- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5288 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 13th February 1996 with the following direction: "in that view of the matter, the respondent No. 2 is here by directed to consider the petitioner's representation which the petitioner shall make with in one week from date and allow her provisional admission and to appear in the Third Year Examination with Back Paper as provided under the Rules if she is found eligible. If the petitioner is provisionally admitted, in that event, the University shall consider the question of permitting the petitioner to appear in the Ex amination in accordance with the said Rules when applied for. "
(2.) THE said direction never intended to mean that the petitioner should be given admission and be allowed to appear in Third Year Examination alongwith permission to appear in Back Paper straightway. On the other hand, it was provided that she may be allowed provisional admission as provided under the law if she is found eligible and upon being found so eligible and permis sible under the law, if she is provisionally admitted, the University may consider the question of permission to appear in the Examination in accordance with Rules. THEre fore, the governing factor was the Rules. THE provisional admission was dependent on the Rules to the extent that the Rule permits such provisional admission and that the petitioner is eligible under the said Rules for provisional admission. Only if these two conditions are fulfilled, she would be given admission. Upon such admission, if under the Rules she could be precluded to appear in the Final Examination, the University has to consider the same. In other words, both the College and the University were to act on the basis of the Rules. THEre was no mandate on the University to permit the petitioner to ap pear in the Final Examination if she is not otherwise eligible to appear in the Examina tion even if she is provisionally admitted. Similarly, there was no mandate on the col lege to provisionally admit the petitioner unless the two conditions as mentioned above are fulfilled. Even if the College ad mits the petitioner provisionally in con travention of the Rules though purported to be acting on the basis of the order passed in the writ petition, but such provisional ad mission would be void if it contravenes the Rules and can not be a ground for the petitioner to seek permission to appear in the Final Examination in contravention of the Rules. If there are specific Rules and so long they are not declared ultra vires, the same are binding on the petitioner who sought admission subject to the said Rules. THE High Court, in exercise of its writ juris diction, can not direct the University to con travene its own Rules. In the present writ petition, it is contended that the petitioner was permitted provisional admission by the College in terms of the said order dated 13th February, 1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 5288 of 1996. If the petitioner is not eligible to such provisional admission even if such provisional admission is given allegedly pursuant to the said order which never in tended such a situation, the provisional ad mission can not be said to have been given pursuant to the said order. In order to appreciate the present case, it is necessary to refer to the brief facts which are as follows: "the petitioner appeared in second year LL. B. Examination in the year 1995. She secured 40% mark in each individual paper/subject but she failed to secure minimum 48% marks in ag gregate. The petitioner admits that unless she secures 48% marks in aggregate, she is not eligible for the Third Year LL. B. Examination. But, however, she can improve her marks by ap pearing in one of the papers or subjects as Back Paper alongwith Third Year LL. B. Examination.
(3.) THE said order was passed on the basis of the concession sought to be made by Mr. J. N. Verma that the petitioner was entitled to appear in the Back Papers and it is the College which can permit the petitioner to do so and with this the Univer sity had nothing to do. He further con tended that while permitting the petitioner to appear in Back Paper, the petitioner may be provisionally admitted and permitted to appear in Back Paper with the Third Year Examination. While interpreting the Rule, the said submission was made from the Bar. In the said order, the Court, however, did not go into the said question and did not interpret the Rules. On the basis of such concession, a direction for consideration, as quoted above, was given without entering into the merits of case either by interpreting the Rules or deciding the question of eligibility of the petitioner. THErefore, the said decision can not be said to have laid down any ratio decided with regard to the Rules and the eligibility of the petitioner thereunder. THE petitioner has also not challenged the vires of the Rules. The question of interpretation of the said Rules arose in the case of Suhailahmad v. Kanpur University (Sri Sahuji Maharaj Vishwa Vidyalaya, Kanpur)and another being Writ Petition No. 11551 of 1996 dis posed of on 4th April 1996. The interpreta tion as given in the said decision was upheld in Special Appeal No. 810 of 1996 Suhail Ahmad v. Kanpur University (Sri Sahuji Maharaj Vishwa Vidyalaya, Kanpur and another) by a Judgment dated 9th April 1996 rendered by the Division Bench.;