1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6670/2006 (Rakesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State & Anr.) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5720/2007 (Vinita Mathur Vs. State & Anr.) 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6952/2007 (Deepak Puri Vs. State & Anr.) 4. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5072/2007 (Praveen Kumar Vs. State & Anr.) Date of order : April 9th, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. K.K. Shah, for the petitioners. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, for the respondents. All the above writ petition involved identical controversy, therefore, the same are decided by this common order. The facts of writ petition No.6670/06 (Rakesh 2 Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) are taken into considered for deciding all the above writ petitions. In this bunch of writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure-5) and order dated 4.11.2006 (Annexure-6) and further prayed that the examination form of all the petitioners may kindly be accepted and they may be permitted to avail at least one opportunity to appear in the ex examination which is to be held on 27.11.2006. All the petitioners were permitted in various Polytechnic Colleges in various Districts viz. Bikaner, Jodhpur, Ajmer and Pilani etc. in the academic year 2000-01 for acquiring diploma and according to the scheme of the course as per para 6.4.2., a student has to pass Diploma course by the end of six academic years from the year of enrolment failing which his/her enrolment with the Board will automatically be cancelled. In ground No. (A) of the writ petition, it is specifically stated by the petitioners that the petitioners were required to be given study period of three years (36 months) but they have been given only 27 months, so also, during the period of six years the petitioners were to be given in total 12 opportunities to appear in the semester examinations whereas the 3 petitioners were given only 10 opportunities to appear in the examination. Thus, rejection of the examination form of the petitioners is totally unjust. Upon the aforesaid ground, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examination vide order dated 24.11.2006. The Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan has filed reply along with Annexure-R/1 wherein details of opportunities given to the petitioners have been furnished and submitted that all the persons whose examination form was rejected were granted 12 or more than 12 opportunities to appear in the examination in accordance with the rules. Therefore, as per scheme of the rules, they were required to pass the diploma course within stipulated time in 12 attempts but they did not clear the course, therefore, they are not entitled to appear in the examination once more after availing more than 12 opportunities to appear in the examination. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited the attention of this Court towards the decision rendered by Learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2000(1) WLC 744 (Shiv Kumar vs. Director, Board of Technical Education, Raj. Jodhpur) which was upheld by Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal No.190/00 decided on 2.3.2000 in 4 which similar regulation which was in existence, was taken into account for the purpose of adjudication of similar controversy and Hon'ble Single Bench & Division Bench of this Court has held that this Court cannot act as an appellate authority in educational matters and that too as benevolent appellate authority and there is no room for any benevolence under Article 226. While observing above, the special appeal filed by the similarly situated persons was dismissed while upholding the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. I have perused the entire writ petition as well as the reply and the result sheets produced by the respondents, so also, para 6.4.2. of the Semester Scheme 2000 which provides as under: “6.4.2 A student has to pass Diploma course by the end of six academic years from the year of enrollment failing which his/her enrollment with the Board will automatically be cancelled.” It is obvious from para 6.4.2 of the scheme that a student has to pass diploma course by the end of six academic years from the date of enrolment. Admittedly all these petitioners were granted opportunities to appear 12 times in six academic years but they did not pass the diploma course within the stipulated time. Therefore, in my opinion for maintaining academic 5 standards, the forms, for appearing in the examination, were rightly rejected by the respondents. The learned Single Judge of this Court almost in identical writ petition held in case of Shiv Kumar vs. Director/Chairman, Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan reported in 2000 (1) WLC 744 that : “Regulation 8.3 of 1994 clearly provide that a student should earn full credits required for the diploma programme at the end of 12 attempts (maximum 6 academic years) from the year of enrollment. In that case having failed to complete 12 attempts in six academic years, the petitioner will not be entitled for any relief from this Court.” The above judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.190/2000 decided on 2/3/2000. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun