ALOK GOYAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has a chequered history and syllabus of the University has given rise to the series of litigation by several candidates one after the other.

(2.) I may state a few relevent facts to appreciate the real controversy in the present writ petition. The petitioner took admission in the B.E. Course on October 30, 1981 and appeared in the First Year Examination held in June 1982 but failed in two subjects and did not obtain 45% marks in aggregate. He was not promoted to the Second Year B.E. and was not allowed to keep terms. He approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 484 of 1983 and under the orders of the court, he was granted admission in the Second Year B.E. provisionally and to take exemination of the Second Year B.E. with the facility to clear the papers of the First Year B.E. The make -up examination of the First Year was held in April 1983. The petitioner was declared passed in the First Year make -up examination on 24 -8 -1983/1 -9 -1983. The petitioner appeared in the Second Year B.E. Examination held in October, 1983 but failed. The Second Year special examination of 1984 was not taken up by the petitioner. In November 1984, the petitioner took the examination of Second Year B.E. in which he failed in two units but obtained 45% marks in aggregate. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Khatri's case : [1983]2SCR801 , the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed but it was ordered that the petitioner will be allowed to take advantage in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court. Against the order passed in a similar writ petition, the University preferred a Special Appeal No. 40 of 1985 University of Jodhpur v. Mahendra Kewalia (1985 WLN (UC) 31). After the decision of that appeal, the University passed an order dated March 4, 1985. It was stated in that order that the petitioner has not passed the Second Year B.E. Examination, so, he is entitled to appear as an ex -student in the Second Year B.E. Examination. The petitioner approached this Court for clarification and this application was disposed of by me on March 6, 1985. The position was considered in that order as under : In the IInd Year B.E. examination, the petitioner has secured 623 marks, which are more than 45% and he has failed in two units Chemistry -III and Mathematics -V. From the marksheet, it appears that the petitioner took up all the papers in B.E. IInd Year Examination of November 1984, whereas he had passed the make up examination of the 1st Year in 1983 and it is stated at the bar that the petitioner appeared in the IInd Year B.E. Examination in 1983 but he failed. Having failed in IInd Year B.E. Examination, he appeared in all papers in the same examination in November, 1984. When he has failed in the Second Year B.E. Examination, there was no question of giving him advantage or benefit under the order of this Court and it is proper for him to have appeared in all the papers of Second Year B.E. Examination of 1984. Having failed in Second Year B.E. Examination of 1983 it was not required on the part of the University to have passed its order dated 4 -3 -1985 on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court or the observations made by the Division Bench. For the year 1983, be shall be considered to have failed as in fact he has failed in the IInd Year Examination. The petitioner had appeared in all papers in IInd Year B.E. Examination, 1984 and has obtained 45% marks in aggregate and has failed only in two units. It is for the University to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to keep the terms in view of his result of IInd Year B.E. Examination of 1984. He had already passed his First Year B.E. Examination in 1983. However, it may be observed that the order dated 4 -3 -1985 Could not have been passed on the basis of the interim order of this Court. The application, in my opinion, does not require any further consideration and no clarification is needed in view of the facts considered above.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R. Balia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Parekh, learned Counsel for the University.