- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant learned Standing Counsel and Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondents.
(2.) The appellant challenges the order dated 02.12.2014 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 18497 of 2014 (Kumari Renu Pal Vs State of U.P. and 4 others) on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the order dated 08.05.2012 passed in Special Appeal No. 84 of 2011 by a Division Bench had become final and was binding on the Single Judge therefore no question arose for determination, and that rejection on the part academic council would amount to sitting over an appeal by the Single Judge over the judgment and order dated 08.05.2012 passed in the aforesaid Appeal no. 84 of 2011 by which findings had already been upheld in favour of the appellant.
(3.) The judgment impugned is further assailed on the ground (a) that the interim orders dated 23.12.2010 the appellant had appeared in 3 papers of 5th semester and was allowed to appear in 6th semester which were duly complied by the respondent university as such holding that the said interim orders under which she had appeared in the said exams hold no significance at this juncture is unsustainable and unjustified, (b) and that the facts on which the earlier writ petition no. 56954 of 2007 was dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2008 which order had merged in the order dated 08.05.2012 passed in her Special Appeal no. 84 of 2011 and had also attained finality too as such the dismissal of the writ petition on the same grounds was not at all open, (c) and that the observations issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench were completely ignored in the judgement impugned in the writ petition, (d) and that the college and university were held responsible for the delay as such the appellants case ought to have been treated as an isolated one for the reasons also that the Hon'ble Division Bench order passed in her Special Appeal on 08.05.2012 was only complied in the month of January, 2014 and that to after filing two contempt petitions i.e. Contempt Application (Civil) no. 2721 of 2013 and Contempt Application (Civil) no. 5957 of 2013, (e) and that the writ petition was not subsequently amended challenging the vires of the Ordinance 4.3 which was also the initial challenge along with other prayers though the fact remained was the prayer of 'certiorari' was amended to the extent of 'mamdamus' which was allowed on 03.04.2014 and carried on 07.04.2014.;