JUDGMENT 1. :- By way of this writ petition the petitioner sought direction to the respondents to award him Diploma. 2. In short, the facts are that Mahesh Chand took his admission in Government Technical College, Alwar in August 1991, he was allotted enrolment No.91/7601. He passed Ist year examination in 1992-93 in Mechanical Engineering but could not succeed in 2n&year examination for 1993-94, so he appeared and qualified his two papers of 2nd year in 1994-95 examination. Meanwhile in November, 1995, Semester System was introduced by the Institute and he was allowed to continue his study by appearing in end term examination held in April 1998 wherein he earned 141 credits in total vide result declared on 5.8.98, mark-sheet Ann.4. By mark-sheet (Ann.4), of end term examination held in April 1998 his enrolment was cancelled under Rule 8.3. Against cancellation of his enrolment, the petitioner through his advocate sent notice for demand of. justice and then has filed this writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he earned 7 unspecified credits as against requisite 6 credits for passing the Diploma and that apart under old course he had already passed code 101-A English and Social Science in the year 1992-93. Shri Dinesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot be denied the Award of Diploma on the pretext of functional English course which he could not pass, whereas Functional English Course II was not required to be cleared/passed by him inasmuch as students like the petitioner having already qualified Senior Higher Secondary Examination, are not required to pass English Course because English Course is only for the students who have been admitted in the Diploma Course after having passed 10th Class. 4. Shri Sharma then contended that admittedly when the petitioner has passed all technical courses under new scheme and English language paper in old scheme, and acquired 141 credits in total as against requisite total 140 credits, the action of the respondents cancelling enrolment and denying award of the Diploma to the petitioner is arbitrary, against the constitutional mandate and illegal which is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Ms. Gayatri Rathore, the learned counsel for the respondents did not press the contentions urged in para 2 of the reply viz. that the petitioner had obtained 141 credits in seven years. 5. Ms. Gayatri Rathore, the learned counsel for the respondents did not press the contentions urged in para 2 of the reply viz. that the petitioner had obtained 141 credits in seven years. But during the course of arguments she contended that securing 141 credits is not sufficient to declare the petitioner passed in his Diploma Course because it is not an aggregate credits but minimum credits are fixed to secure in each of courses. She urged that in foundation course as against requisite 49 credits and in unspecified course as against requisite 6 credits, the petitioner secured 45 and 4 credits respectively and, therefore, since he did not secure minimum credits in aforesaid courses, he cannot be awarded Diploma. 6. Ms. Rathore contended that the petitioner had not cleared Functional English I, he was not entitled to exemption under Course Code 109 of the New Scheme. In reply to the writ petition, it has been admitted that in the first year of the old Scheme the petitioner had cleared English and Social Science by securing 60 marks out of 100 as per mark sheet Ann.2, under Course Code No.101-A equivalent to Course Code 101 of the New Scheme-benefit of which by giving exemption was given to him only under Code 101 of the New Scheme but it has been contended that it is compulsory for the students of 10+2 scheme to clear Functional English II under Course Code 109 of the New Scheme, which the petitioner has not cleared. It has also been contended in the reply that courses code No.101-A and 301-A of the old Scheme are equivalent to the courses Code No.101 and 109 of the New Scheme and since the petitioner had not cleared Course Code No.301-A of the Old Scheme he could not be given exemption for not clearing Functional English II in Course Code No.109 of the New Scheme. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions besides documents produced with the writ petition and reply thereto, I am of the opinion that admittedly the students like the petitioner having cleared Course Code No.101-A of the Old Scheme were given exemption under Course Code No. 101 & 109 of the New Scheme and similarly those students like the petitioner having cleared 10+2 Scheme Examination were also given exemption under Course Code No.101 of the New Scheme. In para 4 of the reply it is the case of the respondents that as the petitioner had not cleared Functional English 1, he was not entitled to the exemption under Course Code No. 109 of the New Scheme. 