JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J.- Both the writ applications are being disposed of by a common judgment because the issues involved in both the cases as also the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are identical. 2. The petitioners after coming out successfully at the competitive examination, were admitted to the B. Sc. Engineering (civil) Four years degree course in the Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur in the year 1986. The only surviving prayer is to direct the Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter to be referred to as the University) to publish the result of the petitioners of Third Year engineering course. 3. The First year examination result of the petitioners was published on the 12th May, 1988. Both the petitioners of C. W. J. C. No. 1649 of 1990 failed in one paper each i. e. in Maths . II whereas the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1808 of 1990 failed in two papers i. e. in Maths. I and Maths. II. 4. As per the Rules of the University even if a student fails in three papers, he can be promoted to the next year's course on the condition that before appearing at the examination of his provisionally promoted course, he will have to pass in those papers in which he had failed in the earlier examination. As such the petitioners were promoted to Second Year course and were allowed to attend their classes. 5. On completion of the second year's course, the College authority allowed the petitioners to appear at the examination of the, Second year possibly under the impression that there was likelihood to moderate the result of the First year. The moderated result of the 'petitioners for the first year was declared on 21.1.1990 pursuant whereof the petitioners were declared as having passed in the subjects of First Year examination. But in the meantime on the 17th April, 89, the teaching of Third Year's course commenced and the authorities concerned again provisionally allowed the petitioners to attend the classes of Third year. But the petitioners were not allowed to appear at the First periodical examination of Third year which commenced on the 17th October, 1989, because by that time their moderated result declaring them to have passed the First Year and the Second Year examinations had not been published. But the petitioners were not allowed to appear at the First periodical examination of Third year which commenced on the 17th October, 1989, because by that time their moderated result declaring them to have passed the First Year and the Second Year examinations had not been published. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court, petitioners were allowed to appear at the second and subsequent periodicals of Third year and Fourth year in which the petitioners have asserted to have appeared. 6. Now the main hurdle with the petitioners is that unless their result for the Third year is published they cannot appear at the Fourth Year examination, which may result in wastage of their time and it will also affect their career. During the course of argument, it was prayed on behalf of the petitioners that the University be directed to hold special examination of First periodical of Third year because non-appearance of the petitioners at the regular examination of that periodical was not because of any fault on the part of the petitioners. But Mr. Prabhunath Roy, learned counsel appearing for the University, submits that it will lead to many complications and if such prayer is acceded to then it may create unhealthy precedent. 7. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioners says that they are ready to run the risk of declaration of result of the Third year even without the marks of First periodical of that year and in case it is found that the petitioners have passed the Third year examination, they should be allowed to appear at the Final examination, which is to commence from 2nd of April, 1991. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in which the petitioners have been caught for no fault of theirs, I think that in the interest of justice the result of the petitioners with regard to Third year course should be published by the University by keeping in view the marks obtained by them in the examination in which they have participated. In case on calculation as per the rules of the University, they are found to have passed the Third Year course then they should be allowed to appear at the final examination. 9. It has been stated on behalf of the University that there is some shortfall in the attendance of lectures by the petitioners and seasonal work. In case on calculation as per the rules of the University, they are found to have passed the Third Year course then they should be allowed to appear at the final examination. 9. It has been stated on behalf of the University that there is some shortfall in the attendance of lectures by the petitioners and seasonal work. This short-fall in lectures can not be covered up because the petitioners have already been promoted to Fourth Year course and moreover the shortfall in the lectures was because of certain unavoidable situation and circumstances. Since the petitioners have already appeared at the examination even of Third year and if ultimately they are found to have passed the examination then, in my view, in the fitness of things, the University should not insist for completion of lectures and seasonal work, which will now be inconsequential. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I hereby direct the Respondent-University to publish the result of the petitioners of Third year B. Sc. Engineering (Civil). The direction issued in this case should not be treated as a precedent in other cases because, as it is evident from the facts stated above, this direction has been issued in the present case keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of this case only. 11. It is expected that the result of Third year examination of the petitioners will be published by the University before the commencement of the Fourth year examination. If for any reason there is delay in publication of the result then the University should not stop the petitioners from appearing at the final examination on that ground. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions both the writ applications stand disposed of.