking into consideration the stand of the University in the additional affidavit filed, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 9.7.21 in favour of the writ petitioners in the following terms: “Considering the affidavit submitted by the respondents that twelve seats are lying vacant under LLM General Course 2020-2021 and total number of petitioners involved in this litigation are ten only, I deem it just and proper to direct the university to give provisional admission to the petitioners in the L.L.M. General Course 2020-2021 and also accept their offline examination forms for first semester examination to be held in near future, however result of the petitioners shall not be declared before prior permission of this Court.” 7. As per the Admission Policy 2020-21 issued by the Commissionerate College Education, Rajasthan, for admission to LL.M. course during the academic session 2020-21, the only eligibility condition provided was that the candidate must have secured minimum 55% marks in qualifying examination i.e. Graduation in Law. None of the petitioner had secured the cut-off marks for admission to the LL.M. course and therefore, their names did not appear in the first list of admission issued by the University. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the grievance of the writ petitioners in the writ petitions is that admission to the LL.M. (General) course must be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the entrance test and the qualifying examination combined, as specified under the rules and thus, the admissions could not have been made solely on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination. Learned counsel submitted that none of the writ petitioners has prayed for grant of admission on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination rather, they challenged the admissions accorded on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination and thus, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to pass an interim order in their favour granting admission to them to LL.M. course against the vacant seats. Drawing the attention of the Court to the chart depicting the status of those applicants, who have filed the present writ petitions before this Court, learned counsel submitted that there are many more persons above the writ petitioners herein in the merit list and thus, if admissions are at all permitted to be granted against 12 vacant seats, obviously, the admission has to be offered to the persons higher in merit. Merely because, the writ petitioners have approached this Court assailing the admission accorded on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination, no directions could have been issued to accord them admission, ignoring the claim of the candidates higher in merit. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the relief granted by the learned Single Judge by way of interim order is beyond the prayer made in the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that at this belated stage, when First Semester has come to an end and the examinations are to be conducted in near future, the writ petitioners could not have been directed to be admitted to the course. Learned counsel urged that if the admissions are accorded dehors the academic merit, it will be subversive of academic discipline and therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. vs. University of Lucknow & Ors.: AIR 1984 186, Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal & Anr.: AIR 1993 SC 2412 and Medical Council of India vs. P.Krishna & Ors.: (2017) 11 SCC 559 . 9. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. vs. University of Lucknow & Ors.: AIR 1984 186, Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal & Anr.: AIR 1993 SC 2412 and Medical Council of India vs. P.Krishna & Ors.: (2017) 11 SCC 559 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that since the seats were lying vacant, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to give provisional admission to the writ petitioners, who had approached this Court for redressal of their grievance, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the Court can always restrict the relief qua the writ petitioners before the Court and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the writ petitioners do not stand in merit qua other candidates, who have slept over their rights and did not approach the Court. Learned counsel submitted that if the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is interfered with by this Court in exercise of intra-Court appeal jurisdiction, the writ petitioners’ right to admission to LL.M. course shall stand jeopardized and their precious one year shall go waste. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences: (2016) 11 SCC 530 . 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, the grievance raised by the writ petitioners in the writ petitions is that admission to LL.M. Course should have been made by the University as per the rules, on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test and qualifying examination combined, in the ratio of 70% and 30% and the admissions could not have been made solely on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. To put in other words, according to the writ petitioners, no admission could have been made by the University without conducting the entrance test. The issue as to whether the admission could have been granted by the University to LL.M.(General) course solely on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination, is a question yet to be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge. The issue as to whether the admission could have been granted by the University to LL.M.(General) course solely on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination, is a question yet to be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge. In any case, the writ petitioners, who have challenged the admission accorded on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination, could not have been directed to be admitted to LL.M. course, ignoring their merit position in the list prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in qualifying examination. It goes without saying that if vacant seats are at all required to be filled in, the admission has to be offered to the candidates higher in merits than the writ petitioners. Merely because, the writ petitioners have approached the Court questioning the procedure adopted by the University in granting admission to LL.M. course, they cannot be rewarded with the admission to the course dehors the academic merit. 12. A bare perusal of the chart placed on record by the University depicting the status of the writ petitioners reveals that after exclusion of the admissions already accorded as per the merit list prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination, the merit position of the writ petitioners no.1 to 7 in Writ Petition No.1309/21 comes at Serial Nos. 573, 74, 83, 92, 144, 19 & 111 respectively, the merit position of the writ petitioners no.1 & 2 in Writ Petition No.2180/21 comes at Serial No. 130 & 25 respectively and merit position of writ petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.3185/21 is at Serial No.729. It is pertinent to note that while directing admission of the writ petitioners to LL.M. course, it is also not even ascertained as to whether they fulfil the eligibility condition of minimum 55% marks in qualifying examination or not. We are firmly of the opinion that if vacant seats are at all required to be filled in, the admissions must be accorded strictly on the basis of the academic merit of the candidates and thus, the writ petitioners, who do not stand in merit on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination, could not have been directed to be admitted to the course. Further, the writ petitioners, who have not even undergone the studies of First Semester, cannot be permitted to appear in the examination straight away. 13. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge which apparently travels beyond the scope of the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners, deserves to be set aside. 14. Coming to the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the writ petitioners, in Kalinga Institute of Sciences (supra) where the admissions were accorded to the students by the Institute beyond its intake capacity, the Court while protecting the admission accorded to the students imposed heavy cost on the Institute and categorically observed that granting admission to the student in an educational institution when there is serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted, is not a matter to be taken lightly. The Court observed that generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. To say the least, the said decision of the Supreme Court does not help the writ petitioners in any manner. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, the special appears are allowed. The order impugned dated 9.7.21 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. No order as to costs.