( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to take, the petition -is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. The learned Advocate for the respondent is directed to waive service.

( 2 ) THE facts which are undisputed lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner on the basis of marks secured at the Higher Secondary Examination applied to the respondent-University for being admitted to five year course, M. Sc. (Computer Applications and Information Technology) which is run by the respondent-University. The qualifying examination being the Higher Secondary examination conducted by the Higher Secondary Education Board. On 23rd May, 2006 a public notice came to be published in Gujarati daily "gujarat Samachar" wherein applications were invited for 70 seats for the course of M. Sc. (C. A. and I. T. ). As per the said public notice, admissions were to be granted strictly on merits and the application forms were to be submitted on or before 12th june, 2006. A merit list came to be declared on 20th June, 2006 and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial number 397.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner derived knowledge to the effect that the total strength of the seats had been increased from 70 to 191 and out of such 191 seats, 24 seats were filled up by granting admission to students who were admittedly figuring below the serial number of the petitioner in the merit list. Therefore, this petition challenging the action of respondent-University in giving go-bye to the statement made in the public notice as well as adopting a discriminatory approach.

( 4 ) UPON notice being issued, the respondent-University filed affidavit-in-reply. Along with affidavit-in-reply, the respondent-University has placed on record Resolution dated 19-7-1997 (Annexure-R 1/1) and Resolution dated 7-10-2005 (Annexure-R 1/2) to contend that by virtue of the said two resolutions, the vice-Chancellor was granted discretionary powers by the Executive Council of the university to grant admissions respectively against five seats per class in different courses conducted by the University as well as grant admission against two seats per class to the children of the employees working in respondent-University.

( 5 ) THE petitioner, therefore, moved an amendment application and after being permitted by the Court amended the petition. The additional prayer was made by way of amendment seeking relief in the form of quashing and setting aside the aforesaid two Resolutions.

( 6 ) MR. P. K. Jani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited attention to the documents on record, more particularly the brochure containing the application form and information for the purposes of admission to M. Sc. (C. A. and I. T.) course, the public notice published in the newspaper containing total number of seats, the list of students who have been granted admission for academic year 2006-2007, as well as the two Resolutions, to contend that the University had not only not abided by the terms and conditions stated in the public notice as well as the admission form and brochure supplied to the applicant students, but had at no point of time stated that the Vice-Chancellor has discretionary powers in the matter of admission on the basis of the two resolutions. That exercise of such discretionary powers by the Vice-Chancellor amounted to discriminating between students by adopting a policy of pick and choose on the basis of recommendation made by different persons like Ministers, high-ranking officers, etc. He, therefore, urged that in the aforesaid set of circumstances, the petitioner should be granted admission by the respondent-University and the two resolutions should be quashed and set aside.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondent-University Mr. M. K. Shelat, invited attention to the affidavit-in-reply dated 7th December, 2006 as well as the documents accompanying the said