JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners had passed Pre Ayurveda Examination held by the University of Rajasthan in the year 1984. He was declared pass with 1st Division and he also secured merit. The petitioner appeared in IVth Year of B.A.M.S. Examination in the year 1989. He was declared failed in practical examination of Charak Sahita. He applied for revaluation, but his application for revaluation was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred The petitioner again appeared in the examination conducted by the University in the year 1990. This time he again failed in Charak Sahita and Koumar Bhratiya. This time again, the petitioner submitted an application for revaluation and deposited the requisite fees on 19.10.1990. He submitted a detailed representation on 24.11.1990 for revaluation of his answer books. This representation was forwarded by the Dean, Faculty of Ayurved for consideration of his candidature Sympathetically. The Rajasthan University Students' Union also took up the matter with the Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan by making representation dated 26.11.1990. Despite all these representations, the University has neither revalued the answer books of the petitioner nor has given any reply to the petitioner and for the Vth Year B.A.M.S. examinations, which were to commence from 5.12.1990, he was not allowed to appear on the ground that he has not cleared IVth year examination sofar. According to the petitioner, since he had not been granted opportunity of revaluation in the year 1989, it must be deemed that his application for revaluation submitted in the year 1990 is the first application for such revaluation and there is no reason for discriminating the petitioner. 2. Notice of this writ petition was given to the respondent on 6.12.1990. The respondent University has filed reply to the writ petition. In this reply, it has submitted that the petitioner has failed in Charak Sahita and Koumar Bhartya in the second attempt and there is no provision for revaluation of answer books of the candidate who has failed in second attempt. Reference in this connection has been made to the provisions contained in O. 157-A framed by the University of Rajasthan. 3. During the course of arguments, Shri N.K. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner had produced before this court some documents showing revaluation of a candidate Ram Kishore Singh, who had appeared in the same examination on second occasion. Reference in this connection has been made to the provisions contained in O. 157-A framed by the University of Rajasthan. 3. During the course of arguments, Shri N.K. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner had produced before this court some documents showing revaluation of a candidate Ram Kishore Singh, who had appeared in the same examination on second occasion. In this regard Shri A.K. Sharma learned counsel for the University was directed to explain this case. Shri Sharma submitted that Shri Ram Kumar Singh had not applied for revaluation after failing in the examination in second attempt, but after failure he had appeared in all papers and, thereafter, he had applied for revaluation which was accepted by the University. He submitted that that was not a case of revaluation after second attempt, but when the candidate had appeared in all examinations as a regular candidate he had a right to apply for revaluation. 4. Ordinance 157-A (1) of the University Hand-Book which relates to revaluation, provides that in various subjects a candidate who fails is entitled to apply for revaluation of his answer books. Ordinance 157-A (2) begins with the non obstante clause with reference to the provisions of Clause (I) and it provides that revaluation of the answer books shall not be permitted in respect of (1) xxx (ii) xxx and (iii) All supplementary examinations, part examinations back papers and boy-cotted papers. The term 'part examination' means an examination at which a candidate appears in those subject (s)/Paper (s) only which he has yet to clear. In view' of this provision contained in O. 157-A (2), it is clear that revaluation of answer books cannot be permitted in respect of part examination and the petitioner who had appeared in the due paper of Charak Sahita and Koumar Bhartya of IVth Year B.A.M.S. is not eligible for revaluation of his answer books in these two subjects or any one of these two subjects. The petitioner had already been told by the University vide its letter dated December 5, 990 that revaluation of his answer books is not possible. The petitioner cannot claim any legal right to appear in the Vth Year B.A.M S. examination because he is not eligible in view of the provisions contained in O. 329 N-11. 5. Even with reference to the case of Ram Kumar Singh, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been discriminated. The petitioner cannot claim any legal right to appear in the Vth Year B.A.M S. examination because he is not eligible in view of the provisions contained in O. 329 N-11. 5. Even with reference to the case of Ram Kumar Singh, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been discriminated. From a perusal of the mark sheet of the said candidate it is evident that Ram Kumar Singh had appeared in all papers of IIIrd Year B.A.M.S. It cannot be said that he had appeared in only part examination. Therefore, the University of Rajasthan cannot be said to have commuted any illegality in declining revaluation of the answer-books of the petitioner while permitting revaluation to Shri Ram Kishore Singh. Even if, for a moment, it is assumed that Ram Kishore Singh was allowed revaluation in part examination, the same was in clear breach of the provisions contained in O. 157-A (2). In my view no writ can be issued by the court directing the University to act in breach of the provisions of O. 157-A (2). Equality can be claimed against the State and its functionaries in the matter of enforcement of provisions of law and not for violation of the provisions of law. Thus there is no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******