Judgment : R. A. Sharma, J. 1. PETITIONERS in Writ Petition No. 28277, Bipin Kumar v. University of Allahabad and others, 28278 of 1993, Keshav Deo Tripathi v. Allahabad University, Allahabad and another, 28275 of 1993, Rama Shish Misra v. Allahabad University, Allahabad and another and 30875 of 1993, Anurag Tripathi v. Allahabad University, Allahabad and another are students of B. Tech. in Agricultural Engineering in the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Institute), having been admitted in the session 1991-92. They have failed in their respective examinations in more than two papers. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30874 of 1993. Km. Chinta Mani v. Allahabad University, Allahabad and another was admitted in the Institute in B. Sc. (Home Science) Part I in the session 1992-93. She failed in three papers in the first year examination. PETITIONERS in Writ Petitions Nos. 33243 of 1993, Shaiju George v. Allahabad University, Allahabad and another and 31445 of 1993, Krishna Pratap Singh v. University of Allahabad, and another are students of B.Sc. (Agriculture) in the Institute and have failed in their examinations in more than two papers. All of them requested the Principal of the Institute to permit them to appear again in the second examination of those papers in which they have failed, but their request was not accepted. The petitioners have accordingly filed these writ petitions for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit them to appear again in the second examination of those papers in which they have failed. 2. AFTER filing the writ petitions the petitioners have filed supplementary affidavits. The Institute has filed counter affidavits and the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavits in reply thereto. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J. Nagar, learned counsel for the Institute and Sri S. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the University. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made three submissions in support of the writ petitions, namely, (i) as the Degree of B. Tech. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J. Nagar, learned counsel for the Institute and Sri S. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the University. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made three submissions in support of the writ petitions, namely, (i) as the Degree of B. Tech. in Agricultural Engineering is a Degree of Engineering, Ordinance XXVI-A framed by the Allahabad University to which the Institute is affiliated does not apply to it (ii) hundreds of students, who had failed in three papers were allowed to appear in the second examination in the past and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be given the same treatment; and (iii) the respondents have permitted the students of B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.) to appear in two papers after giving grace mark in the third paper, and if the same treatment is given to the petitioners, they will be entitled to appear in two papers, because marks in the third paper can be made up by granting of grace mark. 3. ORDINANCE XXVI-A, which deals with the second examination is not applicable to Medical and Engineering examinations, as is clear from the heading of the ORDINANCE itself. Para 2 of Chapter XXVI-A of the ORDINANCE permits second examination of the subject in which a candidate has failed. For the purpose of the instant case Clauses (iv) and (vi) of para 2, being relevant, are reproduced herein below : "2. A candidate who : (a) has failed, (b) has partly failed to appear or (c) has passed but is dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him/her at the Annual Examination in written papers, may appear at the Second Examination in : (iv) Any two written papers or two practicals or one paper and one practical of the B:Sc. (Ag.) Part I, Part II, and Part III and B.Sc. (Ag. Engg.) I year, II year, III year and IV year examinations, provided that a candidate would be permitted to appear in the practical only in case he has failed or failed to appear in the practical and not for improvement of marks. (vi) Any one written papers or one practical of the M.A. (Previous), M. Com. (Previous), MBA (Previous), MBS (Previous), M.Sc. (Previous), M.Sc. (Ag.) (Previous) M.Sc. (Ag. Engg) (Previous), B. Tech. Part I, B. Tech. Part II, B.Tech. Part III, M.A. (Final), M.Ed., M. Com. (Final), MBA (Final), MBS (Final), M.Sc. (Final), M.Sc. (vi) Any one written papers or one practical of the M.A. (Previous), M. Com. (Previous), MBA (Previous), MBS (Previous), M.Sc. (Previous), M.Sc. (Ag.) (Previous) M.Sc. (Ag. Engg) (Previous), B. Tech. Part I, B. Tech. Part II, B.Tech. Part III, M.A. (Final), M.Ed., M. Com. (Final), MBA (Final), MBS (Final), M.Sc. (Final), M.Sc. (Ag.) (Final), M.Sc. (Ag. Engg.) (Final), LL.B. I Year, LL.B. II 1 Year, LL.B. Ill Year, LL.M. Part I and LL.M Part II, examinations, provided that a candidate would be permitted to appear in the practical only in case he has failed or failed to appear in the practical and not for improvement of marks. Provided that candidates of the undergraduate examination mentioned in Clauses (i) to (v) above, who have failed or failed to appear in written papers and/or practical in more than one subject or group of subjects or papers as provided in the Prospectus, shall not be eligible to appear at the Second Examination." Clause (iv) of para 2 enables a student to appear in Second Examination in any two written papers or two practicals or one paper and one practical of B.Sc. (Ag.) and B.Sc. (Ag. Engg.). This clause does not deal with a case of a student of B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.), although it deals with B.Sc. (Ag. Engg). Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as this clause does not cover the second examination of students of B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.), the cases of such students cannot be rejected on its basis and the University should permit these students to appear in the second examination in more than two subjects on the basis of the past practice. In this connection it is also submitted that clause (iv) does not deal with the cases of B. Tech. (Ag. Engg,), because it is Engineering Degree to which Chapter XXVI-A of the ORDINANCE is not applicable This submission cannot be accepted. 4. IT is true that Chapter XXVI-A of the Ordinance is not applicable to Medical and Engineering Examinations; but B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.) is not a Degree of Engineering in the strict sense of the term. In Allahabad University there are six faculties namely, faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce, Law, Medicine and Engineering. 