JUDGMENT 1. - This is a reference by a Division Bench of this Court to the larger Bench (reference order reported in 1990 (1) RLR 301 ). Though, the Division Bench has not formulated the point to be determined by us, but it appears that the question which has been referred to us is in respect of discrimination and we formulate the point as under : Whether the amendments in Ordinances Nos. 202A, 221 and 242B of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan are discriminatory because whereas they give option to the students who passed the examinations specified therein in 1988-89 and they have been allowed admission in II year, those who passed the said examinations in 1989-90 have not been given the option? 2. The Division Bench found itself unable to agree with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Vidyartbi Sanraksban Samiti Jodhpur v. University of Jodhpur and others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/1990 decided on August 20, 1990 at Jodhpur (reported in 1990 (1) RLR 294). In the aforesaid case, while dealing with the case of discrimination the court said- "The contention based on discrimination also appears to us to be misconceived. Students upto the session 1988-89 have been treated differently from the students who have passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1989-90, as from a particular year as provided in the Ordinance the students are required to be dealt with differently on that basis. Question of discrimination does not arise because this situation has arisen on account of introduction of 10+2+3 scheme." 3. Before the introduction of 10+4+3 scheme by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, which scheme was introduced on All India basis, there was 10+1+3 scheme in operation. A student used to take admission in 9th class and had to appear in Secondary Examination and then he used to appear in 11th class before doing his Third Year Degree Course, tut after inti education of 10+2+3 scheme, the students have to appear in the examination of 10th Class, which is held by the Board as well as in the examination after studying in 11th class. The aforesaid 10+2+3 scheme came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1988(1) RLR 819 . The aforesaid 10+2+3 scheme came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1988(1) RLR 819 . A declaration was sought in that case that the new system of education on 10+2+3 pattern shall not apply to the students who appeared at the Higher Secondary Examination (11+class) in the academic session 1987-88 and a direction was further sought that after passing the Higher Secondary Class (11th class) such students may be given admission to the 1st year TDC in the University as per merits as earlier. This Court considered the aforesaid question and found itself unable to agree with the contention raised therein. The court said - "In our opinion, by the Press note published on July 2, 1987, the Board had given notice to the students who had joined the 11th Class in July 1987 that they would have to study for one more year in 12th Class in the year 1988-89 and only thereafter they would be entitled to join the TDC of the University. Moreover, the students who joined the 11th Class in 1987 cannot claim any vested right so as to object to the introduction of Higher Secondary Education on 10+2 pattern, whereunder such students are being required to undertake study in 12th Class (Senior Secondary)/pre TDC for one further year before joining TDC of the University". The Court in taking the aforesaid view placed reliance on the case of Punjab University v. Devjani Chakrabarti AIR 1984 SC 1444 and said that the said case related to the introduction of the 10+2+3 scheme. The court said that the students of 111h class can have no right to claim admission in IInd year of 3 years Decree course. 4. The court said that the students of 111h class can have no right to claim admission in IInd year of 3 years Decree course. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if that judgment would have remained as it is and if there would not have been any amendment in the relevant Ordinance of the University, the matter would have been different and the University for the reasons which might have prevailed, thought it proper to amend the Ordinances No. 202A, 221 and 242 B of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan and amendments were introduced on June 12, 1989 and transitory provisions have been added by Notification dated August 8, 1989 and the students were given option to seek admission either in part I of 10+2+3 or in IInd year of 10+1+3 pattern whereas the students of Pre-decree classes of the aforesaid examinations were not given option and according to the learned counsel it is discriminatory because no reason has been assigned as to why the option was given to the students who had pasted the aforesaid examinations in 1988-89 and was not given to those who have passed the said examination in 1989-90. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment in the Ordinance is discriminatory in so far as the students who have passed the said examinations in 1988-89 were given option but those who have passed the same in 1989-90 were not given that option and therefore this Court should hold it so, and the students who have passed the aforesaid examinations in 1989-90 should also be treated equally and should be given that option. 5. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that so far as 10+2+3 scheme of examinations is concerned, it was introduced from the academic session 1988-89. Even prior to it, it was sometime in the year 1987 as observed in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarihi Parishad (supra) on July 2, 1987 a press note was issued by the Board giving notice to the students who joined the 11th class in July 1987 that they would have to study for one more year in 12th class in the year 1988-89 and only thereafter they would be entitled to join the TDC of the University. If the University thought that some of the students who had passed the aforesaid examinations in the academic session 1988-89 should also be given the option, the students who passed the examination in 1989-90 cannot claim any parity with them as it was within the legislative competence of the University to frame, amend, or modify the ordinances and it has taken a decision to allow option only to such of the candidates who have passed the examination in 1988-89, we are of the opinion that it is not for this Court to say that it could not do so because it is discriminatory. There has to be an end to certain scheme and when a new scheme is introduced, it cannot be said that the candidates who nave appeared in 1989-90 would be the last batch, because the possibility cannot be excluded that some might have dropped or some might have failed. We had no case of discrimination in so far as the students who have passed the aforesaid examinations in 1989-90 and those who passed in 1988-89. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Vidhyarthi Sanrakshan Samiti v. University of Jodhpur. D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/90 decided on August 20, 1990 (1990 (1) RLR 294). 6. Consequently, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed summarily.Petition Dismissed. *******