SURESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
LAWS(RAJ)-1992-5-83
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on May 26,1992

SURESH CHAND GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
University Of Rajasthan And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This order will also dispose of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6827/91 'Chander Prakash Malhotra Vs. University of Rajasthan & Anr.' as it also involves same points and which has also come up for admission after notice to the respondents. Since the facts of both the cases are similar the facts of this writ petition are being mentioned for the sake of convenience and they are as under :-
(2.) The respondent No. 2-Institute is running a two and a half years diploma course in Ayurvedic Compounder and Nursing Training. The Institute is affiliated to the University of Rajasthan (the respondent No. 1). The petitioners were admitted in the Institute on 13.12.1988 for the first part course for the session 1988-89. The examination of ist part was held on 4.9.1989 and the result thereof was declared on 11.7.1990. Each of the petitioners failed in one subject of part Ist examination and was given provisional admission for the and part course on 12.7.1990. On 2.1.1991 supplementary examination of 1st part was held with the main examination of part 1st of session 1989-90 and the result thereof was declared on 22.9.1991 and the petitioners were again declared failed in the subject for which they had appeared in the supplementary examination. The date of holding supplementary examination for Part-Ist course was fixed as 27.11.1991 and the date for examination of part-IInd course was fixed as 4.12.1991. The petitioners who were to appear in the part-Ist examination on 27.11.1991 also wanted to appear in the part-IInd examination which was to be held on 4.12.1991 but sbce, according to the rules contained in clause 8 of Ordinance 329-N-31 issued by the University, they could not be allowed to appear in the part-IInd examination unless they passed part 1st examination, the petitioners wrote to the respondents that they had already been admitted in Ilnd-part course and that if the supplementary examination for third attempt was held in April-May, 1991 they could have been in a position to appear in the part-IInd examination and sought permission to appear in the part Ilnd examination because the supplementary examination was being held in November, 1991, not because of any fault of the petitioners but because the respondents could not conduct it earlier. Since no response was received from the respondents, the petitioners have approached this court by filing this writ petition. In the writ petition it has been stated that according to Ordinance 329-N-31, the examination has to be held twice a year and every candidate who fails in part- 1st examination has to be given three more chances of appearing in the supplementary examination to clear the paper in which he had failed and it has been contended that the examination were not held twice a year with the result that the petitioners could not get the advantage of appearing in third supplementary examination between the dates of first part examination and the second part examination and, as such, it has been prayed that either the respondents be directed to declare the result of the part-1 st supplementary examination to be held on 27.11.1991 before 4.12.1991 when the part-IInd examination was to be held or the petitioners be allowed to appear in the part-II examination which was to start from 4.12.1991. Along with the writ petition an application for interim order was also moved by the petitioners. The matter came- up before S.N. Bhargava, J. on 29.11.1991 when it was directed that notice be issued to the respondents to show cause why the writ petition should not be admitted and an interim order was passed directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the part-IInd examination which was to be held on 4.12.1991 but not to declare the result of such part-IInd examination without the permission of the Court. After the reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, to which the petitioners have filed the rejoinder, the case has come up for hearing arguments on admission.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.