CWP No.7480 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 7480 of 2009 Date of decision 14 .7.2009 Rahul Daulta ... Petitioner Versus Controller of Examination, Maharishi Dayananda University, Rohtak and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sajjan Malik,Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate for the respondents 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner had taken the of 1st semester examination of Master of Business Administration (Business Accounts) in December, 2008. He passed only one paper out of the six papers as per the result declared on 8.4.2009. The petitioner applied for re-evaluation of two papers. The result of re-evaluation was not declared. However, examination of 2nd semester commenced. In pursuance of Rule 8 (iv) of the Ordinance, the petitioner was not entitled to take the examination of 2nd semester unless he had completed 50 percent of the papers in the preceding semester examination i.e. 1st semester. Accordingly he was required to qualify atleast three papers of the 1st semester whereas he had qualified only one and in respect of other two his application for re-evaluation was pending. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 20.5.2009 we noticed the aforesaid factual position and found that in the CWP No.7480 of 2009 2 absence of declaration of result of re-evaluation it could not be presumed that the petitioner would not qualify under rule 8(iv) of the Ordinance of passing in two more subjects. We allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination of 2nd semester subject to the result of the petition. We clarified that appearance of the petitioner in the examination was to be at his own risk and responsibility and it would not create any equitable right in his favour. The aforesaid order was passed after issuing notice to the respondents and in the presence of their counsel. At the hearing Ms. Anamika Negi, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that result of re-evaluation has been declared on 26.6.2009 and the petitioner after re-evaluation has failed to qualify in either of the two papers. A photo copy of the result card has been placed on record (Mark “A”). It has thus become apparent that the petitioner does not answer the requirement of Rule 8(iv) of the Ordinance which requires him to pass atleast 50% of the papers of the 1st semester in order to take the examination of the 2nd semester. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 14.7.2009 Judge okg