SINGHVI, J. - (1.) AFTER having passed B. A. M. S. (Ayurvedacharya) course from the National Institute of Ayurved, Jaipur the petitioner was appointed as Ayurved Chikitsak in the service of the Govt. of Rajasthan with effect from 11. 9. 85. In the year 1989 he applied for grant of study leave for the purpose of prosecuting higher studies. Sanction for study leave for the purpose of prosecuting higher studies was granted to the petitioner and one Shri Krishna Gopal Pareek, as would appear from letter dated 18. 11. 89 written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Medical & Health (Gr. 4) to the Director, Ayurved Department, Ajmer. Copy of this sanction was sent to the petitioner and Krishna Gopal Pareek. The petitioner had contacted the Principal, Ayurved College, Udaipur on 27. 12. 89 and applied for admission in M. D. course. This admission was given to him only on 4. 1. 90. The session to which the petitioner was admitted commenced in January 1990 and was to end in December 1990. According to the petitioner he had received the information about the sanction of study leave only on 16. 1. 90 when he received an office order issued by the District Ayurved Officer (B-Area), Jaipur for the purpose of relieving him to join in Ayurved College, Udaipur. The M. D. Ayurved course is regulated by the Ordinance centained in 329 N-21 framed by the University of Rajasthan. That Ordinance provides that there will be two academic sessions in a year and the examination will be held twice in the months of June and December. Krishna Gopal Pareek, who too was given sanction for prosecuting higher studies, could get that information in the year 1989 it self and he was admitted in the month of December 1989 for the session of July 1989 to June 1990. He thus became eligible to appear in the examination of M. D. Ayurved (Part-1) which was to be held in June 1990. That examination was however not held as scheduled but was in fact held in December 1990. The examination which was scheduled in the month of December 1990 was also postponed because of the postponement of the examination of June 1990. The petitioner has asserted that since he had been given admission in January 1990, he became entitled to appear in the examination which was scheduled to be held in December 1990. Since the examination of June 1990 was postponed and was being held in December 1990, the petitioner made an application to the Vice-Chancellor, University of Rajasthan for being given special permission to appear in M. D. Ayurved (Part-1), main examination which was being held in December 1990. This application of the petitioner was forwarded by the Principal of Govt. Ayurved College, Udaipur who strongly recommended that the petitioner may be allowed to appear in the December 1990 examination. This request of the petitioner was however declined by the University and a communication to this effect was sent by the University of Rajasthan on 5. 12. 90 to the Ayurved College, Udaipur. The examination which was scheduled to be held in the month of December 1990 was postponed to the month of April 1991. There was a further rumour about its postponement. Therefore, M. D. (Ayurved) Scholars Association of Govt. M. M. M. Ayurved College, Udaipur submitted an application dated 11. 4. 1991 to the Principal of the College, that the examination be conducted from 24. 4. 91 itself. Nevertheless the examination was not held as per schedule.
(2.) THE petitioner has stated that on account of the inactions and omissions on the part of the University he has been deprived of the opportunity to appear in the examination in M. D. Ayurved (Part-1) which was held in the month of December 1990. He has been sanctioned study leave only for twenty-four months and thereafter he will have to face great hardship for completing the course. He has stated that the written examination for part II is scheduled in December 1992. THErefore, he may be permitted to seek admission in M. D. Part II without appearing in Part 1 examination and he may be permitted to submit thesis only after clearing first year examination. THE petitioner has claimed that earlier also one Mrs. Trishla Jain, who could not clear part I examination, was permitted to appear in Part I! course as a special case by the Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan and the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment. He has alleged that on account of lapses on the part of the Govt. and the University, he has suffered immensely. In the first instance the sanction of study leave was communicated to him late. THEreafter he was not allowed to appear in part I examination in December 1990. He could not submit his thesis/synopsis and the examination for part I have been postponed for no fault of his. He will suffer because of the fact that the study leave would expire before he could complete the course. His case is that the University cannot take advantage of its own lapses in as much as it has not held the examinations on scheduled time and the candidates like petitioner has not been able to complete their course within the specified time. In the premise aforesaid, the petitioner has made a prayer that the Respondent University be directed to admit the petitioner in M. D. Ayurved course part II. In its counter, the Respondent University of Rajasthan has raised two preliminary objections. The first one relates to the non-joinder of the Principal, Ayurved College. Udaipur as parly to the petition. Case of the Respondent University is that the Principal of the College is a necessary party. In his absence no effective relief can be given by the Court. The second preliminary objection of the University is that cause of