TAYAB SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 27/11/2003 passed by additional District Judge, Dholpur in Regular Civil Appeal no. 85/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28/7/1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dholpur in Civil Suit no. 137/1997 has been reversed and suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this second appeal are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants with the averments that he passed his b. A. First year examination in the year 1987 under the old course pattern with compulsory subject Hindi and in the same year he also passed the supplementary due paper of compulsory subject English. Thereafter in the year 1994-1995-1996 he passed the B. A. Part-1st, 2nd and 3rd year examination under the new course pattern with optional subjects leaving the compulsory subjects which according to him have already been passed by him in the year 1987 under the old course pattern and therefore he only attempted to clear the optional subjects in B. A. Part-1st, 2nd and 3rd year examination under the new course pattern but he was not declared pass by the defendants giving the reason that he did not pass the compulsory subjects, while according to the plaintiff, since he had already passed the compulsory subjects in the year 1987 under the old course pattern therefore, he was not required to pass the said compulsory subjects and he should be declared pass in the B. A. Examination.

(3.) THE defendants in their written statements denied the averments of the plaint and stated that the plaintiff passed only the optional subjects in the examinations of B. A. Part-1st to 3rd year in the years 1994-1995-1996 but he did not pass the compulsory subjects and the plea of the plaintiff that he had already passed the compulsory subjects under the old course pattern in the year 1987-1988 does not have any substance since according to the ordinance the said scheme of old course pattern was only effective upto the session 1989-1990 and therefore the plaintiff was required to pass the compulsory subjects under the new course pattern but he could not pass the compulsory subjects, therefore he was not declared pass in the B. A. Examination.