ANANT S. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed by Sardar Patel University, appellant/original respondent No. 1, against the direction of the learned single Judge of this Court in the Oral Order dated 6th October 1997, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5988 of 1997, whereby, it was directed that the petitioner will approach the University again along with the copies of the aforesaid two notifications today itself and the University will, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the fact that the Principal himself has filed an affidavit admitting the mistake on the part of the college, take a decision in the matter on or before 11th October 1997. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the appellant-University, the aforesaid direction of the learned single Judge is not right in law to correct the internal assessment, since there is no provision for such correction of internal assessment, subsequent to June 1996, and such direction amounts to legislation. The aforesaid direction has been challenged also on the ground that the learned single Judge was not right in law in sitting in appeal over the decision of the University and it was not proper on the part of the learned single Judge to hold that the application of the student was genuine when it was apprehended that both the student and the principal had colluded with each other and particularly the period of 15 days prescribed for applying for rechecking of internal assessment was over and the said application was substantially delayed. ( 3 ) TO understand the controversy, it is proper to set out certain factual aspects. 3. 1 special Civil Application No. 5988 of 1997 came to be filed by the natural guardian and father, Nalinkantbhai R. Patel, for and on behalf of his daughter, Meghnaben Nalinkant Patel, a student of First Year B. Sc. , who appeared in BI 103 Course in the First Year B. Sc. Examination, held in April 1997, where, she was declared fail, on the ground that she had not secured the minimum qualifying marks in the internal assessment. , who appeared in BI 103 Course in the First Year B. Sc. Examination, held in April 1997, where, she was declared fail, on the ground that she had not secured the minimum qualifying marks in the internal assessment. The said result was declared on 10th June 1997 and it was found that the petitioner was declared fail and, therefore, she applied for correction of internal marks, since, according to the petitioner, she had appeared in both the internal examinations conducted by the College, and, due to mistake, the internal mark of second examination conducted by the College was not added to her total for the said academic year. As per the record of the petitioner for internal assessment submitted by the college, it was stated that the petitioner had appeared in the first internal examination where she had secured 15 marks out of 40, while, about her appearance in the second internal examination, there was no remarks, and, as per the Rules of the University, 50% of the total of the internal marks obtained in a subject by the student, are to be computed while declaring the university result. Accordingly, in the record submitted by the College and relied upon by the University, the petitioner had secured 15 marks out of 40 and, therefore, 50% of 15 marks obtained by the petitioner was computed as 8 marks only and, accordingly, the petitioner was declared fail. As per the say of the petitioner, she was declared fail in three different subjects due to the mistake committed by the College in not including her second internal examination marks, which she had obtained, namely, 27 out of 40, where she appeared in the special examination conducted by the College, in view of her sickness. If the total of two internal marks obtained by the petitioner in two different examinations conducted by the College is computed, she would secure total 42 marks in both the examinations and 50% of which would come to 21 marks and, therefore, if the correction, as submitted by the college, had been permitted by the University, she could have been declared pass in the said subject, namely, BI-103 Course, of the First Year B. Sc. Examination, and by getting the benefit of ATKT Rules, she could have been allowed to study in the Second Year B. Sc. 3. Examination, and by getting the benefit of ATKT Rules, she could have been allowed to study in the Second Year B. Sc. 3. 2 the second internal assessment examination was conducted by the College where the petitioner could not appear due to her sickness, but, subsequently, she was allowed to appear in the special test, where she had secured 27 marks out of 40, and 15 marks obtained by the petitioner out of 40 in the first internal examination, thus, total internal marks obtained by the petitioner comes to 42, 50% of which is to be computed in the final examination, i. e. about 21 marks, so that, the petitioner could have been declared pass in the said subject, namely, BI-103 Course, of the First Year B. Sc. Examination. 3. 3 however, the University had refused to correct the said internal marks on the ground that the Senate of the University and the Executive Council have subsequently taken a decision not to allow correction in the internal marks since there were many cases of irregularities and even the period of rechecking was also over and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any correction in her original mark-sheet for the First Year B. Sc. Examination which was held in April 1997. 3. 4. BEING aggrieved by the decision of the University dated 8th August 1997, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 5988 of 1997 on various grounds. After hearing the parties, i. e. the appellant-Sardar Patel University, and the Principal of the College who had conducted the internal examination of the petitioner where she was studying, and after relying upon mainly on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Principal of the College to the effect that, due to bona fide and genuine mistake on the part of the College-Authority, the student was deprived of the actual marks obtained by her in the internal examination, the learned single Judge had, though opposed by the University, given direction to the appellant-University that they may take a decision with regard to the subject matter on or before 11th October 1997. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid order dated 6th October 1997, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5988 of 1997, of the learned single Judge, as stated earlier, is challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeal. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid order dated 6th October 1997, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5988 of 1997, of the learned single Judge, as stated earlier, is challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeal. ( 5 ) IT may be noted that, while issuing notice in the Letters Patent Appeal, the order dated 6th October 1997 was stayed by the Division Bench by its order dated 13th October 1997, and the same remains in force as on date. ( 6 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. N. V. Anjaria, has submitted that by passage of time and particularly in view of the fact that the respondent-student had, subsequently, appeared in the examination in the subject of BI-103 Course, of the First Year B. Sc. Examination and cleared the said examination, the subject matter of the appeal no more survives. The learned advocate for the respondent-student does not dispute the aforesaid fact. They have, therefore, jointly submitted that the cause of action does not survive and the appeal has become infructuous. ( 7 ) IT appears from the record of the case that, during pendency of the appeal, the respondent-student was permitted by this Court to appear in the First Year B. Sc. Examination where she was declared fail earlier, and she, thereafter, cleared the examination and was declared pass. So far as the grievance of the appellant-University is concerned, it no more survives, as rightly stated by the learned advocate for the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal has no survival value and is required to be disposed of accordingly. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. Consequently, Civil Application No. 10032 of 1997 is also dismissed. The interim relief shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. .