MI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH. BIl ('SinstB Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justies Dhirendra Mishra'j W.P.fdNo. 7024/2009 VikrQffl.jit Sinqh SherqiIJ, S/o Shri Kulvirider -*—,,A />n ,—.—,,-.n/- ^iL?L''us cv vsyrs; T</y iet-Zl, 5ector'-Z, Bhiisi, C::—-,i- C.L—.-,,-:if ——-4 -*—,A/>n ,—.—,,-.n/- ^sr?^f -<e[";^3^ni; u^%ui ^iL?L''us cv ysyrs^ K/y »s i.l-A, M-j—:-.4.rs...x^ /r'^.\ L-aS:n^f L/Ur^ l^is?j I. Chhattisqarh Swaini Vivekanand Techiiicai University, Through its Registror, Wts, UiiSTFiCT UUFQ ^i-'fj 2. Bhitni Instituts of TsehnoSogy, &istrist &urs (£6} sy.-^^^.— -iy; AAr. M.F.5. Bhatia. Advocal's * * \ ; ; f t; . / »--.. 'issm ^snan ! "uKur, na' '~-ft t-'E?.-1^"^ o^^Aii- t-oc rne oersTioner ror responaenT <t A L OR & E R I'passed an 01 &ecamber_ 200S'l i. Tnis is third round ot litiaation bv the oetitioner. Eariier W.P. (c) Mo.3395/09 rHed bv the petitioner was disoosed or as disinjssed as withcirdiivn vide order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P-35 witti iiberry TO Ine yetit.oner to make detaiied reoresentation before the rsSDondeEits i-aisinq aii rhe orievances faised in the oetition and ttie reSDondent university was directed to decide the sarne exDeditiousiy n accordoi-'ice witii the rutes, reauiation and ordinance aDOiicabls in itiis reaard. 2. &-ievance ot the Detitioner is that thereafter the oetitioner's reDr-esentation has been r'ejected on 23.11.2009 vide Annexure P-5 with an observation 1t.at under the university Ordiriarices ther'e is no Droyisiori of urovisional admission in any semester and as the oetitioRer ha^ rsoT bsi?-ri r?rii'nci"^ff'.rt in 6 or 7 <eiTt^.<ter •?or the ses^EGns ..Tune-- December, 2009. therefore, he is not eliaible to aooear m the ^'if^iyn^afiQyi <^f 6 /^i / ^ef"»^'t^r- 3. Learned counsel for the oetitioner subrnits that the oetitioner viias nroyi^ion<sHv "<i?"ltt^d to 6 ^en^cster bv ^es?)onci°-"t No.2 ca^d hg ho.^ attended reaular classes atter deoositina reauisite fee in the instltution. However. he has not basn allowed to aopear in the^ .<ey' y.^w "p '"'e'gfc '% 1 ^ &. liBiiii SXQminritinn nf 6 <^t 7^ s^rnest^r11^- Sererr'ina to Ciau^p 4-2 o^ OrdincBice No.2. It was araued that a student. who is elioibte to aDDsar in the SuDDlementary or second examination, may be provisioriaiiy adrnjtted to a subseauent hiqher class. but he shai^ revert to the iower' CIQSS. ii'- he is not declared successtul at such examination. Mr'. Thakur, learned counsel aopearinu tor the resDondents submitl-ed that th^rs 's no ^Qin exar"incitEon b^inQ h^ld for 6 Sa*?isst@r for the sessions June-December. 2009. The Detitioner- cannot be Dsrmitted to in vhe T Si!?-niff>.<st!C'.r' eYantirxittinn iAfithout rtrin^rtrina in th^ n -^-?-—— ••- ...—• »—.,—».^. —>l-^......—..-..,»...,-->, -.;«u—^. •• ^ -> - >..—— 5emester examination. He further submits that the oetitioner may be .[3^r*instts<3 fo Ct£)D^rtr IH ths 6 SeETt®sterlexrtiTliyt<stioft Gt ths ^rid or -session commencinq from Januarv, 2010. fteferrino to Ctause-10 of the Ordinsince No.14 for B.E. 4 Year Deoree Course. it was araued that the 0€titEon^rwo.s not isl'oible for dd?nlssion to 6 S^ETlsstsr' os h-s hrtd not pcxssed Z ScmestCT at thc. ti?n€of comm£"c^ITlsntof session, Ordinance No.14 (Annexure P-1) is SDecificallv for B.c. 4 '"/ew- Decir'ee Course. Clause 3.5 of ths Ordinance No.14 clea.-iv orovides that a ca'ndicirtt^ sh<sil not b^ adn^ittsd 1" 6 semcsteT' €-xrtminotio?>t u^less he hns fuiiv Dosse.d/cleQrsd 2" ssfnsstsr cxrt?nindtion. -Simii<£rlv. Clcxuse 10 of this Ordinance aiso orovides that a ccuididate ahali be eiigible ror <scl?H'ssion to 6 ssi^sstsr Drovided he has Dnsssd 2 sc-{nsst^r. Whereas. Clause 4.2 of Ordincnce No.2 is aeneral Drovisions aoDlicable to admission o'f- .students to colleae. univer'sitv teacher' deoartment or 'schooi of studv etc. In view of the sDecitlc Drovisions contained in Ordinance No.14. referred ubove, I find no illeqality or irreqularitv in the order dated 23J1.2009 (Annexure P-5) wherebv the Detitioners i-epresentation has been rejected and accordingly, no direction can be iasued to the resuondents to oermit the oetitioner to aopear in the examination of- sixth and seventh seme.sters. In ihe result, the instant oetition is without any substai'ice, the same deserves to be dismissed and it is, accordinaly, dismissed. _-\^r \