HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Review No. : 24 of 2008. Decided on: 15.7.2008. Sandeep Chaudhary ……… Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh University and others. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 3: Mr.B.C. Negi, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): CMP(M) No.348 of 2008: For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Review No.24 of 2008: The petitioner alongwith 7 other persons had filed a writ petition in this Court in which the main prayer made was that he be allowed to take the supplementary examination to be held in September, 2007, in the interest of law and justice. The petitioners were not issued roll numbers to appear in the examination by the respondent University on the ground that they had not attended the minimum number of lectures as provided in the Rules of the ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - University. This Court decided the said petition vide judgment dated 10th September, 2007 and petitioners No.2 and 3 were permitted to take the examination, whereas the case of the present review petitioner and the other petitioners was rejected. This review petition was filed on 12th May, 2008, more than six months after the order was passed. In this review petition, the prayer made is that this Court should issue a direction that the review petitioner should be granted regular degree of having passed B.Ed. in the Session 2006-07 instead of the private degree for the year 2007-08. He has also prayed that fees deposited for the B.Ed. Course for the year 2007-08 be refunded to him. The petitioner, in support of his review petition, has placed on record certain documents which were not placed on the file of the writ petition. According to these documents, some other students, who had taken part in the functions organized by the Students’ Central Association, have been granted relaxation in the attendance norms much beyond the prescribed limit. It is on these grounds that the petitioner claims that he should also be treated at par with those students and be granted relaxation in the lectures. In our impugned order, we have, in fact, given directions to the University to ensure that in future, relaxation in attendance of lectures is not granted as a matter of course and is given strictly in accordance with the rules and for the reasons to be stated therein. There can be no applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India where there is infraction of rules. If the rules are bent to accommodate some person, the order passed in favour of such a person can be set aside and challenged but no other person can claim that the rules be - 3 - bent or the rules be broken in his favour by applying the principle of equal treatment. Even otherwise, we are of the considered view that the reliefs claimed by the review petitioner in the review petition cannot be granted to him. Admittedly, he has not appeared in the B.Ed. examination in the year 2007. Whether our judgment be right or wrong, the fact remains that the petitioner appeared in the examination only in 2008. Therefore, the question of this court directing that he be granted regular degree showing that he has passed out in the year 2006-07 does not arise. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. July 15, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.