VIDAY NAND SINGH Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) PERUSED the record.

(3.) IT may be noticed that its decision in the case of Amit Kumar Srivastava and others v. Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi and another, 1996 ALJ 711, this Court had emphasized that a student who has not com pleted the prescribed course of study spread over a period specified in the relevant statutes or the ordinance should not be per mitted to appear at the final examination as he cannot be deemed to be eligible for that if the legislative policy is that before appear ing at the final examination the candidate must pursue the prescribed course of studies spread over for a certain period and that it is not permissible for the University to squeeze that period entirely ignoring the legislative intent and the purpose of spread ing over of a particular course of studies for a particular period. A course of study which under the statute is required to be squeezed or reduced to lesser period by any ad ministrative action contrary to the provision having statutory force and the ex plicit legislative intent in insisting upon pursuing of a course of study spread over a particular period.