8. As regards exemption under Course Code No.109 of the New Scheme, I quote some admissions made by the respondents in para 4 of the reply: "Although students who had cleared post course code No.1-01-A of the old annual scheme, they were given exemption under course code No.101 and 109 of the new scheme." "The petitioner has come from Senior Higher Secondary (10+2) Scheme, he should have been exempted under course code No.101." "Since the petitioner at that time cleared course code 101-A, he was given exemption under course code No. 101 of the new scheme". 9. I am of the considered view that in view of dear admission on the part of the respondents in their reply to the writ petition (supra), the petitioner should have been exempted under Course Code No.109 of the New Scheme because the Course Code No.101 cannot be equated from the Course Code No.101-A inasmuch as, the petitioner has admittedly cleared Conventional English Course 101-A by securing 60 marks out of 100 marks as per mark sheet (Annexure-2) and that apart, as rightly contended by the petitioner, Course Code No.101 is totally different since he came from 10+2 Scheme of Senior Higher Secondary. Further more, Course Code No.301-A is the subject of 3rd year of the Old Scheme whereas the petitioner joined the Semester System in 2nd year, and in the New Scheme he has cleared all the subjects of the 3rd year examination and in my view subject 301-A in case of the present petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances brought on record, has no relevancy and on that ground the petitioner cannot be denied to the award of his Diploma. In fact, the pleadings of the respondents are totally vague and having no relevancy with the case of the petitioner, he deserves to succeed in this writ petition. 10. In fact, the pleadings of the respondents are totally vague and having no relevancy with the case of the petitioner, he deserves to succeed in this writ petition. 10. A careful perusal of mark-sheet (Ann.4) of the end term examination held in April, 1998 result of which was declared on 5.8.98 would show that the petitioner secured 49 credits in Foundation Course as against requisite 49 credits, therefore, it is wrong on the part of the respondents to state in para 2 of the reply that the petitioner secured 45 credits. As regards unspecified course, the respondents contended in reply that the petitioner secured only four credits in unspecified course as against requisite minimum 6 credits. Contrarily, the petitioner contended that he secured 7 credits in unspecified course and in this regard in written arguments Shri Dinesh Sharma urged that there are no unspecified courses and in fact there are unspecified credits which could be earned/assessed from courses belonging to any or all the categories i.e. extra credits, 4+3=7 which the petitioner earned. 11. Now a bare look at the mark sheet (Annexure-4) would show that the petitioner has obtained 141 credits in total by securing following credits in respective courses. Credits Secured Minimum credits required Foundation Courses 49 49 Hard Core Courses 60 60 Soft Core Courses 14 10 Advanced Technology Courses 18 15 12. Thus, the petitioner secured total 7 extras, 4 credits in Soft Cord Course and 3 Credits in Advanced Technology courses and if it is added for unspecified courses, then it stands amply established that the petitioner secured total 7 credits in unspecified Courses and total 141 Credits more than 140 credits prescribed for award of Diploma, as stated in Annexure-1 which prescribed Diploma requirements. Annexure-1 is reproduced as under: 3. DIPLOMA REQUIREMENTSEarned Credits (EC) Requirements : The following distribution of credits is essential for obtaining a Diploma : (a) General Programme : For award of Diploma in any programme a student has to obtain a minimum of 140 credits as specified below:- Category Minimum Earned Credits (i) Foundation Courses 49 (ii) Hard Core Courses 60 (iii) Soft Core Course 10 (iv) Advanced Technology Courses 15 (v) Un-specified** 6 Note:-** Un-specified credits could be earned from courses belonging to any or all the categories. 13. 13. Thus, once the petitioner is found to have secured total 141 credits i.e. more than total 140 credits prescribed in Annexure- 1, quoted above, which is the requirements for award of Diploma, in my considered opinion, denial of the award of Diploma to the petitioner is per se against the constitutional mandate and the action of the respondents in cancelling the enrolment and not awarding the Diploma to him is illegal and smacks of arbitrariness on their part. Hence the petitioner is entitled to the award of the Diploma in his favour for the subject allotted under enrolment No.91/7601. 14. As a result of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The cancellation of enrolment of the petitioner by the respondents vide mark sheet of April, 1998 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to award Diploma of Engineering within a period of four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment, in favour of the petitioner (Mahesh Chand) for the subject in which he was enrolled as No.91/7601), declaring him to have passed in the examination of April, 1998 in which he has obtained 141 credits. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******