1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2269/2009. : : Rohit Jain Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Anr. : : Date of Order 15.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Sunil Samdaria for the petitioner. Mr. Y. C. Sharma for the respondent No.1. Mr. Vinod Gupta for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have illegally rejected the examination form of the petitioner for appearing in BBA Part-III examination on the ground that petitioner has not qualified BBA-II examination within five years from the date of his admission. It is contended that there is no rule, which debars a candidate for appearing in BBA-III examination even when he has not cleared BBA Part-II examination. Petitioner has cleared BBA Part-I & Part-II, therefore, he would not be deprived of getting degree. It is submitted that as per scheme of examination, which is at Schedule-A, the requirement is that a student will be requested to pass BBA course within five years from the date of his/her admission, 2 which is only directory. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and submitted that scheme of examination was framed on the basis of decision of the Deans Committee which held that a candidate was required to pass BBA Course within five years from the date of his/her admission and candidate can carry forward maximum three core papers to the next higher classes i.e. from BBA Part-I to Part-II and BBA Part-II to Part-III as due paper of Part-I and Part-II. Copy of the minutes of Deans Committee has been produced for perusal of the Court, which is taken on record. It is contended that word 'required' in Schedule filed by the petitioner appears to be misprint and it is in fact 'requested'. Learned counsel relied on judgment of Supreme Court in National Board of Examinations Vs. G. Anand Ramamurthy & Ors. : AIR 2006 SC, 2484 and submitted that in that judgment the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have passed order directing to hold examination for respondents contrary to the scheme of examination. In view of stand taken by the respondents, I am not inclined to accept petitioner's plea that the respondents should be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in further examination even when the petitioner has failed to 3 qualify BBA Part-II. Petitioner failed to secure 48% aggregate marks in BBA Part-II even though he attempted four times within five years. Word 'requested' in Schedule-A produced by the petitioner, which is a typed copy, appears to be case of misprint. The Deans Committee in para No.3 of its minutes have used the word 'required' and the same has been approved by Academic Council. If despite repeated opportunities the petitioner has not help himself this Court cannot now come to his rescue. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.45.