Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner could not appear in the final year examination of the LL.B. and he was denied permission to take final year examination, but some of the persons, who came even after ten years were permitted by the respondent-university to take final year examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner after getting the copy of the reply along with copy of the order dated 18th June, 2002 (Annex.R/2) frankly admitted that by this order, the respondent-University withheld the declaration of the result of those candidates, who have been given permission in violation to the Rules.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this writ petition will be dismissed, the respondent-university may declare the results of those candidates who have been permitted to take final year examination in violation of the Rules and deny the permission to the petitioner. The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be well in view of the fact that the respondent-university itself submitted before this Court that the candidates mentioned in the order dated 18th June, 2002 have been wrongly permitted to take examination of three years LL.B. Course, the University- respondent, after dismissal of the writ petition, cannot take a different step, nor there is any existing reason to hold that the entire efforts of the university issuing order dated 18th June, 2002 is with an object to defeat this writ petition and deny relief to the petitioner and to give benefit to the other similarly situated persons.;