SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. MOTI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is a student of 1st year of Master of Computer Applications, boss by means of this writ petition challenged the order dated 3-5-1991 refusing him permission to appear in the Practical examination of Master of Computer Applications second semester, 1991 on the ground that he has been declared failed by the University in two subjects. Further prayer for writ of mandamus permitting him to appear in the second semester of the above examination and other reliefs in connection thereof have also been made.

(2.) On 6-5-1991 one month time was granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit. On the same day this Court passed in interim order permitting the petitioner to appear in the second semester of Master of Computer Applications 1st year examination. No counter-affidavit was however, filed. Petitioner moved another application dated 30-4-1992 for appropriate interim order so as to enable him to attend the classes of 4th Semester (2nd year) of the above course and this court by its order dated 6-5-1992 passed the appropriate direction. On the same date the respondents were granted three days' time to file counter-affidavit. Unfortunately no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents so far. In spite of the orders passed by this Court from time to time, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the writ petition has to be disposed of without any counter-affidavit.

(3.) In Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that in respect of the 1st semester of the above examination petitioner was declared to have failed in the paper of Introductory programming and also is the practicable in respect of Programming Laboratory I, Introductory Programming is theoretical paper, whereas Programming Laboratory I is a practical examination. In this manner the case set up by the petitioner is the writ petition is that he has failed in one theory paper and one practical examination. Relying one Statutes 6 (b), learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the petitioner has failed in one theory paper and one practical paper is the 1st semester he may clear these papers is the 2nd semester and as such, the impugned order is not justified, Statutes 6 (a) and (b) arc reproduced below :