UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR Vs. MAHENDRA KEWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition filed by respondent Mahendra Kewalia was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated February 5, 1985 following the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Khatri's case.

(2.) THE respondent Mahendra Kewalia had failed in three Units in the IIIrd year B.E. (Mines) Examination of the University of Jodhpur and had also failed to obtain 45% of the total marks at the said Examination held in the year 1983. The case of the respondent was that he should have been allowed to keep terms in the next higher class notwithstanding the fact that he had failed in three units of the B.E. IIIrd year Examination and had also failed to obtain 45% of the total marks at the said Examination. The University did not permit the respondent to keep terms in the IVth year B.E. Class on the ground that besides having failed in three Units, the respondent had also failed to obtain 45% of the total marks at the IIIrd year B.E. Examination.

(3.) HOWEVER , in this appeal, the only question raised on behalf of the University of Jodhpur is as to whether the respondent could take advantage of the interim orders passed by this Court? Mr. H. M. Parekh, learned counsel for the University submitted that although in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent was provisionally admitted in IVth year B. E (Mines) Class and was allowed to keep terms in respect of the 3 subjects, in which he had failed to obtain the minimum required pass marks at the III year B E. Examination, yet as the respondent had submitted an under -taking that he would not claim any benefit of the IIIrd year B E. Examination in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in case the writ petition failed, the respondent should not have been allowed by the learned Single Judge to obtain an advantage or benefit on account of the interim orders passed by (his Court, particularly in view of the fact that the writ petition filed by the respondent has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has observed that since the respondent had appeared at the examination and had cleared the lower examination and not the higher examination, he was entitled to take the benefit of having passed the lower examination.