JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a body of the students who have passed Pre-Degree Science Examination, 1990 from the University of Rajasthan as Ex-students and who are claiming admission in the IInd Year of Three Years Degree Course. 2. According to the petitioners, 10+2+3 scheme has been introduced by the University from the year 1988-89. The Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan approved the amendments in Ordinances, Regulations and Rules and transitory provisions were added by Notification dated 8.8.1989. The students passing Pre-degree or 12th Class examination of 10+2 Scheme in the year 1988-89 were given option to seek admission either in Part I Class of 10+2+3 pattern or in the IInd Year TDC Class of 10+1+3 pattern. This was the admission policy for the year 1988-89 formulated by the University of Rajasthan. But according to the new Scheme, 1st Year TDC old) has been abolished from the Session 1989-90. IInd Year TDC (old) has been abolished from the Session 1990-91 and IIIrd Year TDC (old) has been abolished from the Sessions 1991-92. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that those who appeared in the Pre-degree Examination, 1990 as Ex-students and passed the same cannot get admission in IInd Year T.D.C. as per the prospectus of 1990-91. Likewise, the students who failed in IInd Year T.D.C. examination or who did not appear in IInd Year T.D.C. examination with the object of appearing in P.M.T., P.E.T. and I.I.T. etc. have been dis-entitled to take admission in IInd Year T.D.C. They will have to seek admission in the 1st Year T.D.C. in the new pattern of 10+2+3. 4. The students who passed Senior Higher Secondary examination or Pre-Degree examination in 1988-89 were given option either to take admission in 1st Year of 10+2+3 pattern or II Year in 10+1+3 pattern and large number of students opted for IInd Year T.D.C. of 10+1+3 pattern. 5. The University of Rajasthan introduced 5 Years' Course for Law Classes from 1985-86, but this was discontinued from 1986-86, and the students who took admission in the said 5 year's course are still appearing in the examinations regularly held by the University of Rajasthan, though their number is very few. 6. 5. The University of Rajasthan introduced 5 Years' Course for Law Classes from 1985-86, but this was discontinued from 1986-86, and the students who took admission in the said 5 year's course are still appearing in the examinations regularly held by the University of Rajasthan, though their number is very few. 6. The University Studies of Law in Jaipur issued a letter on October 8, 1990 by which all students of LL.B. Vth Year (5 Years' Course) of both the batches 1988-89 and 1989-90 have been asked to appear in Paper VII, which was to be held on 16.10.1990. According to the petitioners, this shows that the students who took admission in 5 Years' Course in the year 1985-86 have been given option to appear in the Old 5 Years' Scheme, whereas the students who appeared or dropped in IInd Year examination of 10+1+3 pattern (Old Scheme) hive not been given option to reappear in IInd Year examination of 10+1+3 pattern and thus double standards are being adopted by the University of Rajasthan. The students, who appeared and passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination. 1990 were the students of Higher Secondary, Secondary and IX Class in the Sessions 1988-89. 1987-88 and 1986-87 respectively. These students have studied under the Old Course and cleared the Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1990, they are entitled to get admission in the IInd Year of Three Year Degree (Old Course) in the year 1990-91, but they have arbitrarily been denied admission, although the batch of 1988-89 was given admission in IInd Year. According to the petitioners, this amounts to discrimination, it has further been submitted that although the scheme of 10+2+3 was introduced from the year 1988-89, those passing Senior Higher Secondary examination in the year 1988-89 were given option to take admission in the IInd Year (Old Course). The petitioners submit that similar treatment should be given to the students passing Senior Higher Secondary examination in 1989-90. The petitioners submit that similar treatment should be given to the students passing Senior Higher Secondary examination in 1989-90. The petitioners have referred to the decision of the Division Bench in Vidhyarthi Samrakshan Samiti, Jodhpur v. University of Jodhpur (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/90 decided on August 20, 1990 reported in 1990(1) RLR 294 and has submitted that the Division Bench in that case had not considered the argument that if the scheme was introduced from the year 1988-89 then why it was not made applicable to the students who had passed the Senior Higher Secondary examination in the year 1988-89. 7. We have carefully gone through the above decision of the Division Bench. The Division Bench has taken the view that the students who took admission in IXth Class in the Session 1986-87 cannot be said to have acquired a right because the study up to Secondary. Higher Secondary and Senior Higher Secondary is by an independent body i.e. the Board of Secondary Education and the Pre-degree examinations are conducted by another independent body i.e. the University and the University being independent body is free to prescribe its own courses of studies. The plea of discrimination has been repelled by the Division Bench by observing that the situation has arisen on account of introduction of 10+2+3 scheme. The Division Bench has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab University v. Subhash Chandra ( AIR 1984 SC 1415 ) to negative the plea about denial of the vested rights of the students. 8. In our view the judgment of the Division Bench in Vidhyarathi Samrakshan Samiti's case does not deal with one important aspect of the matter, namely, that the scheme of 10+2+3 was introduced from the year 1988-89. It may have been justified for the University to stop to abolish 1st Year from the Session 1988-89 and perhaps then it could be argued that all students passing Senior Higher Secondary Examination have been treated at par. However, the benefit has been given to the students of the Session 1988-89 to opt for IInd Year of 10+1+3 scheme. No reason is coming forth as to why this benefit has not been extended to the batch of 1989-90. 9. In our view the students of the Sessions 1989-90 have been arbitrarily discriminated for the purpose of admission to IInd Year of 10+1+3 scheme. No reason is coming forth as to why this benefit has not been extended to the batch of 1989-90. 9. In our view the students of the Sessions 1989-90 have been arbitrarily discriminated for the purpose of admission to IInd Year of 10+1+3 scheme. We are unable to agree with the views expressed by the Division Bench in Vidhyarathi Samrakshan Samiti, Jodhpur v. University of Jodhpur and in view of this, this question requires to be determined by a Larger Bench of this Court. 10. We therefore, direct the Additional Registrar (Judicial) to place this writ petition before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench. We would request the Hon'ble Chief Justice for direction to place this writ petition itself for disposal by a Larger Bench. *******