W.P.No. 8609/2011 07.12.2011 Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. M.Ravindran, learned D6y .G.A. for respondent No. 1 and 2. Mrs. Meena Chaphekar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. None appears for respondent No. 4. This writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties. O R D E R The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has challenged the communication dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P/5) and sought a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination. In brief, the petitioner was admitted in the course of diploma in mechanical engineering in the year 2005 on 26.10.2005 in the respondent No. 4 college. The petitioner was required to obtain 140 credit points for successful completion of the course. According to the petitioner, the original duration of the course was three years which was extend able to two more years including two years of mercy attempts comes to seven years. The petitioner had last appeared in the examination in December, 2010 and 2011, but could not on the total credit of 140 credit points and could not clear all the 32 subjects. The petitioner when tried to fill up the examination form for the examination to be held in December, 2011- January, 2012, the Examination In-charge of the respondent No. 4 refused to accept the examination form allegedly on the ground that no further attempts are permissible in views of the communication dated 01.10.2009 (Annexuere P/5). The respondents did not file any reply Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should be allowed further attempts since the maximum duration of the course is seven years which the petitioner has exhausted and that the communication dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P/5) was not given wide publicity, therefore, the petitioner was not aware of it cannot take away the petitioner's right. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that what-ever attempts are permissible under the relevant Ordinance and orders, the same have already been exhausted by the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to any further attempts and no relief can be granted by this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Ordinance 28 of the respondent No. 3 University is in respect of three years diploma programme based on multi-point entry and credit system (MPECS) implemented from academic year 2005-06. Clause 3.3 of the Ordinance in clear terms provides that maximum duration for passing the three years diploma programme is five years. Clause 3.3 of the ordinance reads as under:- “3.3. The maximum duration for passing all the courses (theory, practicals and Industrial Training etc.) of the programme shall be FIVE years for 3 years Diploma Programmes, nol separate time will given to students for medical or any other reason, whatsoever. Candidates debarred from examination due to UFM cases or any other reason will also have to clear their Diploma programme in the duration mentioned above. Names of those candidates,who are unable to clear their Diploma programme in the stipulated period. will be struck off from the roll list of the college and enrolment register of the University.” The amended clause 24.1.4 of the Ordinance No. 12 which reads as under:- “24.1.4. Maximum two mercy attempts in full course to a candidate who failed to complete the PG/UG/Diploma courses or clear Ist year o0f UG course in maximum duration as specified in concerned Ordinance may be given by the Vice Chancellor.” In the light of the aforesaid clauses of the Ordinance, the stand of the University that in terms of this Ordinance the maximum duration of three years Diploma course is five years with additional two mercy attempts. It is also worth noting that the petitioner while availing the mercy attempts in December, 2010 and in June, 2011 had given the affidavits Annexures P/9 and P/10 mentioning that he was availing those mercy attempts and he would not be given any further attempt to clear the Diploma course. This shows that while appearing in two additional mercy attempts, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that no more mercy attempts or additional attempts will be available to the petitioner yet the petitioner did not take the examination seriously and made no attempt to clear the requisite papers and on the requisite credit points. So far as the challenge to the communication dated 01.10.2009 is concerned, the communication independently neither takes away any right of the petitioner nor does it confer any right upon the petitioner. The provision relating to the maximum duration of the course and additional and mercy attempts are governed by the relevant Ordinance and order. The said communication provides for the manner of extending benefit of two mercy attempts. Undisputedly the petitioner has already availed those two attempts, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to raise any grievance against the said communication. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) J U D G E J U D G E Dube/-