A.B.N.Sinha, J.

1. These sixteen applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, being analogous, have been heard together, and, though from the point of view of the nature of the reliefs sought, they fall into two distinct groups, the basic facts being common they may be disposed of by one judgment, and, accordingly, this judgment will govern them all.

2. The first group comprises C. W. J. C. Nos. 396/69, 416/69, 420/69 and 447 of 1969, and the remaining twelve cases constitute the second group. The petitioners in the first group cases have obtained a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order dated the 28th April, 1969, cancelling their admissions to the 1st Year Integrated Medical Course passed by the Principal of the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the College), one of the colleges maintained or controlled by the Patna University (hereinafter referred to as the University), be not quashed. The petitioners in the second group of cases except those in C. W. J. C. Nos. 415/ 69, 417/69, 429/69, 437/69, 438/69, 439/69, 459/69 and 461/69 have likewise obtained a rule nisi calling upon the respondents in those cases to show cause why a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus be not issued requiring the first two respondents, namely, the Principal of the College and the Vice-Chancellor of the University to fill up the six or seven casual vacancies which occurred in the 1st Year M. B. B. S. Class of the College during the academic year 1968-69, in accordance with the relevant Ordinance of the University, and why the petitioner be not either admitted against those vacancies or alternatively their respective applications for admission be not duly considered against the aforesaid casual vacancies. In one case, namely, in C. W. J. C. No. 414 of 1969, there is an alternative prayer for a direction to be issued to the first two respondents for admitting the petitioner, Harendra Kumar Gupta, to one of the two sportsmen seats after cancelling the admission of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who stand admitted against the two seats reserved for sportsmen. In the eight cases of the second group specified above the only relief claimed is for a direction upon the respondents to admit the petitioners concerned against the casual seats.

3. In cases of the first group and in C. W. J. C. Nos. 444 of 1969 and C. W. J. C. No. 448 of 1969, of the second group, the respondents are only the Vice-Chancellor of the University and the Principal of the College, but in all other cases except the two mentioned above, falling in the second group besides the Principal of the College and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, one or more of the students whose admissions were cancelled on the 28th April, 1969, and, some of whom are petitioners in the first group of cases, or students who stand admitted as sportsmen under Ordinance 2 (e) of the special Ordinance, have also been impleaded as respondents. Cause has been shown on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal by either the Principal or one Kishori Prasad, an assistant, working in the college concerned. It is true that no show cause has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents in three cases falling in the second group namely, C. W. J. C. Nos. 444/69, 448/69 and 459/69, but it appears that the petitioners in the former two cases have expressly treated the show cause filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal in C. W. J. C. Nos. 437, 438, 439 and 447 of 1969, copies whereof were served on their Counsel, as filed in their own cases and have filed rejoinders on that basis and the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 459/69 has himself treated his application as connected with C. W. J. C. Nos. 396/69, 415/69, 417/69 and 429/69 in which cases show causes have been filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal. Of the students-respondents impleaded as mentioned above in most of the cases falling in the second gro