AMIT KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition and the grievance of the petitioners is that they were undertaken a course of study in LL. B three years decree course, they were admitted in the academic session 2011 -12 In the 4th semester examination they were declared ATKT due to shortage of aggregate As the petitioners were not permitted to appear in the 4th semester examination on the ground that they have failed to obtain aggregate in the 1st semester examination and by contending that refusal of permission is contrary to the mandate of Ordinance No. 111, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE question involved in this writ petition and the interpretation of the provision of the Ordinance in question has already been considered by the coordinate Benches of this Court in Writ Petition No.66/2013 (Ankit Shrivastava v. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidayalaya and another) and by order dated 15.1 -2013, the matter has been decided. Thereafter, it was again considered in Writ Petition No. 19232/2011 and again in Writ PetitionNo.l8570/14andthe principle laid down in the case of Ankit Shrivastava have been followed. In the case of Ankit Shrivastava (supra), the matter has been dealt with in the following manner: - b

(3.) KEEPING in view the aforesaid and considering the orders passed by this Court as indicated hereinabove, we see no reason to take accordingly, the petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to calculate the aggregate marks for the year in question taking into account the yearly marks obtained and after calculating the same on the aforesaid basis, result of the petitioner for the firs semester be declared and in case he is declared pass then permit him to appear in the subsequent semester examination.