AVINASH SHARMA Vs. MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the present roster, this Court is assigned with admissions, orders and hearing of misc. writ petitions by or against local bodies. Revenue Board and Educational Institutions. Accordingly, writ petition No. 1546/97 was placed at serial No. 24 on today's cause list. When the aforesaid writ petition was called out in the morning, learned counsel Shri Vyas for the respondent University pointed out that as per the earlier order of this Court (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) dt. 18-5-1999, this petition was required to be heard along with three other revision petitions Nos. 823/96, 416/97 and 1029/97. Accordingly, all the three revision petitions were ordered to be listed at 2.00 p.m. along with the writ petition. And, accordingly, the writ petition and all the three revision petitions were heard at 2.00 p.m. and disposed of by this common order as the parties are same and result of main writ petition will decide the fate of three other revision petitions also.

(2.) David and Golia's story is always repeated. The petitioner-student is fighting his battle against mighty respondent - Mohanlal Sukhadia University Udaipur. Few facts are to be stated in nutshell, which are as under :-

(3.) The petitioner was a student of 1st year LL.B. The University had issued the admission cards to the college, but the petitioner was not given admission card by the college on the ground that he was short of 66% attendance. Thereby, he was prevented from appearing in LL.B. Ist year examination to be held on 18-7-1996. He approached the college authorities to issue admission card and allow him to appear in the examination, but he was not allowed. Therefore, he filed a suit before the competent authority on that very day i.e. 18-7-1996. On 19-7-1996, Civil Court by its interim order permitted him to appear only in one paper of LL.B. Ist year examination to be held on 25-7-1996. Thereafter, by further interim order he was allowed to appear in one more paper. Howev er, after by-parte hearing, the trial Court rejected the temporary injunction application filed in the suit. Aggrieved of that order the petitioner filed misc. appeal before the District Court which was transferred by learned District Judge to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Sirohi, which was allowed on 22-8-1996 and the petitioner was permitted to appear in remaining one paper on 23-8-1996 of LL.B. 1st Year examination. At this stage, it can be stated that during the pendency of the appeal by an interim orders passed on 8-8-1996 and 16-8-1996, the appellate Court allowed the petitioner to appear in two more papers. Thus, on 23-8-1996 the petitioner appeared in all the papers of LL.B. Ist year examination except one paper of which examination was held on 18-7-1996 in which he could not appear because of the admission card.