IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13575 of 2008 1. VIVEK KUMAR (RPSIT), Son of Hiralal Gupta, resident of Mohalla Jagriti Nagar, Ashiyana Road, Khajpura, Patna-14 2. Sarfuddin ( MACET) son of Maniuddin, resident of village Bindwal, P.S. Goria Kothi, district Siwan. 3. Md. Maqsoot Alam (MACET) son of Shoukat Hussain, resident of village Kesho Narayanpur, P.S.Tajpur, district Samastipur. 4. Anil Kumar (RPSIT), son of Harilal Hazara, resident of village purania, P.S. Mainatar, district West Champaran 5. Viksh Kumar (RPSIT) son of Raghubansh Singh, resident of village Chamanpura, P.S. Baikunthpur, district Gopalganj. 6. Nitish Kumar (RPSIT), son of Rama Awadhesh, resident of village Gourakshani, P.S.Sasaram, district Rohtas 7. Saurabh Suman ( RPSIT) son of Sri Madan Sharma, resident of village Kubri, P.S. Karpi, district Arwal 8. Md. Ahmad Hussain ( MACET ) son of Alauddin, resident of village Arwal Sipah, P.S. Arwal, district Arwal. 9. Mukesh Kumar (RPSIT) son of Nawal Kishore, resident of village Parsa Bazar, P.S. Phulwarisarif, district Patna 10. Saurabh Sinha ( RPSIT ) son of Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha, resident of Mohalla T/566 Shanti Kunj, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, district Patna 11. Deepak Kumar ( RPSIT ), son of Krishna Kumar Yadav, resident of mohalla Allahabad Bank Colony Khajpura, Patna 14, P.S. Rajeevnagar, district Patna...... Petitioners Versus 1. The Hon’ble Chancellor, Bihar 2. Officer on Special Duty, attached in the office of Hon’ble Chancellor, Raj Bhawan, Patna 3. Vice Chancellor Magadh University, Bodh Gaya Controller of Examination, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 4. Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 5. Director, Maulana Azad College Engineering and Technology 6. The Director, R.P.S. Engineering and Technology Danapur, Patna.................................. Respondents ---------- 3 15-10-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels appearing for the Magadh University and Hon’ble the Chancellor of Universities of Bihar. - 2 - The case of the petitioners stands on similar footing as those of C.W.J.C .No. 11725 of 2008 which has been disposed of on 12-9- 2008 by another Bench of this Court. On going through the said order it is clear that main prayer of the petitioners that in spite of having failed in more than three papers in the second year of examination in B.Sc. Engineering Course, they should be admitted to the 3rd. year course, has been rejected on merits after considering the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the Regulations of 1977 . On merits this writ petition also has to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the penultimate paragraph of order dated 12-9-2008 this court had granted a limited relief to the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 11725 of 2008 by issuing a direction to the University to accept the fees and forms of those petitioners along with late fine and permit them to appear at the ensuing second year examination in the failed papers. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the present writ petition prays for a similar order in favour of the writ petitioners of this case. In reply learned counsel for the University submits that such submission on behalf of petitioners in the earlier case was made at the end of arguments and taken by surprise, learned counsel conceded that petitioners should have an opportunity to improve their academic qualifications and therefore on concession such an order was passed without looking into the provisions of Regulation 12 (1) which requires that a candidate who has failed in more than three subjects - 3 - Naresh will have to appear in all the subjects in the subsequent examination. If the petitioners had been delayed in filling up the forms for ensuing second year examination on account of pendency of this writ petition, this court would have issued a similar direction to accept their forms with late fine so that they may take the second year examination in all the papers in accordance with the Regulation or in the failed papers only, if there was any provision for such course of action but this court has been informed by the counsels that the ensuing second year examination has already concluded and the petitioners had filled up their forms and had the chance to take the examination. In view of aforesaid discussions no direction is required to be passed. The writ petition stands dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)