JUDGMENT S.B. Sanyal & B. K. Roy, JJ. The petitioners who are students of Indian College of Engineering, 'Motihari, a constituent college of the Bihar University, seek a-direction commanding the respondents to allow them to appear at the 3rd year and 4th year B. Sc. Engineering Examination of Bihar University, which is going to be held on 2nd February. 1990, with the carryover papers of the first year, so that they may be able to clear carryover, papers with their 3rd year B. Sc. Engineering Examination. 2. This writ application has been filed, as stated in paragraph no.4 of the writ petition, for the benefit of all the students similarly situated. The petitioners had failed in less than 3 papers in their first year course but they were promoted to the second year course along with carryover papers in which they failed. In the second year examination they failed to pass the carryover papers. Inspite of their failure to clear the carryover papers of the first year course they want to be promoted to the 3rd year course and be permitted to "appear at the 3rd year and/or 4th year examination. It has been contended that they are so entitled to in view of Regulation 12 (ii) of the Regulation for The Bachelor of Science (Engineering), Bachelor of Technology (Production Engineering) and Bachelor of Architecture Examinations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation'), which Regulation is stated to have been made under the Bihar Inter-University Board Act. It has been pleaded that the Ranchi University has allowed candidates to take their 3rd year and 4th year Engineering Examination, even though they failed to clear the carryover subjects of the 1st year, under the direction of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1095 of 1989 (R). According to the learned counsel, the said privilege, therefore, should be extended to the students of Bihar University as well, otherwise it will be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioners in support of the writ petition on 1-2-90 on being asked to show the aforesaid judgment of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, took time for two days to do so. Mr. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioners in support of the writ petition on 1-2-90 on being asked to show the aforesaid judgment of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, took time for two days to do so. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, senior advocate, who appeared on 5-2-90 on being asked to produce the judgment of the Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 1095/89 (R) failed to do so; but fairly stated that the said writ petition was withdrawn. Learned counsel submits that he does not, rely on the said judgment of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, but the petitioners are entitled to promotion to 3rd year course, even though they have failed in the next examination to clear the carryover papers of the 1st year. 4. The learned counsel also contended that the Bihar Inter-University Board Act, envisages creation of Inter-University Board to co-ordinate the Universities of Bihar for the purpose of maintaining desirable uniformity in the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules of different Universities as would be evident from section 5 (1) (d) of the said Act. Regulation 12, therefore, should be applied uniformally to all the Universities. 5. Mr. Ram Janam Ojha appearing on behalf of the" Bihar University, on the other hand, contended that Regulation 12 in no way supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. On the contrary, it debars the petitioners from being promoted to next higher class, since they have failed on their promotion to 2nd year to clear off the carryover papers in their 2nd year examination. Their promotion was conditional. The result of the 2nd year examination is required to be withheld till the petitioners are declared to have passed the lower examination. The question of further promotion in" the circumstances is impermissible under Regulation 12 (ii) Learned counsel further submitted that the Bihar University is not bound by the interpretation of the Controller of Examinations of Ranchi University; even if it be assumed "for a moment that some students in the said University were permitted to take their 3rd year or 4th year examination without clearing the carryover papers of the first year. Such a decision is violative of the Regulation and has no legal sanction. 6. Such a decision is violative of the Regulation and has no legal sanction. 6. Before we embark to consider the rival contentions, we may refer to a communication of the Controller of Examination, Ranchi University, issued to the Director, B.I.T. Sindri, Dhanbad while considering the representation of one Sri S. S. Rizwanuddin against the cancellation of his promotion to the 3rd year engineering course. The Director was directed to extend the benefit of Regulation 12 (ii) to the said student on provisional basis sometime in October 1989 vide Annexure-1. On 27-11-1989 the Controller of Examination, Ranchi University, sent a further communication to the Director, B.I.T. Sindri, Dhanbad (Annexure-3) The Proctor stated that : "...according to Regulation 12 (II) 77, a candidate who has failed in the B. Sc. Engg. Exam., shall not be kept in the 3rd year course and be permitted to appear at the 3rd year as non collegiate student. Such a student will get promotion, with carryover to be cleared at the next examination. In case he does not clear the carryover papers, his result of the higher examination shall be withheld (if he passes or is promoted). He will be required to clear the carryover papers of the lower Examination/Examinations along with the higher examination...... You are, therefore, requested to implement the V.C.’s order and to extend benefit of Regulation 12 (II) 77 and allow them to sit in the 3rd year examination on 30-11-1989”. It has not been spelt out in this writ petition, the facts and circumstances under which Sri Rizwanuddin was allowed to appear at the 3rd year examination nor the circumstances under which Annexure-3 was issued by the Controller of Examination, Ranchi University. On our repeated asking to produce the order of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1095/89 (R), learned counsel did not produce the same, but on the contrary submitted that no reliance is placed on the order passed in the said case. 7. Since the issue before us is dependent on the correct interpretation of Regulation 12, it will be proper to quote the said provision which reads as follows:- "FAILURE IN THREE SUBJECTS OR LESS: 12(i) If at any examination, a candidate passes in sessional work but fails in not more than three Subjects he may be promoted to the next higher class. Such candidate shall be required to appear and pass in the written papers of the subject (s) in which he has failed in the next examination along with the subjects of the next higher class. If he fails in more than three subjects he may appear as non-collegiate candidate in the subsequent examination, but shall have to appear in all the subjects. If he fails in sessional work, be has to take readmission. (ii) If a candidate promoted as in (i) above, passes in all the papers (or fails in 3 papers or less) and also passes in sessional work of the higher examination, but does not pass the lower examination, his result of the higher examination shall be withheld, till he is declared to have passed the lower examination. However, he has the option of appearing in all the papers of the higher class as in (i) above again. 