JUDGMENT 1. - Both the writ petitions are represented writ petitions of the students, who had appeared in the 1st year Diploma Course Examination in Ayurveda Compounder/Nursing Training Course conducted by the University of Rajasthan. 2. The education in diploma in Ayurveda Compounder and Nursing Training is being imparted at various institutions in Rajasthan and is in consonance with ordinance 329-N-31 of the University of Rajasthan. 3. University of Rajasthan published a syllabus, Ordinances and scheme of examinations and course of study in faculty of Ayurveda wherein they dealt with Part-I Examination of April/May, 1988 and Part-II Examination of November and December, 1989. It is not disputed that the same syllabus has been used for Part-I Examination, which was held in November, 1989. According to the syllabus, the 1st and IInd Parts Examinations shall be conducted in various papers which have been mentioned in the syllabus. They have been divided into seven papers in Part-I and eight papers in Part-II. The relevant part for the purpose of this case is Part-I Examination, wherein there are seven papers. A tabuler chart has been given in the syllabus to show the subjects, number of papers, maximum and minimum marks to be obtained in practical and theory. This tabuler chart is reproduced hereunder:- izFke [k.M ijh{kk% fo"k;% i=ksa dh la[;k lS)kfUrd iw.kkZad U;wure mRrh.kkZd izk|ksfxd iw.kkZad U;wure mRrh.kkZad 1- 'kjhj jpuk o fdz;k % 2 100 40 100 50 v& jpuk 50 c& fdz;k 50 2- LoLFk o`r 2 100 40 100 50 3- ifjp;kZ dk bfrgkl ,oa vkpkj lafgrk 2 100 40 100 50 4- nzO;xq.k 2 v& vk;qosZn 50 20 50 25 c& ;wukuh 25@100 10@40 25@100 12@1@2@50 l& gksE;ks 25 10 25 12@1@2 5- jl 'kkL= HkS"kT; dYiuk ek=k ifjp; lfgr& v& vk;qosZn 50 20 50 25 c& ;wukuh 20@100 8@40 20@100 10@50 l& vk;qosZn ;wukuh] gksE;ks ek=k ifjp;A 30 12 30 15 6- fod`fr foKku% ,oa eyew= ijh{k.k 2 v& fod`fr foKku 50 20 50 25 c& eyew= ijh{k.k 25@100 10@40 25@100 13@50 l& izkFkfed fpfdRlk 25 10 25 12 7- jksx funku% v& vk;qosZn 75 30 75 38 c& ;wukuh 25@100 10@40 25@100 12@50 4. The petitioners' case is that in papers 4, 5, 6 & 7 though they have been further sub-divided into various parts and maximum and minimum marks have been shown but in practice, the minimum marks required for, in aggregate 40% in each paper and University did not insist of having 40% marks in each of the part. The petitioners, therefore, when they appeared in the examination, they had prepared according to the past practice and did not consider it proper to concentrate individually on each part and tried for obtaining the minimum marks shown in the bracket in the aforesaid chart. The petitioners' case is that when the result was announced, they were declared failed as, though they had secured 40% marks in aggregate, but they did not have the individual minimum marks in each of the parts as mentioned and this is precisely the challenge in this writ petition.5. Notice was issued to the University and the University in reply to the notice, submits that the examinations had been conducted strictly in accordance with the syllabus, which has been published and the mistake which was committed in 1988 was sought to be corrected in 1989 and for that a circular was also issued, which in turn, were expected to be circulated at all the Ayurvedic Colleges throughout the Rajasthan among their students. This circular is alleged to have been issued from the University on 14th August, 1989.6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.7. It is regrettable that University has not bothered to issue syllabus from year to year and continue the same syllabus which was of 1986 edition From April/May, 1986 the pattern was admittedly different then the pattern which has been followed in the examination conducted in 1989. This pattern was adopted for the first time in 1989 though it was printed in the syllabus of 1988. The only defence of the University is that it is protected by way of a circular which it had issued to the Principals of various Ayurvedic Colleges and wherein it was expected that they would circulate it among the students. This circular was issued as late as on 14th August, 1989 and cannot be considered to be a reasonable one for being notified to the students about the change in pattern, even if we accept the defence of the University. This circular was issued as late as on 14th August, 1989 and cannot be considered to be a reasonable one for being notified to the students about the change in pattern, even if we accept the defence of the University. Students, at the beginning of the sessions, are expected to know what would be the pattern of the examination at the end of the studies in the particular year and moreso when one pattern under the same syllabus is being followed before changing the same, it is essential that the students have to be notified by a general notification, if not, by getting a new syllabus printed. It is not the case of the University that they got Annexure R. 1 published in any daily newspaper or notified to he students directly in any other manner. It is against the basic principles of natural justice that one is taken by surprise. The students who had appeared in the examination on the basis of the question papers, which had been issued in the previous year and the mark-sheets, which had been issued to the students in previous two years, could not have been considered to have been changed over-night and it can safely be said that the serious prejudice has been caused to them. In normal course, Court should not interfere with the internal functioning of the University and the educational institutions much less in the examination system but when it is found that a serious prejudice has been caused to the students and a precious year of the students is jeopardised, it behoves the court to intervene at this stage. This case is no exception to this. As stated above, under the same syllabus, when sudden change in procedure has been adopted, a prejudice to the students is writ large.8. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the action of the University in declaring those students as failed, who have secured less than 40% marks in theory and 50% marks in practical subjects, in each of the separate part, is erroneous act on the part of the University and deserves to be quashed. The students, who have secured 40% marks in theory and 50% marks in practical, in all, in each of the papers 4, 5, 6 & 7 deserve to be declared as passed.9. The students, who have secured 40% marks in theory and 50% marks in practical, in all, in each of the papers 4, 5, 6 & 7 deserve to be declared as passed.9. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that these writ petitions are allowed and University is directed to correct the result-sheets of the students, who appeared in the 1st year examination in September 1989 and declare those students as passed, who have secured 40% aggregate in papers 4,5,6 & 7 and the old mark sheets will be taken back from the students and a correct mark-sheet shall be issued. It is further made clear that if the University wants to change the pattern they should issue a public notification notifying to all the students well in time about the change in pattern.10 The fee for appearing in supplementary examination, if deposited by the students, shall be refunded to the students.11. There is no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******