Summarize the following court judgment. vil Appeals Nos. 4885 91 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9. 1989 & 6.10.1989 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11218/89 and 12519	 12520	 12521	 12593	 12868 & 12463 of 1989. P.H. Parekh	 Manoj Swarup and J.P. Pathak for the Appellant. Krishan Kumar and Mehta Dave & Co. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT	 J. These appeals are directed against two Orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court by which the High Court has directed the appellant Institute to admit respondent students 1 to 8B to its B .E. course irrespective of their merits. The relevant admitted facts are that on May 24 and 25	 1989	 respondent No. 9 Punjab University held a Com bined Entrance Test (C.E.T.) for admission to B.E. course (Session 1989 90) conducted by 4 different institutes in cluding the appellant Institute. On June 26	 1989	 the University declared the merit list of students who appeared in C.E.T. June 30	 1989 was the last date fixed for submit ting applications by students to individual institutes. The students were given choice of the institutions and they were required to state their choice in order of preference. The representatives from the 4 institutes met together at Chand igarh from 24th to 27th July 1989 to finalise the admissions tO the 4 institutes. The meeting of the representatives of the 4 institutes was necessary to ensure that the students were given the institutes of their choice in the order of merit	 subject	 of course	 to the students applying to the particular institutes and that the student did not get admission at more than one institute at a time. The Commit tee of representatives interviewed the students and awarded them the institutes of their choice in the order of their respective merits. Accordingly	 the appellant Institute drew up its merit list of candidates. Interviews were held in the respective institutes including the appellant Institute for filling up the reserved seats other than those 397 reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and also for filling up seats in general category which fell vacant subsequentIy as a result of the students leaving the appel lant Institute. On August 14	 1989	 a second round of inter views was held in all the institutes including the appel lant Institute for filling seats which fell vacant as a result of the students leaving the appellant Institute subsequently. Incidentally	 this was also the last date of admission to B.E. course as was notified in the prospectus of the appellant Institute. However	 the last date was extended to 25th August	 1989 by an advertisement in the newspaper	 namely	 Tribune published on August 19	 1989 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the admission to the course will be closed on August 25	 1989. The advertisement was repeated in another newspaper	 namely	 the Times of India on August 20	 1989. The appellantInstitute closed the admissions at 5.00 p.m. on August 25	 1989. On this day	 the position of the appellant Institute was that the last stu dent who was admitted to the B .E. Course was at serial number 1127 in the merit list prepared by the University as per the results of the C.E.T 3. On August 30	 1989	 respondents 1 to 4 filed a Writ Petition No. 112 18/89 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court for a direction to the appellant Institute to extend its last date of admission and to admit them to the B.E. course in the appellant Institute alleging that six seats were lying vacant in the Institute. In the meanwhile	 as usual	 the first test of the B.E. course was held by the appellant Institute after six weeks of the commencement of the course. On September 19	 1989	 the appellant Institute filed its written statement to the writ petition objecting to the maintainability of the petition against the appellant Institute as it was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was also pointed out in the written statement that since the past experience showed that some students left the Institute as soon as they got admission in the other institutes	 the appellant Institute had admitted 10 additional students to the B.E. course. The total seats available in the B.E. course in the appellant Institute were 180 and students at numbers 181 190 were admitted to meet this contingency. It was also pointed out in the written statement that the last date of admission to the course was fixed by the appellant Institute taking into account the said past experience as well as to put a seal of finality on the process of admission which would otherwise continue indefinitely. On September 20	 1989	 the appellant Institute also filed a short affidavit in the writ petition stating therein that the admissions to the B.E. course had closed on 25th August	 1989 and no student had been 398 admitted thereafter. It was also pointed out that regular classes had begun	 and the first terminal examination had been held from 4th September	 1989 to 9th September	 1989 which carried weightage of about 30% marks. Hence	 the students admitted at the belated stage would not be able to cover up lecture attendance and no seat in excess of the total seats could be filled up. On September 21	 1989	 the High Court allowed the writ petition by proceeding on the assumption that more than half a dozen seats were lying vacant with the appellant Institute. The High Court held that belated admissions were something that the students seeking such admissions would worry about rather than the appellant Institute. The appel lant Institute was also directed to grant admissions to respondents 1 to 4 in the B.E. course forthwith. As pointed out by the appellant Institute	 on that day the factual position with regard to seats in the course was that out of 190 students who were granted admission	 12 students had left leaving a total strength of 178 students. Since the last date for admission was August 25	 1989	 178 students had continued in the course with regular instructions and tests one of which was already held as stated earlier be tween 4th and 9th September	 1989	 six weeks after the commencement of the course. A further batch of Writ Petitions	 namely	 Writ Petitions Nos. 125 19	 12520	 1252 1	 12593	 12868	 12463 all of 1989 filed by respondents 5 to 8B respectively were allowed by the High Court on October 6	 1989 directing the appellant Institute to admit the respective respondents to the said course. It also further appears that three other similar writ petitions filed by other students seeking admission to the course in the appellant Institute are pending before the High Court for preliminary hearing. The appellant Institute further points out that the second test of the said course was scheduled to be held from 23rd to 28th October	 1989. It is not disputed before us that whereas the last student admitted on merit in the appellant Institute was at serial number 1127 in the merit list prepared by the Univer sity as per the Combined Entrance Test	 the respondent students were at the serial numbers in the said merit list	 as follows: respondent No. 1 (1145)	 No. 2 (1147)	 No. 3 (116 1)	 No. 4 (1277)	 No. 5 (1259)	 No. 6 (1112)	 No. 7 (1266)	 No. 8 (1218)	 No. 8A (1189) and No. 8B (1245). Thus it will be seen that except for respondent No. 6 who had not