8. This Regulation relates to such candidates who have failed in more than 3 subjects as also for candidates who have failed in less than 3 subjects in an examination. Those who have failed in more than 3 subjects, they become non-collegiate candidates in the subsequent examination and required to appear in all the subjects. Those candidates who have failed in less than three subjects may be promoted to the next higher class along with the carryover papers and they are required to clear in the next examination of the promoted class the carryover papers. If the candidate so promoted passes in all the papers of the promoted class or fails in three papers or less, but does not pass the lower examination, his result of the higher examination shall be withheld till he is declared to have passed the lower examination. 9. According to Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, learned counsel, the petitioners have passed in all the papers of the 2nd year examination, but have failed to clear the carryover papers and, therefore, they are entitled to be promoted and at best the result of their higher examination can be withheld till such time they pass the lower examination, Whereas, Mr. 9. According to Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, learned counsel, the petitioners have passed in all the papers of the 2nd year examination, but have failed to clear the carryover papers and, therefore, they are entitled to be promoted and at best the result of their higher examination can be withheld till such time they pass the lower examination, Whereas, Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, learned counsel for the University, contends that under the scheme of Regulation 12 if a candidate fails to clear the carryover papers a long with the examination of the promoted class i.e., the class to which he is promoted, his result of the promoted class is to be withheld till the candidate is declared to have passed the carryover papers of the lower class. The question of promotion to the next higher class, in the circumstance, can not at all arise. 10. In our opinion, the candidates who have failed in not more than three subjects could be promoted to the next higher class on the condition that they must clear the carry ever papers in the next examination along with the subjects of the next higher class. If such a candidate passes in all the papers of promoted class or fails in three papers or less, but does not pass the lower examination, his result of the promoted class shall be withheld till such time he is declared to have passed the lower examination. In the instant case the petitioners have admittedly failed to clear off the carryover papers in the next examination, namely, in their examination of 2nd year. It is said that they have passed in all the papers of 2nd year course and they are entitled to be promoted to 3rd year, along with the carryover papers of the 1st year. We fail to understand how can they be promoted to 3rd year course, if the result of 2nd year course is required to be withheld because of their failure to clear off the carryover papers in their examination of 2nd year course which was the next examination for them. The scheme of Regulation 12 will apply for the candidates of all the years. The scheme of Regulation 12 will apply for the candidates of all the years. Some may fail in the 1st year in less than 3 subjects and some may fail in the 2nd year in less than 3 subjects, but in the next examination they must clear off the papers in which they have failed, if they want their result to be published. If the result of the petitioners examination of the 2nd year course is withheld for their having failed to clear off the carryover papers, we cannot persuade ourselves to agree with Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh that the petitioners should even then be promoted to 3rd year course and be allowed to appear at the said examination. According to us under the scheme of Regulation 12 a candidate must clear the carryover subjects of the lower class along with next examination of the higher class. The words ‘next examination’ are very significant. These relate to the examination of the class to which the candidate is promoted with the carryover papers of the lower class. The Bihar University, is not bound by the interpretation of Regulation 12 by the Controller of Examination of the Ranchi University, if it is a fact that by wrong interpretation of Regulation 12 such promotions have been accorded. We agree with the learned counsel of the University that the petitioners cannot claim equality in illegality. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not mandate that if one University of the State has committed a mistake the same should he perpetuated by the other Universities. 11. We have not appreciated the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, the Bihar University should also interpret Regulation 12 (ii) in the same manner as has been done by the Controller of Examination, Ranchi University Section 5 (1) (d) of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, only required that there should be uniformity in the Regulations of different Universities. Regulation 12 applies to all the Universities. Merely because one University commits a mistake the other Universities cannot be asked to follow suit and commit the same mistake. The Regulation is uniform and that is all the Bihar University Board Act, demands. For issuance of a writ of mandamus one must have legal right, which is absent in the present case. 12. Merely because one University commits a mistake the other Universities cannot be asked to follow suit and commit the same mistake. The Regulation is uniform and that is all the Bihar University Board Act, demands. For issuance of a writ of mandamus one must have legal right, which is absent in the present case. 12. We do not, therefore, find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. HP. Application dismissed.