JUDGMENT 1. 1. All these writ petitions raise common questions for consideration and therefore, they are being disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are students studying in the Engineering College, Kota for Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) Degree course of the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). Earlier there was five year course for the B.E. Degree. Subsequently the University has converted the B.E. Degree course to a 4 year course. Some of the petitioners in these writ petitions joined the 5 year course and after introduction of the four year course, they were shifted to 4 year course whereas some of the petitioners joined from very beginning in the four year course. The petitioners in these writ petitions fall in two categories. In one category are those who failed to clear all the papers of the first year but were provided admission in the Second year. They had appeared in the examination held in May, 1997 in the papers of the First year in which they had failed but they could not clear all the papers of the First year. They again appeared in the examination held in November, 1987 in the papers of the first year in which they had failed. The result of the said examination was declared in March, 1988 and they have passed all the papers of the First year in the said examination. They want admission to the Third year the studies of which have commenced in the end of October, 1987. The other category consists of petitioners who failed in some of the papers of the Second year and were granted admission to the Third year. They had appeared in the examination held in May, 1987 in the papers of the Second year in which they had failed but they could not clear all the papers of the Second year. They again appeared in the examination held in November, 1987 in the papers of the Second year in which they had failed. The result of the said examination was declared in March, 1988 and they passed in a I the papers of the Second year. They are seeking admission to the Fourth year the studies for which commenced in the end of October, 1987, 3. The result of the said examination was declared in March, 1988 and they passed in a I the papers of the Second year. They are seeking admission to the Fourth year the studies for which commenced in the end of October, 1987, 3. The admission to the B.E. course as well as the main examinations of the said B.E. course is governed by Ordinance 300 framed by the University and the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to admission in the Third/Fourth year of the B.E. course has to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in Ordinance 300. In para (VII) of Ordinance 310 it is provided that a candidate who after passing I.B.E. examination of the University has attended a regular course of study in accordance with the scheme of examination given hereafter in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible for admission to the II B.E. course subject to the stipulation given in para (XI). In para (VIII) of the Ordinance 300, it is provided that a candidate who after passing the Second B. E Examination of the University has attended a regular course of study in accordance with the scheme of examination given hereafter in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible for admission in the Third B.E. Examination subject to stipulation given in para XI. Similarly in para (IX) it is provided that a candidate who after passing the III B.E. Examination of the University, has attended a regular course of study in accordance with the scheme of examination hereafter in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible for admission to IV B. E. Course in the respective branch subject to stipulation given in para XI.Para (XI) of Ordinance 300 reads as under: ' (XI) (a) No student who has not passed in all the heads of passing of the I.B.E. Examination will be permitted to join the III B.E-II class as a regular student. No student who has not passed in all the heads of passing of the I.B.E Examination will he permitted to join the II B.E. class as a regular student. No student who has not passed in all the heads of passing of the III B.E. Examination will be permitted to join the V-E. class as a regular student. No student who has not passed in all the heads of passing of the I.B.E Examination will he permitted to join the II B.E. class as a regular student. No student who has not passed in all the heads of passing of the III B.E. Examination will be permitted to join the V-E. class as a regular student. No student will be permitted to join as a regular student except in the beginning of the session. (b) Every student who has failed in a particular annual examination may he provisionally permitted to join the next higher class in the beginning of the session subject to the following provisions: (i) The student concerned does not have back log in excess of five theory papers and five practicals/sessionals. (ii) The student concerned if he has hack log exceeding the limit of five theory papers and five practicals/sessionals, undertakes to appear at the immediately following additional examination and pisses in this examination in atleast as many beads of passing as are required to bring the extent of his failure within the limit mentioned above. If the student fails to comply with this requirement, he will not be eligible to continue as a regular student after the result of the additional examination is available and the provisional permission will be deemed to be automatically withdrawn. (c) A student who has failed in any of the Annual Examinations will be required to re-appear at only such heads of passing in which he had failed. He may re-appear in the subjects concerned at the subsequent additional or Annual Examinations. (d) The marks obtained at any of the subsequent chances will be credited in full. However, a student who fails in the Annual Examination will not be eligible for a place in the order of merit on clearing these papers at the subsequent examination." 4. Clause (a) of the aforesaid para contains an express prohibition against admission of a student to III B.E or IV B.E. as a regular student unless he has passed all the beads of passing of the I-B.E. or II B.E. examinations respectively. The said clause also contains a prohibition to the effect that no student will be permitted to join as a regular student except in the beginning of the session. The said clause also contains a prohibition to the effect that no student will be permitted to join as a regular student except in the beginning of the session. Clause (b) of para (XI) makes a provision for provisional admission in the beginning of the session to the next higher class for students who have failed in a particular examination. This is subject to the condition that the student should not have a back log in excess of five theory papers and five practicals/sessionals. A student having a back log in excess of this limit can be granted provisional admission to the next higher class but such an admission is subject to the condition that he is required to appear at the immediately following additional examination and if in the said examination he fails to clear the papers so as to bring the back log within the prescribed limit; he cannot continue as a regular student and his provisional admission is deemed to he automatically withdrawn after the result of the additional examination is available. 