Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for both the parties submitted that the present case is covered by the decision of the co -ordinate Bench of this Court dated 29.01.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 711/2013 -Krishan Kumar Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Anr., and other connected 8 matters, therefore, the present writ petition may be disposed of, for the same reasons which have been assigned in that judgment. They submitted that the only distinction between the present case and the case of Krishan Kumar(supra) is that the case of Krishan Kumar(supra) was the case relating to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination, whereas the present case is of B.Sc. Nursing Part -III Examination, but so far as law point is concerned, the same is one and the same. Order dated 29.01.2013 passed in connected matters is reproduced as under: - In all these writ petitions, petitioners have approached this Court at a time when the B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination, 2013 is scheduled to commence from 30.1.2013 with the prayer that respondent -University be directed to allow them to appear therein. Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that coordinate bench of this Court in Chhigan Lal Jakhar & Anr. vs. Rajasthan University & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4854/2012 by judgment dated 21.11.2012 has in similar circumstances allowed the petitioners to appear in B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination on the premise that the University did not hold the examination of the remanded papers within 4 to 6 months from the date of main examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part I. In the case of petitioners, main examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part -I was conducted in November, 2011. Result of B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination was declared in May, 2012, which petitioners failed to qualify, having not cleared more than two papers. Examination for their remanded papers was also held in November, 2012, result of which is yet to be declared. However, in the meantime, the B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination has approached which is commencing from 30th January, 2013. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that as per the practice adopted by the respondent -university and the Colleges affiliated to it in the past, students, who appeared in B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination are immediately promoted to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II and are permitted to take the classes subject to their clearing the B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination. Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the judgment of this Court in Chhigan Lal Jakhar, supra on which reliance has been placed arose out of a case, in which petitioners failed in only one subject of B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination, whereas in the present case, the petitioners have failed in three subjects and some petitioners even in four subjects. They not only failed in one attempt but also in two to three attempts, therefore, their case cannot be taken as similar to aforesaid case. It is contended that petitioners cannot be promoted to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination as per the Ordinance 299 -V -3(C) of University Ordinance because the aforesaid Ordinance permits promotion of a student to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination only if he has either passed all the papers or has failed in only two papers whether, theory or practical or both. Perusal of the aforesaid Ordinance indicates that although it may be true that the promotion to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination would be dependent on student's clearing all the papers of the B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination or if he has cleared other papers except two papers as aforesaid, but at the same time, the Ordinance also cast an obligation on the respondent -University to hold examination of the remanded papers within four to six months from the date of main examination, which also presupposes that the result of the main examination is also to be declared within a reasonable time period, which may not be more than two months. In the present case, B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination of the petitioners was conducted in November, 2011 of which result was declared six months thereafter in May, 2012, therefore, the possibility of conducting two examination i.e. the main examination as well as examination of the remanded papers within the vicinity of four to six months could not be possible. Learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that even those who have passed B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination in May, 2012 would also not complete a year of study of B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination and by that time even they would not be eligible. This is sought to be explained by Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents that the nursing college on their own have been promoting the students to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II awaiting result of the examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part -I but only such of the students who have either cleared all subjects or passed in all other subjects except in two papers can be held eligible to appear in B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination. If eventually, result of B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination of the petitioners would have been declared within; say in two months i.e. by January, 2012 and their examination of remanded papers would have been conducted on or before April, 2012, possibly what the respondents are contending would be justified, but here in the instant case, the examination of the remanded papers was conducted belatedly in November, 2012 in the face of the fact that petitioners were permitted to prosecute the studies for B.Sc. Nursing Part -II in their respective colleges. It becomes a case of hardship to the students if they are not permitted to appear in the B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination now, which is to commence on 30th January, 2013. This situation has arisen on account of failure of the respondent -University to regulate its academic calender and discipline the colleges, who in routine manner promote the students from B.Sc. Nursing Part -I to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II. It is submitted that those promoted to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II also include the students, who had failed in more than two papers, like in the present set of petitions, in which some of the petitioners failed in four papers and that too not in one attempt but in three to four attempts. This is sought to be justified by counsel for the petitioners that University Ordinance permits five attempts, but at the same time, the University also is expected to adhere to the academic calender envisaged by the aforesaid Ordinance. In the situation that has arisen in the present case, the Court as an exceptional case is persuaded to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination schedule to commence from 30th January, 2013 subject to the condition that if they fail to clear all their remanded papers, their appearance in this examination would not entitle them to any benefit and the examination shall be treated to be cancelled. The respondent -University is directed to regulate the academic calender and also discipline the Colleges affiliated to it. If any Nursing College is found not adhere to the provisions contained in the University Ordinance by promoting candidates to B.Sc. Nursing Part -II Examination, who have failed in more than two papers, the respondent University can take steps to deaffiliate such Nursing Colleges because eventually the kind of stuff these Colleges are producing is evident from the present set of writ petitions, wherein some of the students could not clear the remanded papers not in one attempt, but also in three or four attempts and that too not only in one or two subjects but even in some cases, four subjects. This can be easily visualised what kind of nursing staff they would make when eventually they are awarded degrees by these colleges. The respondents are also directed to declare the result of remanded papers of B.Sc. Nursing Part -I Examination. With that direction and observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
(2.) IN view of joint statement of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of, for the same reasons which have been assigned in Krishan Kumar's case(supra).;