- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. These bunch of writ petitions involved common question of facts and law. Therefore all these matters are heard together. Different sets of counsels have appeared on behalf of different sets of petitioners. While Sri Radhey Shyam and Sri J. N. Verma, learned counsel represented the respondent-Kanpur University.
(2.) THE facts in Writ Petition No. 9461 of 1995 is that D. A. V. College, the petitioner herein, had admitted '113' students in B. Sc. Part III in the academic Session 1994-95. THEse students had passed their B. Sc. Part-11 examination from other University. According to the petitioners the said students were admitted upon strict compliance of provision of Chapter XI of the Kanpur University Ordinances. By a letter dated 4-4-1995 the final examination forms of the said '113' students were cancelled by the Kanpur University on the ground that no Bridge Course examination is conducted. According to Mr. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner the said order of rejection is contrary to the rules and the notice dated 2-1-1992 issued by the University to all the colleges, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is further alleged that the University had conducted such Bridge Course Examination for the academic session 1993-94 and it declared the result of such students in respect of B. S. Pat-Ill, as would be evident from Annesure-4 to the writ petition. However, pursuant to certain interim orders the students were allowed to appear in the Examination but their result have been withheld. Similar case was made out in writ petition No. 8919 of 1995 wherein D. A. V. College, Kanpur is the petitioner in respect of 8 A. Part-Ill Examination for the same Session. In the said case the candida ture of the students were refused on different ground by undated letter, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the other writ petitions, namely, writ petition No. 31683 of 1995, 30345 of 1995, 30344 of 1995, 30343 of 1995, 28852 of 1993 and 1012 of 1996 the petitioners are individual students of B. A. /b. Sc. Part-Ill appearing in the examination through the said D. A. V. College except the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31683 of 1995, who had appeared through D. B. S. College.
(3.) SRI Radhey Shyam learned counsel contends that the said students did not qualify and are not eligible to appear in the said examina tion because of provisions contained in Chapters-IX and XI of the Ordin ances. According to him the only students on transfer can seek admission. He further contends that Bridge course had been abolished and no such examination is conducted by the University. According to him the peti tioners have not passed B. A. /b. Sc. Part-II Examination and that nothing has been produced before the University to show that they have so passed from any other University. He further contends that the course of studies of those students are materially different and not identical. He further contends that pursuant to an order passed in one of this matter directing the Registrar to consider the question, the Registrar had asked the students to produce relevant documents but those were never produced before the Registrar. Therefore, no relief can be had on the application. SRI Radhey Shayam has made all contentions while opposing two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 9461 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 8918 of 1995, in which he is appearing. Dr. R. O. Padia, in support of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31683 of 1995 had contended that under Chapters IX and Xi of the Ordinances the students having passed B. A. /b. Sc. Part-II Examination from the other University may be admitted in B. Sc, Part III of the Kanpur University. According to him the students had fulfilled all the conditions and are, therefore, eligible for being so admitted and that such admission has been made after verifying the papers by the concerned college. The course was also verified by the Dean of the Faculty of Science of the University to be the similar. Therefore, the refusal by the University are arbitrary.;