ORDER R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - In this petition Sri Dinesh Kackkar has put in appearance for respondents 1 to 3 and has filed counter- affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was doing course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandary from Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Vechnology, Pant Nagar, district Nainital, Here-in-after referred to as the University'. His case is that while doing First Year course he had gone on leave from 13th May, 1989 to 14th May, 1989 as he wanted to appear in examination of Central Board of Secondary Education which was to be held at Delhi Admission card of the said examination has been filed as Annexure- 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has further stated that he suddenly fell ill at Delhi on 13th May, 1989 and could not appear in the said examination and after recovery could come back to Pantnagar on 15th May, 1989. For this reason he could not appear on 15th May, 1989 in the examination in paper of Animal Oanagement. While he could appear in all the subsequent papers. Then he moved an application on 17th May, 1989 for being permitted to appear in Oake up examination. However he has not been informed of any order passed on this application and he was not allowed to appear in the Oakeup examination. In second semester considering over all performance of the petitioner, he has been dropped from the roll of University on the ground of bad performance. The petitioner's submission is that in case he was allowed to appear in Oakeup examination in Paper Animal Oanagement he could have improved his grade in that paper and with improved performance in first semester his overall grading could be improved in second semester also. For consideration before the Petition Committee it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain a minimum grading of 2.55 and as on the application no orders were passed, though medical certificate was filed to show that the petitioner was hospitalised, he has suffered irreparable loss and injury and has been deprived further pursuit of academic career. 3. For consideration before the Petition Committee it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain a minimum grading of 2.55 and as on the application no orders were passed, though medical certificate was filed to show that the petitioner was hospitalised, he has suffered irreparable loss and injury and has been deprived further pursuit of academic career. 3. Sri Dinesh Kackkar appearing for the University has stated that the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Petition Committee and it was decided on July 25/26, 1989. The order has been quoted in Para 11 of the counter affidavit which reads as under: "The committee found that as per existing regulations the permission for taking make up examination to the respondents cannot be granted." Sri Kackkar says that the petitioner was informed of this order and under regulation he cannot be allowed to appear in the Oakeup examination, under Regulation 171c1 which has been quoted in Para 7 of the writ petition and which has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. A student can be permitted to appear in Oakeup examination at the discretion of the Dean of the College concerned subject to such direction as may be issued by the Vice-Chancellor from time to time, on the ground of Hospitalization of the student, death of parent, own marriage, attending interview and attending some court cases. The petitioner has made clear averment that he was hospitalised and for this reason could not appear in the Paper of Animal Management. From the counter affidavit it does not appear that the Dean of the College concerned has considered his application or passed any order as required under Regulation 17(c). Sri Dinesh Kackkar has stated that this application was decided by the Petition Committee vide order quoted in para 11 of the counter affidavit. I have perused this order. Firstly counter affidavit. I have perused this order. Firstly the petition committee had no jurisdiction to pass this order deciding the application to appear in the Makeup examination and this order can be ignored on this very ground. However, a perusal of the order further shows that there is not a word disbelieving the contention of the petitioner that he was hospitalised on the relevant date and for that reason he could not appear in the examination in Paper Animal Management held on 15th May, 1989. However, a perusal of the order further shows that there is not a word disbelieving the contention of the petitioner that he was hospitalised on the relevant date and for that reason he could not appear in the examination in Paper Animal Management held on 15th May, 1989. The requirement of Regulation 17(c) is that if the student is hospitalised and was unable to appear in a particular paper he can appear in Oakeup examination of that paper. On this fact pleaded by the petitioner his application cannot be rejected. Thus even assuming for the sake of arguments that the Petition Committee can decide the application the order is per se erroneous in law and violative of principles of natural justice as no reasons have been recorded. In fact the petitioner was legally entitled to appear in Makeup examination, and this long delay has been caused due to illegal and arbitrary acts of the respondents. 4. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Petition Committee dated 26-12-1989 shall be ignored. Since about more than a year has already passed, it may not be proper to direct the Dean of the College concerned to decide the application moved by the petitioner on 17th Oay, 1989. In the interest of justice K think it proper to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petition to appear in Makeup examination in paper Animal Oanagement which is scheduled from 25th February, 1991. On the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the said Oakeup examination fresh grading shall be awarded to him in first semester and then result of the second semester shall be pronounced afresh. During all these times the petitioner shall be treated as a regular student of the college. The order of the respondents that the petitioner shall be dropped from the roll of the University is also set aside. 5. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within two days.