Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Chandra Kant, Sri Amique Khalid and Sri S.A. Murtaza, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, the learned counsel for the Aligarh Muslim University.

2. Since a common question is involved in all these writ petitions, the same is being decided by a common judgment. It is however being made clear, that this judgment is based on the particular facts and circumstances of the present case, and will not be treated as a precedent for other cases.

3. The petitioners applied for admission in M.A. History in Aligarh Muslim University for the academic session 2009-10. As per the admission guidelines, the candidates were required to undergo a departmental test, which was conducted on 22.6.2009, and thereafter a select list and a Chance Memo list was prepared. The petitioners’ name were either found in the select list or in the Chance Memo list, and based on the aforesaid two lists, the petitioners were granted admission on 2.8.2009, except in the case of Abdul Qadir Jilani whose name was found in the Chance Memo list, but could not be admitted as the seats were exhausted. All the other petitioners were given admission on the basis of which they deposited the admission fee, etc. and some of the petitioners were also allotted a hostel for residential purposes.

4. It is alleged, that the Vice Chancellor, by an order dated 12.8.2009 cancelled the select list and Chance Memo list and directed the Admission Committee and its delegated authorities to prepare a fresh select list and Chance Memo list, on the basis of the departmental examination. A fresh select list was duly prepared on 13.8.2009 in which the names of the petitioners, who were earlier in the select list were now placed in the chance memo list. It is alleged that the Admission Committee was held on 20.8.2009, on which date the selection process was completed and the petitioners could not be given admission.

5. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition contending that no fraud was committed on their part and that they were validly admitted as per the earlier select list/Chance Memo list and had deposited their fees and therefore, the cancellation of their admission and subsequent preparation of a fresh select and Chance Memo List was wholly arbitrary.

6. The petitioners contended that in the absence of any fraud being played by them and, in the event a mistake was committed at the behest of the University authorities, the petitioners should not be allowed to suffer and that the authorities were estopped from cancelling their admission, since in the meanwhile, a vested right had accrued upon the petitioners. The petitioners submitted that they had also applied in other courses in the University as well as in other Universities in which they were given a firm offer of admission but since the petitioners chose to pursue the course in M.A. History, they had forgone the admission in other courses. But, now as a result of the cancellation of their admission in M.A. History, the petitioners have lost their chance in seeking admission in other courses where firm offer for admission was given to them since the admission in these courses have now been completed. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for a writ of certiorari for the quashing the order of the Vice Chancellor/controller examination dated 12.8.2009, cancelling their admission and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give admission to the petitioners, in M.A. History, in Aligarh Muslim University.

7. The case of Abdul Qadir Jilani, the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 45825 of 2009, is slightly different. The said petitioner also appeared in the departmental examination and his name was found at Sl. No. 15 of the Chance Memo list. It is alleged that the Chance Memo list was interpolated. It is alleged that when the select list was exhausted there were 11 vacancies and that t