R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was selected in M, Tech. Course in Processing and Food Engineering in the year 1990-91. He appeared in first, semester and his Grade Point Average (hereinafter referred to as G.P.A.) was 2.583 out of 5,000 which was below the prescribed limit. In the next examination there was slight improvement in his G.P.A. which was 3.538 out of 5.000. Thereafter he was dropped with a right to petition for re-admission. He applied for re-admission and he was allowed to continue his studies, in the next session. In the second semester he could not attain the prescribed target of 4.000 as he could only maintain at 3.250. With the result, he was droppsed from the University for not having secured minimum prescribed target of 4.000. It has been stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the Examination committee asked the petitioner's father to move mercy petition; but before this application for mercy could be considered; the respondents have passed the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's case for re-admission in future
(2.) REGULATION 26 (2) lays down any Post Graduate student failing twice in the same examination shall be dropped from the University; but in exceptional circumstances Vice-Chancellor may permit a third chance on the recommendation of the Advisory Committed/Head of the Department/Dean of the college cencerned. From the perusal of REGULATION mentioned above it is apparent that a student can be permitted to appear thrice and if he failed third lime, Vice-Chancellor has no right to permit him to appear again. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the court to paragraph 8 of the writ petition in which it has been stated that earlier two students, namely, Sri A. K. Srivastava and Sri D. K. Singh were allowed to appear even after they had failed thrice. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit the University has straightaway denied the case of Sri D. K. Singh but impliedly accepted that Sri A. K. Srivastava was permitted to appear even after he failed thrice. From the perusal of of Annexure V to the writ petition it is apparent that Sri A. K. Srivastava was permitted to appear five times and when he failed 5th time, then he filed a writ petition and a Division Bench of this Court in special appeal issued direction to the Vice-Chancellor to permit him and gave him another chance for appearing in the examination of Micro Biology. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar direction be issued in the case of the petitioner. It is not possible to do so. From the perusal of judgment dated 6-8-1992 of the Division Bench, it appears that on the basis of the record produced before this Court, the Division Bench had recorded a finding that the petitioner did not appear in the first semester, though he failed technically thrice in one subject. It is on account of this facts that direction was issued to the Vice-Chancellor to permit him and gave him a third chance. Sri Dinesh Kackar, learned counsel for the University in this Connection invited attention of this court to another Division Bench judgment dated 13-8- 1993 in special Appeal No. 285 of 1993 in which direction issued to the University to accord permission to appear was set aside In view of the mandatory language of regulation 26, it is not proper for this Court to issue any mandatory direction to the University to permit a student to appear in examination, who failed thrice. However it is open to the petitioner to approach University authorities to make a mercy petition before the Vice Chancellor and if such a petition is made, it is hoped that B Sarrjfc will be decided expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
(3.) WITH the above observations, this writ petition is dissmissed. In view of the- facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;