R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) MR . Amit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that at the time of admission, examination rules were supplied to the Petitioner, in which, there is a provision of re -registration and the Respondents should have allowed re -registration of the Petitioner instead of strucking off his name.
(2.) MR . Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, referred to the last portion of the said examination rules to show that the said examination rules are only summarized version, whereas the complete rules are given in Annexure -A to the counter -affidavit. He relied on Clause 11.2 of the examination rules, which reads as under. 11. Failure and deletion from school roll 11.2 The name of the student, who after end semester and special examination, fails more than two subjects (maximum limit to carryover) in I or II semester, shall be struck off from the school roll. He submitted that the Petitioner failed in all subjects in first semester and then, he was allowed to repeat the same semester in the special examination but he passed in three subjects, and failed in three subjects. He further submitted that such rules were made available on the Website and even if there is any confusion in the summarized examination rules supplied to the Petitioner, and the actual rules, it is the actual which would be followed.
(3.) ON this, Mr. Amit Sinha submitted that the copy of such rules were not provided to the Petitioner and therefore, he was not knowing about the same. He further submitted that there were certain reasons due to which, Petitioner could not pass in the first semester and then in three subjects in the special examination.;