Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) AS the common question of facts and law are involved in all the aforementioned writ petitions, they are taken up together for common orders.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Sandeep Dixit, Mr. S. P. Shukla, Mr. Nagendra B. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel and Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the University. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are pursing B.P. Ed. course in the unaided institutions. Further, the students have been admitted strictly in accordance with law by the institution concerned. However, the opposite parties are not allowing the Petitioners to appear in the examination of B.P. Ed. to be scheduled with effect from 12.5.2011. It has been submitted that non -appearance in the examination would cause serious prejudice to the Petitioners and their whole one precious year would go waste. It has been further argued that for the fault, if any, of the institution, the students cannot be made to suffer. It has also been submitted that the University cannot insist the institution to follow reservation in admission, as the same has been declared as bad in law.
(3.) ON the other hand, Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the University submits that the students have been admitted against the Management quota to which learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that none of the students have been admitted against 15% management quota.;