SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner took admission in Sirohi Polytechnic in Electronics Engineering Branch (Diploma) First Year in the year 1996. As per the averments made in the petition, the Board supplied the Rules for Diploma Programmes in Engineering under Multipoint Entry and Credit System from the year 1994-95 and onwards which was enforced from July 1996-97 Registration. According to the Rules, the duration of Diploma Programme shall be 3 years from general and 3 1/2 years for Sandwic Programme but a student can complete the Diploma Programme even in a shorter period depending upon his qualifications etc. As per the scheme, the student is required to earn in all 140 credits including Project. THE case of the petitioner is that he appeared in Board's Examinations from Nov. , 1996 to May, 1999 Examination as per Rules supplied by the Board in different Semesters which has been mentioned at typed page No. 3 of the petition. As stated in the petition, in April, 1997 examination, he could not appear due to illness.
(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the courses of study are being conducted in Polytechnics and Examinations thereof are being conducted by the Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. IT is alleged by the petitioner in para 7 of the petition that the respondent No. 2 Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur has changed the Ordinances and Regulations in an arbitrary manner without any sanction from the State Government as per Annex. 1 which is regarding November, 1999 Examination whereby a student is prohibited from registering himself for more than one course in one Slot. IT is the case of the petitioner that earlier a student was in a position in `old Schedule" to appear in as many subjects as he chooses but not more than 9 subjects. According to the petitioner, he was required to clear only six subjects i. e. Code No. 208 (IT is stated at the bar by learned counsel Mr. Bhatia that it is a typing mistake and it should have been 200 instead of 208.), 209, 307, 411, 415 and 405. However, due to sudden change in the Rules effected by respondent No. 2 for November, 1999 Examination as per Annex. 1, the petitioner is debarred from appearing in Code No. 415 which he was otherwise entitled to appear as per the old Rules. Therefore, by way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner in all the remaining papers including paper No. 415 under the old schedule and the Rules prevailing at the time of admission i. e. in 1996 when the petitioner was given admission in the first year. Learned counsel Mr. Bhatia for the petitioner vehemently submitted that when the petitioner student was admitted in 1996 under the old Rules, then all of a sudden in 1999, the respondent No. 2 cannot change the rules unilaterally in a most arbitrary manner. He has pointed out in the Schedule of Courses-Old Schedule-page 87 of the book which he had, (Photostat copy of the relevant portion is taken on record.) that the subject EL-415 was earlier in Slot `f' and subject EL-209 was in Slot `g' but now as per the new schedule, both these subjects namely EL-415 and El-209 are included in one Slot `e' (See Annex. R/1 page 41 annexed along with the reply affidavit ). He, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner wanted to appear in the November-1999 Examination for subject EL-415, he is prevented from appearing at the said examination as per new rules at Annex. 1. Para 4 of Annex. 1 applies to the students who are earlier registered and as per that Annex. 1, a student can appear in only one subject of one slot. He, therefore, submitted that by introducing Annex. 1, the right vested in the petitioner student to appear in more than two subjects in one slot has been wrongly taken away. Therefore, the instructions Annex. 1 should be declared unconstitutional and accordingly, it may be quashed and the non-petitioners be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in subject EL-415 also. However, learned counsel Mr. Lohra for the respondents submitted that the petitioner himself filled up the form for November, 1999 Examination on 2. 9. 99 for four subjects as per the circular at Annex. 1 whereby the Rules were changed, therefore, it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the same and prayed that he may be permitted to appear in subject EL-415 in Slot `e' where there is already one subject EL-209. He also submitted that considering all aspects and the demand of exigency, they had to change the rules for the examination commencing from November, 1999 and in such academic field, this Court should not interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because the Rules and Regulations are framed by academic experts and this Court would not sit in appeal over such decision. In support of his submission, Mr. Lohra has relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the case of Punjab University, Chandigarh vs. Devjani Chakrabarti and Ors. (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of 10+2+3 system. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that these are administrative decisions of autonomous body which cannot be interfered by the Court in its writ jurisdiction and it is always open to the University to review and change their decisions periodically in public interest. The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court in Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Jaipur vs. State of Raj. & Ors. In almost similar type of case relying upon the aforesaid judgments and other judgments, I have dismissed S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 403/99 on 1. 12. 99. Photostat copy of the same is also produced on record by learned counsel Mr. Lohra. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions, I am of the opinion that this Court cannot interfere in such academic matters. It may also be stated that the petitioner had earlier filled up the form for November 1999 Examination on 2. 9. 99 (Annex. R/4) as per Annex. 1 and thereafter gave a notice through his counsel to the respondents. When asked learned counsel Mr. Bhatia for the petitioner submitted that if he would not have filled the examination form, then he would have been debarred from the examination but that should not go against the petitioner. In my considered opinion, having accepted the amended rules as per Annex. 1 and after filling up the form at Annex. R/4, it was not open to the petitioner to make a grievance that the Rules were arbitrary. It was at that point of time itself the petitioner should have challenged the same. Be that as it may. In my considered opinion, having regard to the circumstances and exigencies, if there is a change made in it by the respondents, then certainly this Court cannot interfere in such type of cases merely because the petitioner is likely to waste six months more by appearing in subject EL-415 after the examination of November, 1999. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merits in this petition and hence this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(3.) STAY petition is also dismissed. .;