Honble MADAN, J.–This special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the order dated 27.5.1997 passed by learned Single Judge of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2714/1997 whereby the said writ petition filed by the abovenamed petitioner-appellant was dismissed. (2). The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the appellant was admitted to B.Ed. course in the Government Teachers Training College, Ajmer on the basis of merit after fulfilling the eligibility conditions as prescribed under the rules for the P.T.E.T. examination held by the respondent-University, Udaipur in the year 1990. Despite his persistent request he was not allowed to appear in the said examination conducted by the respondent-University w.e.f. 24.6.1991 and as a result he was constrained to file a suit for mandatory injunction in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer City (East) Ajmer whereby the plaintiff-appellant had sought declaration that he may not be debarred from appearing in B.Ed. examination which was being conduc- ted by the respondent-University during the aforesaid period. Alongwith the suit an application for ad-interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed. After hearing the parties to the suit, learned trial court passed an interim order in favour of the plaintiff-appellant directing the respondent-University to permit him to appear in the said examination on provisional basis. However, the result was not to be declared till the decision of the said suit. Accordingly the plaintiff- appellant, had appeared in the aforesaid examination but his result was not declared in view of the ad-interim order passed by the trial court. The aforesaid suit finally came to the dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 6.4.1993 holding that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to any relief, as against which he prefe rred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ajmer which was later on trans- ferred to the court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer City, ajmer. The appellate court after perusal of the records and hearing the parties, accepted the said appeal and allowed the appellants appeal vide its judgment and decree dated 20.7.1993 whereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court was quashed and set aside. (3). The appellate court after perusal of the records and hearing the parties, accepted the said appeal and allowed the appellants appeal vide its judgment and decree dated 20.7.1993 whereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court was quashed and set aside. (3). In compliance with the aforesaid order of the appellate court, the University declared the result of the appellant of B.Ed. examination, 1991 on 24.8.1993 by which he was declared to have qualified the said examination in IInd Division. (4). It is the impugned action of the respondent-University in not having permitted the appellant to appear in the examination for B.Ed. course held by the University w.e.f. 24.6.1991 onwards which the appellant had challenged before the learned Single Judge of this court in the above noted writ petition on the ground inter-alia that the impugned decision of the University was arbitrary, whimsical and capricious, since despite his eligibility for admission to the said course, he should not have been deprived of the same and he was driven to uncalled for litigation be- sides he was put to monitory loss, mental stress and strain for which he was not at all responsible or liable because of the delay in declaring of his result. He was also deprived of the opportunity to seek gainful employment for which the respondents were responsible to be blamed. He also claimed damages and compensation from the University vide its impugned action. In the relief clause to the writ petition he has also claimed the relief in the following manner :– ``Award of compensation/damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for sufferings, sustained by the petitioner by sheer callousness and administrative lapses of the respondents. He also prays for award of exemplary costs of the writ petition, which may be quantified by this Honble court. It may in addition, grant any other relief, as may be considered necessary, appropriate and just by this Honble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. (5). He also prays for award of exemplary costs of the writ petition, which may be quantified by this Honble court. It may in addition, grant any other relief, as may be considered necessary, appropriate and just by this Honble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. (5). Learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant vide her order, dated 27.5.1997 dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself holding that the claim of the petitioner was not justified for the following two reasons :– (a) that the petitioner ought to have claimed compensation from the civil court itself where he had filed a civil suit claiming declaratory relief with regard to his result, (b) that it cannot be said that the petitioner had an unimpeachable case in his favour regarding withholding of his result which is quite clear from the fact that he could not succeed before the trial court and thereafter on appeal he succeeded before the appellate court which obviously means that the question regarding his eligibility to continue with B.Ed. course, was not unquestionable so as to direct the respondent-University to pay compensation to him for the reason that the result was withheld without even a remote justification. (6). Consequently, since the claim of the petitioner under the aforesaid circumstances was not held justified on merits, besides the alternative remedy of civil suit claiming declaratory relief as