CW 11451/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.11451/2008 Neeraj Meena Versus Principal Bharat Law College, Jaipur & University of Rajasthan. Date of Order ::: 08/04/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sandeep Pathak, for petitioner Mr. RK Paliwal, for Mr. RA Katta, for respondent University Mr. K.S.Sharma, for respondent College. Petitioner is a student of LL.B. (Part-I) took admission in Bharat Law College, Jaipur (respondent No.1). Permission cum-Admission Card (Ann.1) bearing his Roll No.5924 was issued to him to appear in LL.B, 1st Year (New Scheme) Examination-May, 2008, in which one of papers of which dispute has been raised is of subject Code 9009-VIII-B-Trusts, Equity & Fiduciary Relations, which is, however, optional paper and another paper being available to student to opt for was of subject Code-VIII-A-Legal &Constitutional History. Since as per permission letter issued to petitioner, he was to appear in paper Code 9009- VIII-B-Trusts, Equity & Fiduciary Relations, wherein he appeared under Roll No.5924 which is also evident from certificate dt.10/10/08(Ann.2). However, when result was declared by respondent University on 23/08/08, petitioner was shown to be absent in paper Code-VIII-A-Legal & CW 11451/08 //2// Constitutional History, which was the cause of complaint by petitioner that when he appeared in paper Code 9009-VIII-B-Trusts, Equity & Fiduciary Relations as per permission letter (Ann.1) issued to him by University, itself, result of that paper Code 9009-VIII-B in which he appeared as per certificate (Ann.2) must be declared. However, pendente instant petition, vide order dt.21/10/08, petitioner was allowed to appear in LL.B. 1st year examination of Contract- II paper, Legal Language & Legal writing paper & public International Law paper scheduled to be held from 22/10/08, for which there was no dispute and vide order dt.30/01/09, respondents were called upon to produce result of Legal Language & Legal Writing paper (Subject Code- 9007-VII) in which petitioner appeared, which has been placed for perusal, as per which he secured 41 marks as against minimum qualifying marks of 36 in his paper subject Code 9007-VII-Legal Language & Legal Writing. Counsel for petitioner submits that once petitioner appeared in paper Code 9009-VIII-B- Trusts, Equity & Fiduciary Relations as per permission letter (Ann.1) issued to him, respondents could not be said to be justified in still treating him to be absent. Counsel further CW 11451/08 //3// submits that petitioner was never informed either by University or College that he was supposed to appear in subject paper Code-VIII-A-Legal & Constitutional History as against Code 9009-VIII- B-Trusts, Equity & Fiduciary Relations, in absence whereof, atleast petitioner has not committed an error by appearing in a paper as per permission letter (Ann.1) and respondents were not justified in withholding his result of paper in which he appeared. Respondent College has filed reply alongwith correspondence having taken place between institution and the University,which certainly shows that in paper Code 9009-VIII-A students were supposed to appear and respondent University also sent letter of alleged error committed in permission letter; but there is no document on record by which it could be inferred that corrigendum if any issued by University about permission letter to students particularly petitioner was served upon or informed, in absence whereof, petitioner if appeared in paper subject code 9009-VIII-B as per permission letter (Ann.1) issued by University, cannot be said to be at fault. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to declare CW 11451/08 //4// result of paper subject Code 9009-VIII-B-Trusts, Equity & Fiduciary Relations, of LL.B. 1st year examination, in which petitioner appeared on 21/06/08 as per permission letter bearing Roll No.5924 (Ann.1), within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order; his final result of LL.B. Part-I be declared and a copy of mark sheet be sent to him. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/11451CW08Apr08UOR.doc