5. The learned counsel for the Engineering College, Kota in all these writ petitions has placed reliance on clause (a) of Para (XI) of Ordinance 300 and has submitted that in view of the express prohibition contained in the said clause, the petitioners falling in both the categories referred to above could not claim admission in the III-B.E. or IV-B.E. course because on the date of commencement of the classes for these courses in October, 1987 they had not cleared all the papers of the I.B.E/II B.E. Examination. The learned counsel for the petitioners have, however, urged that the clause (a) is applicable only when admission is sought as a regular student and it is not applicable to provisional admission in cases where candidate is entitled to appear in the additional examination in the papers in which he has failed to qualify. They have submitted that the cases of such candidates are governed by clause (b) of para (XI) of Ordinance 300 and such candidates are entitled to be provisionally admitted. We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submission c.f. the learned counsel for the petitioners, but we are unable to agree. They have submitted that the cases of such candidates are governed by clause (b) of para (XI) of Ordinance 300 and such candidates are entitled to be provisionally admitted. We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submission c.f. the learned counsel for the petitioners, but we are unable to agree. Clause' (b) of para (XI) confers a right on a student who has failed to qualify in all the papers in a particular annual examination to be provisionally admitted to the next higher class which means that a student who has failed to qualify in all the papers of II B.E. course in the annual examination can be provisionally admitted to the III B.E. course and a student who has failed to qualify in all the papers of I.B.E course in the annual examination can be provisionally admitted to the I.B.E. course. The petitioners have already availed this right when they got themselves provisionally admitted to II B.E./III B.E. course after having failed to pass in all the papers of I.B.E/II B.E. course in the annual examination held in June, 1986. The petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of clause (b) of pars (XI) in order to seek provisional admission to III/IV B E. course because their admission to the II/III B.E. course was provisional only. Moreover, clause (b) of para (XI) provides for grant of provisional admission only at the time of the beginning of the session and in the present case the petitioners are seeking admission in March, 1981 in the III /IV B E. course although the session commenced in the end of October, 1987. 6. The petitioners passed in all the heads of the I.B.E /II B. E. examination respectively in Marsh, 1988. The admission to III B E./IV B-E. courses commenced in the end of October, 1997 and till then the petitioners had not passed in all the heads of passing of the I.B E,/II B-E examination respectively. In these circumstances we find no fault with the decision of the College authorities in refusing to give admission to the petitioners in the III B.E./IV B.E. course respectively. 7. In these circumstances we find no fault with the decision of the College authorities in refusing to give admission to the petitioners in the III B.E./IV B.E. course respectively. 7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the college authorities in denying admission to the petitioners in the III B.E/IV B.E. clause, suffers from the vice of discrimination and is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this connection they have invited our attention to the averments contained in some of the writ petitions wherein the names of some students have been mentioned and it has been stated that they have been granted admission to III B.E./IV B E. course long after commencement of the session On behalf of the Engineering College, Kota an affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the students whose names have been mentioned in the writ petitions are not students of Engineering College, Kota and that so far as Engineering College Kota is concerned, no student has been granted admission to the III B E /IV B. E. class without his having cleared in all the heads of passing of the I B.E. examination/11 B E. examination and that no student has been granted admission to the III B.E./IV B E. course after the commencement of the session in October, 1987. During the course of arguments before us it was pointed out that the students whose names have been mentioned in the writ petitions are studying in other engineering a colleges affiliated to the University. Those colleges are not parties before us and we do not have the relevant facts and circumstances in which admission was given to the students named in the writ petitions. It cannot also be said that the admissions to those students have been granted as per directions of the University of Rajasthan. In the circumstances it is not possible to say that the respondents in these writ petitions have taken any action which has resulted in discrimination between the petitioners on the one hand and the students whose names are mentioned in the writ petitions and this has resulted violation of right to equality quaranted under Article 14 of the Constitution, (sic). 8. 8. It has lastly been urged by the learned for the petitioners that some of the petitioners in the writ petitions have been given provisional admission to III B.E./IV B.E. classes in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court and they have also undergone the course of study in those classes and in the facts and circumstances it would be unjust and unfair to revoke their admission after they have undergone the course of study for some period. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 and (2) Charles K. Skaria and others v. Dr. C. Mathew and others, AIR 1986 SC 1230 . 9. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , admission was granted to the B.E. degree course of Karnataka University and the students had pursued the study for the said course for about 4 years under the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the said students were ineligible for admission to B. E. degree course of Karnataka University, but those students were allowed to continue their studies on the view that the colleges were responsible for giving wrongful admission to those students. The facts of the present case are, however, entirely different. Here the Principal of Engineering College. Kota refused admission to the petitioners but some of them were given provisional admission under the directions of this Court. More- over, admissions were granted to some of the petitioners in these writ petitions only in the month of April, 1988 and they have undergone studies upto 31st May, 1988 when the college closed. In other words they have studied for slightly more than a month on the basis of provisional admission granted to them under the orders of this Court Moreover, we find that in the orders passed by this Court directing giving provisional admission to some of the petitioners, it was made clear that the said provisional admission would not confer any right on the petitioner who is granted provisional admission. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot take benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 . In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot take benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 . 10. The decision in Charles K. Skaria and others v. Dr. C. Mathew and others, AIR 1986 SC 1230 , has no application to the present case because in that case certain admissions in disregard of the quota had been made by the college authorities and the Supreme Court while holding that the admissions were bad, did not set aside the same in view of the fact that the students had undergone the studies. Moreover, in that case the learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala had made a statement that the State Government was willing to adjust and accommodate the persons who had been denied admission. 11. It may be mentioned that Shri Bhandari, the learned counsel for Principal, Engineering College, Kota, has stated that the fees which have been deposited by the students who were granted provisional admission in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court, would be adjusted against the fees payable by them for the next session. 12. No other contention has been urged before us. 13. In the result, the writ petitions fall and they are - The interim orders passed by this Court in some of the writ petitions will stand vacated. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******