(1.) Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (herein afterin after referred to as the university) invited applications in February, 1992 for Pre-Medical Test (hereinafter referred to as the P.M.T.) for selecting candidates for admission to M.B.B.S. course for the session 1992-93. There were 50 seats in the M.B.B.S. course and 5 supernumerary seats were reserved for the studens of the University. By an information leaflet, a copy of which has been produced before me and the relevant extract of which has been filed along with the writ petition, eligibility qualifications were laid down. So far as the 5 supernumerary seats were concerned, which were reserved for the students of the University, eligibility qualifications were laid down in appendix I to the information leaflet, relevant extract from which in reproduced below :
(2.) All the Petitioners in the three writ petitions mentioned above, who were students of B.Sc. Part 1 in the University, applied for the test in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. Petitioners were permitted to appear in the P.M.T. by the University. The result of the test was declared and separate lists containg the names of selecied candidates and the candides whose names are placed in the waiting list for 50 and 5 supernumerary seats were prepared. In the list of selected candidates for 5 supernumerary seats, name of Km. Ruchi, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30476 of 1992 was placed at serial No. 5 while names of Sri Ashish Rai and Sri Anoop Tripatbi, Petitioners in the other two writ petition were placed at serial Nos. 7 & 9 of the list of candidates in waiting As some of the selected candidates against the 5 supernumerary seats did not join, Km. Ruchi was placed at serial No. 2 in the list of selected candidates and Sri Ashish Rai and Sri Anoop Tripathi also improved their positions. However, these Petitioners were not granted admission as they did not have 65% attendance in the B.Sc. Part I in the session 1991-92. Representations were accordingly made to the University authorities. Deputy Registrar of the University vide his letter dated 28-5-1992 recommended the cases of the Petitioners to the Director of the Indian Institute of Medical Sciences of the University mentioning therein that since the attendance requirement for appearing in B.Sc. examination has been fixed at 60% the attendance requirement for P.M.T. should also be suitably modified. The Director in pursuance thereof passed an order on 29-5-1992 extending the benefit of the resolution of the Academic Council of the University, whereby requirement of attendance was reduced to 60% to students, of P.M.T. No action having been taken inspite of the above order of the Director} Ashish Rai, Petitioner in writ petition No. 28590 of 1992 filed a writ petition before this Court, which, was disposed of with the direction that the matter will be placed before the Academic Council for taking appropriate decision. On the representation of the Petitioner therein, the Academic Council accordingly on 14-8-1992 resolved not to make any change in out off attendance requirement, i.e., 65% and the representation was accordingly rejected. This was communicated vide letter dated 17-8-1992. The Petitioners have accordingly filed these writ petitions for quashing the decision of the Academic Council dated 14-8-1992 and for writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to admit them in M.B.B.S. course. As the Petitioners have not been admitted due to their attendance being less than 65%, Sarvasri Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Pankaj Vema and Miss. Farah Durrani, who secured less marks in P.M.T. than some of the Petitioners, but were having 65% attendance, have been admitted to M B B S. course. These persons have accordingly been impleaded as Respondents Nos. 5, 6 & 7 to the writ petitions as the relief granted in these writ petitions is likely to affect them adversely.
(3.) The Petitioners have served the Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and an affidavit of service has been filed. Sri M B. Saxena, Advocaie has appeared on behalf of Respondents Nos. 6 & 7. The Respondents have filed counter affidavit and the Petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard the the learned Counsel for the parties.