action for 'filing of the writ petition, if any, has arisen out side the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of the High Court. On merits the Respondent University has submitted that the petitioner has not passed M. D. Ayurved (Part 1) examination and, therefore, he is not eligible to appear in M. D. Ayurved (Part II) examination. Moreover, in terms of Ordinance 329 N-26, a candidate is required to get the subject of his thesis registered with the University immediately after his admission to Ayurveda-Vachaspati M. D. Ayurved Part II and for being eligible for admission to M. D. Part II examination, a candidate must have passed M. D. Ayurved (Part I) examination of the University before registration. Since the petitioner has not passed part I examination, he is ineligible to be admitted in M. D. Ayurved part II. The case of Krishna Gopal Pareek has been distinguished on the ground that he had completed one year's academic session at the time of holding of the examination Part I in December 1990. In any case, any grievance regarding examination of December 1990 is highly belated. In regard to Smt. Trishla Jain it has been submitted that she was inadvertantly allowed grace marks in two papers. She was declared as pass in part I. Subsequently when the mistake was brought to the notice of the University the result of Smt. Trishla Jain was revised and she was declared as having been failed. Having regard to the special facts of Smt. Trishla Jain's case, she was permitted to appear along with two other persons in terms of resolution No. 28 (i) dated 30. 12. 1988 of the Syndicate. Regarding the holding of examination, the Respondent University has staled that the examinations could not be held on account of general elections, where the employees of the University were also deployed. Moreover, mere delay in holding of examination does not entitle the petitioner to claim any relief. A rejoinder has been submitted by the petitioner in which he has contested the two preliminary objections and has stated that the action of the Respondent in not permitting him to appear in the examination in December 1990 has led to serious adverse consequences. Moreover, once relaxation has been given to other candidates, there is no reason why similar treatment is not being given to the petitioner. Ordinance 329 N-20 and Ordinance 329 N-26 and Regulations 43 H and 43 I deal with Ayurvedvachaspati M. D. Ayurved Course and examination. Ordinance 329 N-26 (l) and Regulation 43 clearly show that a candidate must have passed part 1 of M. D. Ayurved examination before he can submit his thesis and submission of thesis constitutes a condition precedent, which must be fulfilled by a candidate for his eligibility to appear in M. D. Ayurved part II examination. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner had not passed M. D. Ayurved Part I examination even till the date of filing of the writ petition i. e. on 10. 5. 1991. It is thus clear that his prayer for issue of a writ directing the Respondent University to admit him in M. D. Ayurved part II examination is wholly mis-conceived and untenable in the eye of L. w. The mere fact that he was not given admission in December 1989 or the mere fact that the examination was held in December 1990, cannot entitled the petitioner to claim that the High Court should issue a writ in his favour which would result in clear contravention of provisions contained in Ordinance 329 N-26 read with Regulation 43 (i) (Sic 43-1 ).
(3.) THE plea of the petitioner that the Respondent University has committed a serious error in not permitting him to appear in the examination held in December 1990 cannot be entertained at this belated stage. THE request of the petitioner to be allowed to appear in M. D. Ayurved part I examination held in December 1991) was rejected by the University of Rajasthan as early as in December 1990 as would appear from contents of para 8 of the writ petition. THE petitioner did not approach the court immediately after having come to know of the decision of the University and it is not possible for this Court to give any direction in March 1992 to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination of December, 1990. Grievance of the petitioner of his having been conveyed with the sanction in January 1990 is also untenable. From averments made in the petition it is clear that the petitioner had applied for admission on 27. 12. 89 before the Principal, Govt. Ayurved College, Udaipur. He was in fact given admission on 4. 1. 90. His assertion that he got the knowledge of sanction only through the letter of the District Ayurved Officer, Jaipur dated 16. 1. 90 falls fiat by the very fact that he had applied for admission more than two weeks before the receipt of communication from the District Ayurved Officer. The petitioner's grievance of discrimination qua Krishna Gopal Pareek is thoroughly misconceived. Krishna Gopal Pareek might have been given admission earlier to the petitioner on the basis of his earlier application. If the petitioner did not submit application, when Krishna Gopal Pareek had done so, he cannot be heard to say that he has been discriminated qua Krishna Gopal Pareek. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show as to how the delay of seven days in the grant of admission to the petitioner has been occasioned by the Principal, Govt. Ayurved College, Udaipur. The petitioner has not impleaded the Principal of the College as party to the petition. The facts regarding his admission are within the knowledge of the Principal of the College and, therefore, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the University in the matter of his late admission. ;