4. IT is true that Chapter XXVI-A of the Ordinance is not applicable to Medical and Engineering Examinations; but B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.) is not a Degree of Engineering in the strict sense of the term. In Allahabad University there are six faculties namely, faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce, Law, Medicine and Engineering. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College and Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College deal with faculties of Medicine and Engineering respectively and impart education in connection with various Degrees in Medicine and Engineering. Institute imparts education in various courses of Agriculture. The Degrees relating to Agricultural Engineering, as per Ordinance, are of faculty of Science. Accordingly Chapter XXXIX of the Ordinance, which deals with the Degrees in the faculty of Science mentions Degree of B. Tech. In Electronic and Tele-communication Engineering and Degree of B. Tech. in Agriculture Engineering. These two Degrees are of faculty of Science and not of faculty of Engineering. B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.) is one of the Degrees of Agriculture, education of which is imparted by the Institute. IT cannot be treated to be the Degree of Engineering. That apart, there is nothing on the record to treat these Degrees as the Degrees of Engineering equivalent to Degrees of Bachelor of Engineering, education of which is imparted by Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College. Although clause (iv) of para 2 of Chapter XXVI-A of the Ordinance does not deal with the second examination of the students of B. Tech. (Ag. Engg); but it appears that the same has been dealt with in clause (vi) of the same para. Clause (vi) refers to B. Tech without specifying its speciality. Accordingly there is no reference of Agricultural Engineering in it. But the examination of B. Tech. in the faculties other/than faculty of Engineering can be covered by this clause as there is nothing else on the record, which deals with the second examination of the students of B. Tech. However, as the learned counsel for the respondents have not relied on clause (vi) of para 2 of the Ordinance in support of their submission, it is not necessary to express any final opinion on this aspect. The first submission, of the learned counsel for the petitioners lacks merit and is rejected for the other reasons given hereinbefore. 5. SECOND and third submissions are liable to be dealt with together. The first submission, of the learned counsel for the petitioners lacks merit and is rejected for the other reasons given hereinbefore. 5. SECOND and third submissions are liable to be dealt with together. -1 By letters of the Principal dated 24-7-1992 aid 25-7-1992, copies of which have been filed as Annexures III and IV to the writ petition No. 28277 of 1993, the Principal of the Institute has informed the Registrar of the University that in the past the students, who have failed in three papers, were allowed to appear in the second examination in two papers after awarding grace mark in the third paper and has accordingly requested him to permit him to allow the same practice. From the perusal of these letters and the averments made in connection therewith in the writ petition, it is quite clear that in the past the respondents permitted the students, who have failed in three papers to appear in two papers after awarding grace mark in the third paper. In this way students, who have failed in three papers were -permitted to appear in the second examination. This matter was again placed before the Examination Committee of the University, which passed the following resolution : "It was resolved that since the some candidates have been allowed to appear in two papers and awarded grace marks in third paper in the past the same practice be followed for those students and for future the provisions of Ordinance be strictly followed for fresh students and it should be notified." From the perusal of Annexure III to the writ petition No. 33243 of 1993, it appears that the Registrar of the University clarified the above resolution of the examination committee to the effect that the first year students, who have failed in more than two papers, will not get the benefit of the second examination, although the students of 2nd, 3rd and 4th year who have joined in three papers will continue to get the benefit of the second examination. 6. IT is not clear as to under what provision of law the examination committee has passed the above resolution. But what is apparent from its perusal is that the students of Agricultural Engineering including B. Tech. (Ag. 6. IT is not clear as to under what provision of law the examination committee has passed the above resolution. But what is apparent from its perusal is that the students of Agricultural Engineering including B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.) were allowed to appear in two papers and were awarded grace mark in the third paper in the past and this facility has been allowed to continue, so far as the students of 2nd, 3rd and 4th year of B.Sc. (Ag.) and B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.) are concerned, but has been denied to the 1st year students. The resolution of the examination committee quoted above is neither retrospective in operation nor is there anything to entitle it to pass a resolution with retrospective effect. The above resolution will, as such, apply to every student, who has appeared in the 1st year examination before the date on which the resolution was passed and communicated to the concerned institutions. The clarification issued by the Registrar in this connection, as is contained in Annexure III to the writ petition No. 33243 of 1993, does not represent correct legal position, and is liable to be ignored. These writ petitions are accordingly partly allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to permit those petitioners, who have appeared in their respective examination before the passing and communication of the aforesaid resolution of the examination committee quoted in the letter of the Principal of the Institute dated 7-9-1993 (Annexure III to the writ petition No. 33243 of 1993), to appear in the second examination in two papers after awarding grace marks in the third paper in accordance with law. The second examination of the petitioners in two papers shall be held by the respondents within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this judgment before them. Petition allowed.