1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1532 of 2010 ( Shri Chandrashekhar s/o Harishankar Sharma and others ..vs.. Vice Chancellor, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and others ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED :- 7 th APRIL, 2010 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri B.G. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the respondent-University. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the general grievance of the petitioners is in respect of Direction No. 10 of 2003, which according to the petitioners stand repealed in view of subsequent Direction No.4 of 2009 issued by the respondent No.1-Vice Chancellor, particularly in view of Clause- 20, which reads thus :- “This Direction shall come into force from the academic session 2009-2010 and shall remain in force till the relevant ordinance comes into being in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Direction No.10 of 2003 hereby stands repealed.” 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that 2 as per note in Direction No.4 of 2009, the candidate appeared for 5th Semester will also be allowed to appear for 6th Semester. However the result of the 6th Semester of the student shall not be declared till he/she passes 5th Semester. 4. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners are students of 6th Semester of LL.B. Course. It is further contended that all of them have given advantage of A.T.K.T. facility in 3rd and 4th Semesters and therefore, they could appear for 5th Semester. All of them cleared all the subjects of 5th Semester and therefore, they were permitted to attend classes of 6th Semester. It is contended that the respondents in such situation should permit the petitioners to appear for 6th Semester examination, which is scheduled to commence from 20th April, 2010. 5. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the respondent- University has submitted that the contention canvassed by learned Advocate for the petitioners are not correct. It is contended that Direction No.10 of 2003 has been culminated into Ordinance and therefore, it has been repealed and as per the Ordinance No.9 of 2008, the eligibility for the purpose of appearing in the 6th Semester, candidates must clear all the subjects of 3rd and 4th Semesters. However, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have not cleared all the subjects of 3rd and 4th Semesters and therefore, not eligible to 3 appear in the 6th Semester LL.B. examination. 6. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the respondent- University has further submitted that Direction No.4 of 2009 is not applicable to the students who are pursuing the old course and is meant for the students who have joined the new course of three years. Whereas, the petitioners are the students of the old course and therefore, the petitioners cannot rely on the same. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused Clause-5 of Ordnance No.9 of 2008. It deals with eligibility of the candidates appearing for the 6th Semester examination. It requires candidates must clear all the subjects of 3rd and 4th Semesters examination. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have not cleared all their subjects of 3rd and 4th Semesters examination. Hence, they are not eligible to appear for 6th Semester examination. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Clause in Direction No.4 of 2009 is not attracted in the case of the petitioners. Petition suffers from lack of merit, hence same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE adgokar