earlier applied for being admitted to the appellant Insti tute and had opted for some other Institute	 all the re spondents had secured lower numbers in the merit list. 399 What is further	 the students who were at a higher serial number of merit list were still waiting for admission to the appellant Institute	 when the High Court directed the appel lant Institute to admit the respondent students. What is more	 even in their writ petitions before the High Court the respondent students had claimed no further relief than that they should be directed to be admitted to the appellantIn stitute according to their merit. The relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 112 18/89 may be reproduced here by way of illustration: "this Hon 'ble Court may please to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the date of admission and to admit the petitioners in the B.E. course as per their merits;". (emphasis supplied) The High Court further not only ignored the fact which was specifically pointed out in the appellant Institute 's affi davit in reply before it	 that there were no seats available in the appellant Institute whose capacity was only 180 seats but also the fact that there were more meritorious students than the respondents as per the C.E.T. who could not secure admission and who were waiting to be admitted to the appel lant Institute. The respondent students could get admission to the appellant Institute only if their comparative merits ordained it and not otherwise. They could claim no merit over other meritorious students merely because they had approached the Court for securing admission. There was further nothing wrong in the appellant Institute admitting 10 more students in the circumstances pointed out above. The Institute has a capacity of only 180 students. To meet the contingency of the students leaving it soon after admission they had admitted	 as they do every year	 10 more students. As it turned out	 12 of the students left leaving 178 students on the roll	 with only 2 vacan cies. The High Court could have directed only two students to be admitted and that too on merit. Admittedly	 there were more meritorious students than the respondents	 waiting in queue. The High Court thus travelled beyond its jurisdiction and not only directed more students than the Institute could absorb but also students who were less meritorious	 to be admitted. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the High Court for exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so peremptorily which has resulted in injustice both to the appellantInstitute as well as to the students who stood higher in merit than almost all the respondent students except respondent No. 6. We refrain from making any further comments on the impugned order. 400 8. Since the respondent students stand already admitted	 and the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats given to the respondents due to lapse of time	 we do not propose to interfere with their pursuit of the course. It is for this reason that we are dismissing the appeals. In the circumstances	 the appeals stand dismissed	 but with no order as to costs. G.N. Appeals dismissed.

For admission to B.E. Course (1989 90 Session) in the appellant Institute and 3 other institutes	 there was a Combined Entrance Test held by the Punjab University. The results were declared	 and students allotted to the respec tive institutes of their choice. The appellantInstitute drew up merit list of candidates allotted to it and gave admis sions in that order. To fill up the vacant seats as a result of some students leaving the Institute	 the appellant Institute held inter views on 14.8.1989	 which incidentally was the last date for admission to B.E. Course. However	 the last date was extend ed up to 25.5.1989. When admission was closed on that day	 the last student admitted was at section No. 1127 in the merit list prepared by the University. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court on 30.8.1989	 alleging that six seats were vacant and the appellantInstitute be directed to admit them. The High Court on 21.9.1989 allowed the writ petition on the assump tion that six seats were vacant	 whereas only 2 seats were available	 according to the appellantInstitute. Respondents 5 to 8B also approached the High Court by way of writ petitions and the High Court directed the appel lant Institute to admit the six Respondents also in the B.E. Course. Further	 three other similar writ petitions were pending before the High Court. 395 Against the above said orders of the High Court	 the appellantInstitute has preferred these appeals contending that the last candidate admitted was at section No. 1127 in the merit list and admittedly all the Respondents except Re spondent No. 6 were less meritorious	 while candidates with higher merits were still waiting for admission. It was contended that while there were only 2 vacant seats	 the High Court has directed the appellant Institute to admit as many as ten candidates	 that too long after the course started and the First Terminal Exams were over. Dismissing the appeals	 this Court	 HELD: 1.1 The High Court not only ignored the fact which was specifically pointed out in the appellant Institute 's affidavit that there were no seats available in the appel lant Institute whose capacity was only 180 seats	 but also the fact that there were more meritorious students than the Respondents as per the Combined Entrance Test	 who could not secure admission and who were waiting to he admitted to the appellant Institute. The Respondent students could get admission to the appellant Institute only if theft compara tive merits ordained it and not otherwise. They could claim no merit over other meritorious students merely because they had approached the Court for securing admission. In fact	 in their writ petitions before the High Court	 the respondent students had claimed no further relief than that they should be directed to be admitted according to their merit. [399B E] 1.2 There was nothing wrong in the appellant Institute admitting 10 more students in B.E. Course. The Institute has a capacity of only 180 students. To meet the contingency of the students leaving it soon after admission the appellant Institute had admitted 10 more students as has been done every year. As it turned out	 12 of the students left leav ing 178 students on the roll	 with only 2 vacancies. The High Court could have directed only two students to be admitted and that too on merit. Admittedly	 there were more meritorious students than the respondents	 waiting in queue. The High Court thus travelled beyond its jurisdiction and not only directed more students than the Institute could absorb but also students who were less meritorious to he admitted. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the High Court for exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so peremptorily which has resulted in injustice both to the appellant Institute as well as to the students who stood higher in merit than almost all the respondentstudents except Respondent No. 6.[399E H] 396 2. Since	 however	 the respondent students stand already admitted	 and the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats given to the respondents due to lapse of time	 their pursuit of the course is not interfered with. [400A]