- (1.) Since the common question of law is involved, all these writ petitions are decidedjointly.
(2.) The petitioners are prosecuting Engineering Degree (B.Tech.) in various Colleges under the 1st Respondent- Nagarjuna University. They belongto 1994- 95 Batch. They joined the course in October, 1995 forthe academic year 1994-95.Itis the case of the petitioners that they are not governed by the Rules dated: 22-6-1994 with regard to promotion of the students from one year to another year. In order to get promotion to III year, a student should pass all the subjects in the I year, while the Rule prior to 22-6-1994 was that irrespective of the backlog, a student is promoted to III year. Therefore, the petitioners submit that they should be allowed to prosecute their III year course even if they do not pass all the subjects in the I year. The second grievance voiced by the petitioners is that in the I year, they were taught subject in the theory system. In the II year, the system was unit-wise system. The petitioners have appeared for the II year exam inations in un it-wise system as the instructions atthe time of admission in II year were in that system. But, however in the I year the instructions were on theory system. The question papers for all the examinations held in June, 1995 and December, 1995 and January, 1996 were set for 100 marks, but however in July, 1996, the University changed the pattern and fixed 70 marks in place of 100 marks. Those subjects are Physics, Chemistry, Computer Programming, etc. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were taught only in the theory system and the examinations were soughtto be conducted in the unit-wise system in respect of the I year. Therefore, they were apprehensive that they could successfully complete the said papers. The petitioners were never informed about the change in the examination pattern system and only they came to know when the question papers were given in the examination hall. It is also the case of the petitioners that while the University authorities fixed 70 marks in respect of certain subjects, but for the very same subjects, they have fixed different marks as can be seen from the question paper. Therefore, they submit the very process of conducting the examinations of I year on unit-wise basis is illegal and contrary to the regulations. It is also their case that the University circulated a handbook of Rules for the academic year 1994-95 and in the subjects mentioned therein are contained 100 marks. Thus, the petitioners submit that the separate test have to be conducted to the petitioners of 1994-95 Batch for I year course on theory basis and not on unit-wise system.
(3.) While admitting the writ petition, directions were granted by this Court to considerthe representation of the petitioners dated: 19-8-1996. However, the same were considered and the University authorities have rejected the representation.;