Hon’ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V. Singh and Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6.

2. By way of present special appeal, appellant is assailing the common order of learned Single Judge dated 26.4.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50029 of 2009 (Km. Anjuman Upadhyay v. Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Jaunpur and others) alongwith Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57384 of 2009 (Ms. Guru Priya Singh v. State of U.P. and others) by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by Km. Anjuman Upadhyay and allowed the writ petition filed by Ms. Guru Priya Singh.

3. Brief facts of the case are that both the petitioner and contensting respondent are claiming admission in BTC-2004 Course against one seat of Sports Quota. So far as the case of Petitioner Km. Anjuman Upadhyay is concerned, according to her, she has taken admission pursuant to the letter dated 12.2.2009 sent by Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Jaunpur (Principal DIET) but later on, she had not been issued admit card, therefore, she approached this Court by filing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50029 of 2009 (Km. Anjuman Upadhyay v. Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Jaunpur and others) in which under an interim order of this Court, she had been permitted to appear in the examination.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed to the writ petition filed by contesting respondent Ms. Guru Priya Singh, it is also a case of Km. Anjuman Upadhyay that as Ms. Guru Priya Singh had not reported for counselling on 6.3.2009 pursuant to the notice published on 2.3.2009, therefore, neither she is entitled for the admission nor having the authority to challenge her admission.

5. The case of Ms. Guru Priya Singh in Writ Petition No. 57384 of 2009 is that pursuant to the public notice dated 2nd March, 2009, she had approached Prinicpal (DIET) for admission in BTC-2004 Course but there she was informed that her name has not find place in the list of female candidates under the Sports Quota, therefore, she cannot be given admission. According to her, in advertisement dated 2nd March, 2009, the candidates having above 183.42 marks are required to report and she was having 183.53 marks, therefore, she has reported for her admission. It has also been stated by Ms. Guru Priya Singh that she has obtained higher marks than the marks obtained by Km. Anjuman Upadhyay. In fact, she had obtained 183.53 marks whereas Km. Anjuman Upadhyay had obtained 183.42 marks. The same stand was also taken by Principal (DIET) in the counter-affidavit that as Ms. Guru Priya Singh has not reported for counselling on 6.3.2009 which was a date fixed in notice published on 2.3.2009, therefore, she has not been given admission.

6. The facts of the case in detail has already been given in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 26.4.2010. Learned Single Judge considered the submissions raised by the counsel for the parties and ultimately dismissed the writ petition of Km. Anjuman Upadhyay and allowed the writ petition of Ms. Guru Priya Singh, therefore, appellant has challenged the order of learned Single Judge dated 26.4.2010 on two grounds, firstly as Ms. Guru Priya Singh has not reported at the time of counselling i.e. 6.3.2009 as mentioned in notice published on 2.3.2009, therefore, she has no right to challenge the admission of Km. Anjuman Upadhyay and she cannot be granted admission as well. He has taken another ground that though the application was invited in the year 2004 but admission took place in the year 2009 and in the mean time by way of improvement examination, appellant has improved her marks of Graduation and by virtue of that, now she is having higher merit than Ms. Guru Priya Singh, therefore, even o