well as the remedy before the appellate court also having availed off, the writ petition was accordingly dismissed as being not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.5.1997 passed by learned Single Judge of this court the appellant has come up in appeal before us and which has been heard at length and is being disposed of finally by this court on merits. (7). During the course of hearing, Shri B.L. Samdariya, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order, dated 27.5.1997 of the learned Single Judge on the grounds inter-alia that the suit for mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court in the year 1992, while the result of the appellant for his admission to B.Ed. course was declared by the University on 24.8.1993 and he had qualified the B.Ed. examination though he should have been admitted to B.Ed. course was declared by the University on 24.8.1993 and he had qualified the B.Ed. examination though he should have been admitted to B.Ed. course on the basis of the examination for admission to the said course conducted by the respondent-University on 24.6.1991 itself, but since in view of the arbitrary denial for his admission to the said course, he was left with no alternative but to institute a civil suit against the respondent-University in the course of Ajmer City wherein he sought a declaration against the University that he should not be debarred from appearing in the B.Ed. examination which was conducted by the University w.e.f. 24.6.1991. Having not succeeded in getting necessary relief from the trial court, he challenged the impugned order of the trial court before learned District Judge, Ajmer which, on transfer, was heard and decided by the appellate court of addl. District Judge No. 1, Ajmer; whereby the said appellate court vide its order, dated 20.7.1993 had quashed and set aside the impugned order, dated 6.4.1993 of the trial court. It is in these circumstances that the appellant had been constrained to file the aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge of this court by her order, dated 27.5.1997. (8). During the course of hearing learned counsel for the appellant further contended before us that as a result of the denial of the respondent-University in not having permitted the appellant to join the B.Ed. course as in the year 1991 itself, his academic career has been adversely affected and he should have been held entitled for payment of damages/compensation for unwarranted delay in declaration of his result for admission to B.Ed. course which has resulted in perpetual loss in studies and salary for his appointment as a teacher and which has thus resulted in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (9). In support of his contentions learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgments of the apex court in the matter of Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (MS) (1), Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (2), T.C. Pathak vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (3) and Ram Chandra Tripathi vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal IV & Ors. (4). (10). (2), T.C. Pathak vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (3) and Ram Chandra Tripathi vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal IV & Ors. (4). (10). We have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the apex court and in our considered opinion the ratio of the said decisions is neither attracted nor applicable to the controversy which has been raised by the appellant in the present appeal in view of the disputed question of fact which had been raised by the appellant by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence it is not within the purview of this court to enter into any discussion with regard to the same as they require adjudication by way of evidence, we are of the view that learned Single Judge was obviously correct in observing that the appellant should have claimed the relief of compensation from the civil courts itself wherein he had sought the declaratory relief and having failed to seek any relief from the trial court though its impugned order was reversed by the appellate court only with regard to the eligibility of the appellant to continue with the B.Ed. course and which the appellant finally succeeded in having completed the same by qualifying the said examination and hence is obviously not entitled to claim any compensation by way of damages against the respondent-University. We are further of the view that award of compensation in proceedings for enforcement of fundamental rights cannot be claimed directly by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when alternative remedy of civil suit, which is available to a party, should be availed of at the first instance and the appellant having not succeeded in getting compensation/damages against the University, though having succeeded for his admission to B.Ed. course and which the appellant finally succeeded in completing the same on 24.8.1993 having passed the said examination in the aforesaid circumstances, obviously cannot be said to have been put to any monitory loss for which the respondent-University cannot be held responsible for any delay. We are further of the view that award of compensation/damages cannot be claimed as a matter of right in a public law action against the educational institutions in a manner in which it has been claimed by the appellant. (11). We are further of the view that award of compensation/damages cannot be claimed as a matter of right in a public law action against the educational institutions in a manner in which it has been claimed by the appellant. (11). As a result of the above discussions we find no merit in this appeal and the same is consequently dismissed being not maintainable.