G.R. Majithia, J. - This order will dispose of Civil Original No. 1 of 1989, Civil Original No. 2 of 1989, Civil Original No. 3 of 1989 filed by Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Jagmohan Singh, Mandeep Singh, Rajinder Pal Singh, Sudhir Kumar and Miss Inderjit Kaur respectively (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively) and will be read in continuation of my order dated September 27, 1989 passed in Civil Revision No. 2769 of 1989. Civil Original No. 1 of 1989, Civil Original No. 2 of 1989 and Civil Original No. 3 of 1989 were filed before Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Jalandhar, while Civil Suit No. 861 of 1989 was filed before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar. 2. Admission to LLB. Course 1989 in Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and its Regional Centre at Jalandhar was made on the basis of a competitive entrance test. The total number of seats is 200-100 in the Department of Law, Guru Nanak Dev University and 100 in the Department of Laws at its Regional Centre, Jalandhar. The merit list was prepared under the Rules. Names of the plaintiffs appeared at serial Nos. 42, 55, 127, 169, 203 and 213 respectively on the Merit List. The plaintiffs were not to the Course. The plaintiffs, who were on the Merit List, were denied admission on the ground that the selection for admission to the LLB First Semester Course was made on July 27, 1989 and July 28, 1989 and the plaintiffs' result was not declared by that time and they were not considered eligible for admission. 3. The Vice Chancellor ordered scrutiny of answer sheets of various students including those of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3 and 4. The scrutiny of answer sheets was not finalised expeditiously. The matter was ultimately referred to the Standing Committee dealing with the Unfair Means cases and plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were called upon to appear before it on July 28, 1989. They appeared before the Committee on July 28, 1989 and were told by the representative of the Committee that the charge against them had been dropped. Their result was declared on August 4, 1989 and the Result-cum-Detailed Mark Sheets were supplied to the plaintiffs on August 7, 1989. 4. The conduct of the University has to be deprecated. It cannot play with the career of the students in the manner it has been done. The candidates on the Merit List were deprived admission wholly on flimsy grounds. Even if what was levelled against them was true, the scrutiny of the answer sheets and the decision of the Standing Committee on Unfair Means cases ought to have been finalised before the date of admission and if the Committee dealing with Unfair Means could not dispose of the cases, the admission to the LL.B. Course ought to have been delayed for a day or two to await the decision. The haste in which the admission was made ignoring the claim of the plaintiffs who were on merit list is wholly unjustified. It is expected from the University authorities to act fairly and in a manner where the students should not feel that injustice had been done to them. If this impression is left on the minds of the young students, it will frustrate very purpose for which the University was created. The students are the nation builders and if the impression goes deep in their minds that injustice had been done to them or rather perpetuated, they will never be able to discard this impression and this will affect their future development. I am leaving the matter at this. 5. Mr. H.L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the University, brought to my notice that 2 seats in the LL.B. Course are still not filled. The plaintiffs have suffered for no fault of theirs. Plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are on the Merit List and they would have joined the Course but for the delay occasioned by the University in disposing of the unfair means cases. I direct the University to create two additional seats and admit plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are on the merit list. The two additional seats created under the orders of this Court will be in addition to the normal intake of the students for the said Course. I further direct that two additional seats will be created at Regional Centre, Jalandhar and offered to those plaintiffs who had opted for admission at the Jalandhar Centre. 6. The plaintiffs to be admitted to the LL.B course consequent upon the orders of this Court will be short of lectures. The percentage of lectures should be taken into account from the date they join the Course. 7. Plaintiff No. 5 is at serial No. 203 in the Merit List and it is stated that candidates upto serial No. 201 in the Merit List have been offered admission. If in future any seat is available, he will be offered admission according to Rules. 8. Plaintiff No. 6 is at serial No. 213 in the Merit List and she is not eligible for admission as per the existing position. She was permitted to join the Course under the orders of the trial Judge. As observed earlier, none of the plaintiffs has challenged the correctness of the Merit List. Her claim for admission has to be rejected on the ground that she was far below in the Merit List. The suit filed by her is dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for plaintiff No. 1 brought to my notice that he was awarded National Scholarship and his case was to be forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Education & Social Welfare on or before October 2, 1989 and the case was not forwarded for the award of National Scholarship due to the pendency of the civil suit and also he was not a student of any course. In view of the peculiar facts, I direct the University authorities to forward the papers to the appropriate authorities for the award of National Scholarship on the basis of B.Sc. (Part III) examination forthwith. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, all the four suits, i.e. Civil Original No. 1, 2 and 3 of 1989 and Civil Suit No. 861 of 1989, are disposed of. Civil Revision No. 2769 of 1989 is also disposed of for the reasons stated above. Order accordingly.