DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA Vs. VICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above-mentioned writ petition, this court while hearing certain applications suo motu issued notice to the newly impleaded opposite-parties 3 to 4, Prof. Mrs. Shradha Kumari, Head of the Department, Faculty of Law, and Prof. Dr. R. C. Vyas, Dean, Faculty of Law, Lucknow University, on that very date, 15-4-1987, to show cause for disregarding the interim order dated 9-3-1987, passed by this court which was duly communicated to them by the Registrar of Lucknow University vide his letter dated 12-3-1987 contained in Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the application, for not allowing the petitioner to appear in L.L.M. Classes, and why action be not taken against them. After issuance of the said notice appearance was put in by them and number of affidavits were exchanged between the parties.

(2.) In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, he has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the Ordinances 3(a) and 5 of the prospectus of Faculty of Law published in Session 1983-84 providing that the student have to pass the L.L.M Part 1 Examination with 40% marks in each paper and 50% marks in the aggregate. The petitioner has also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Lucknow University to declare the students of L.L.M. Part I of 1983-84 session as passed who secure 40% marks in each group and 50% marks in aggregate in L.L.M. Part-I Examination held in May, 1986 and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party, Lucknow University, to amend the Ordinances in the manner as recommended by the Dean Faculty of Law, Head of the Faculty of Law and Convener of the Committee appointed by the Board of Studies to the effect that the students who obtain 40% marks in each group and 50% marks in aggregate may be declared successful. It was also prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to give benefit of retake to the petitioner and other students of his batch as availed by the students of Old Course of session 1976-77.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner failed in L.L.M, Part-I examination and according to the petitioner, in view of the Ordinance applicable to him, he was entitled to the benefit of retake as was availed by the students of Old Course prior to Semester System 1986-87 and he was admitted in L.L.M. Part-II with permission of retake course in which he could not succeed in the Session 1986-87.