CSA 108/04 Tayab Singh Vs. Registrar, Raj. University, Jaipur & Ors. (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.108/2004 Tayab Singh Vs. Registrar, Rajasthan University, Jaipur and others Date Of Judgment :: 10th August, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Goyal Mr. M.M. Ranjan, for appellant. None is present for respondents. ......... By the Court :- This is second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 27/11/2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Dholpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.85/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28/7/1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dholpur in Civil Suit No.137/1997 has been reversed and suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants with the averments that he passed his B.A. First year examination in the year 1987 under the old course pattern with compulsory subject Hindi and in the same CSA 108/04 Tayab Singh Vs. Registrar, Raj. University, Jaipur & Ors. (2) year he also passed the supplementary due paper of compulsory subject English. Thereafter in the year 1994-1995-1996 he passed the B.A. Part-1st, 2nd and 3rd year examination under the new course pattern with optional subjects leaving the compulsory subjects which according to him have already been passed by him in the year 1987 under the old course pattern and therefore he only attempted to clear the optional subjects in B.A. Part-1st, 2nd and 3rd year examination under the new course pattern but he was not declared pass by the defendants giving the reason that he did not pass the compulsory subjects, while according to the plaintiff, since he had already passed the compulsory subjects in the year 1987 under the old course pattern therefore, he was not required to pass the said compulsory subjects and he should be declared pass in the B.A. Examination. 3. The defendants in their written statements denied the averments of the plaint and stated that the plaintiff passed only the optional subjects in the examinations of B.A. Part-1st to 3rd year in the years 1994-1995-1996 but he did not pass the compulsory subjects and the plea of the plaintiff that he had already passed the compulsory subjects under the old course pattern in the year 1987-1988 does not have any substance since according to the ordinance the said scheme of CSA 108/04 Tayab Singh Vs. Registrar, Raj. University, Jaipur & Ors. (3) old course pattern was only effective upto the session 1989- 1990 and therefore the plaintiff was required to pass the compulsory subjects under the new course pattern but he could not pass the compulsory subjects, therefore he was not declared pass in the B.A. Examination. 4. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. The trial court after hearing the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In appeal the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside by the first appellate court and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal. 5. None is present for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments of the courts below and other material placed during the course of arguments. 6. It was inter alia contended that appellant has already passed the compulsory subjects in the year 1987-1988, therefore he was not required to clear those compulsory subjects thereafter even under three years pattern of 10+2+3 which was made effective from the year 1990. 7. I have considered the above submission. It is not disputed that upto the year 1989-1990 for graduation the pattern 10+1+3 was applicable and thereafter pattern has been changed and new pattern of 10+2+3 was made effective w.e.f. CSA 108/04 Tayab Singh Vs. Registrar, Raj. University, Jaipur & Ors. (4) 1990. The appellant could not pass the optional subjects upto 1989-1990 and cleared his examination under the new pattern of 10+2+3 but he did not clear the compulsory subjects under the new pattern in accordance to the provisions of Ordinance 203(6) (ii). The first appellate court has considered this aspect at length and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said judgment. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Therefore, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 8. Consequently, this second appeal along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage. (J.R. Goyal),J VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D34