CWP No. 1937 of 2008. 7.11.2008. Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocates, for respondents No.2 and 3. A mandamus has been sought in this writ petition by issuing a direction to convert unfilled seats of Science stream to Arts/Commerce and respondents be directed to sponsor candidates to the petitioner-Institution for admission to B.Ed. Course forthwith. We take a judicial notice of the fact that the State has fixed earlier a ratio of 40, 30 and 30 for Arts/Commerce, Medical and Non-medical streams. However, the State has revised the same and later on provided a ratio of 50, 25 and 25, respectively. The State has further revised the said ratio to 60, 20 and 20. The petitioner is an educational Institution and has approached this Court when they could not get Medical and Non-medical students and has prayed as referred to hereinabove. It has been specifically averred in the writ petition that there are 3000 applicants, who are desirous to get admission in B.Ed. Course, but the University is not conducting counselling for allotting those students to the Institution on the pretext that the students from the Science stream are not available. This averment has been said on oath. From the perusal of the affidavit, it appears that it is on personal knowledge. We have examined this paragraph in light of the personal knowledge of one Shri Satish Kumar, who is presently working as Secretary to the Modern Shiksha Samiti. The opening sentence of paragraph 8 indicates that “as per the knowledge and information of the petitioner there are about 3000 applicants……”. Neither knowledge amounts to personal knowledge nor information can lead to personal knowledge. Since the petitioner is an educational Institution, we take a lenient view against its Secretary for filing this affidavit in support of the averment. We hope and trust that he would file the affidavit after examining the facts in future litigation, if any. We further find that the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the State Government whereby the State Government has fixed a ratio of 60, 20 and 20. We have also examined the right of the petitioner-Society for asking conversion of the seats from the Medical to Arts stream. The petitioner could not substantiate any of the petitioner’s right to get the seat converted. We are of the considered opinion that it is the prerogative of the State Government to classify and fix ratio of seats and the same has been done by the State Government judicially. We were informed on behalf of the respondents that B.Ed. Arts stream candidates are being given Government employment of the year 1985 batch. What has been prayed if the same exists by any stretch of imagination or reason it will add to unemployment. The Court would like to keep away from the same. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that arrangements for 100 students to impart education has been made, in case less students are provided then their business will suffer. We are of the considered opinion that in the given case the petitioner can not seek any protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and unfortunately the petitioner has failed to challenge the ratio of 60, 20 and 20 students granted by the State Government, as referred to hereinabove. The petitioner can only have students/candidates if they are available in response to the advertisement made for various streams. It is not the case of the petitioner that the candidates are available in different three streams but they have not been provided to the petitioner-Institution. According to the petitioner, they have been given 59 candidates for Arts stream. Mr. Negi, learned counsel appearing for the University has categorically informed this Court that 60 students have been provided. We further find that the petitioner has claimed conversion of seats and has not prayed for 60th student in their writ petition. In view of the above discussion, no interference is warranted while exercising our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and so also the pending applications. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 7th November, 2008. (Kuldip Singh), J. (tr)