Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-By the instant writ petition the petitioner is seeking appropriate order and direction for declaring him pass in the examination of Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder Training Part-II in second attempt held in January, 1998 by issuing fresh mark-sheet of pass. The short controversy involved in the matter is whether a person who remained absent in all practical papers is covered by term “attempt” or not. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner passed the Diploma in Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder Training Part-I Examination in the year 1997 in second attempt. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder Training Part-II Examination held in January, 1997 and declared fail on account of obtaining 10 marks in the subject Kaumar Bhratya (Theory) and could not appear in any of the practicals. The petitioner has further submitted that he has passed two other papers i.e., Chikitsa and Panch Karm Va Prakritik Chikitsa. Thus, he has failed on account of Kaumar Bhratya (Theory) paper and remained absent in all the practicals. Thereafter, the petitioner cleared the aforesaid theory and practical papers in January, 1998 and mark-sheet was issued to him on 012.1998 but instead of second attempt, it was mentioned in it that it is first attempt and further he was declared fail, although he has passed all papers in second attempt of Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder Training, Part-II Examination (Annexures 1 and 3). The petitioner has also submitted that a notice for demand of justice was sent the Registrar and the Controller of Examination of the University of Rajasthan on 08.04.1999 for declaring the petitioner pass but when no heed was paid to the said notice, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. In reply the respondents have submitted that there is no provision for allowing a candidate to clear the remaining papers in subsequent attempt when he has not appeared in the practical examinations at all and remained absent. The Counsel for the university has relied on Ordinance 329-N-31, more particularly Para No. 7. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder and again reiterated the aforesaid submissions of the writ petition. He further submits that since the respondents themselves have allowed the petitioner to appear in the Part-II examination and he has successfully cleared the papers, he ought to have been declared pass. 5. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder and again reiterated the aforesaid submissions of the writ petition. He further submits that since the respondents themselves have allowed the petitioner to appear in the Part-II examination and he has successfully cleared the papers, he ought to have been declared pass. 5. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that as per the proviso of Para No. 7 of the Ordinance 329-N-31, “inability to appear at an examination shall be counted as an attempt”. In Part-II examination of January, 1997 the petitioner inable to appear in all practicals on account of illness except theory papers, therefore, the same was rightly taken by the university as attempt and he was allowed to appear in one paper i.e., Kaumar Bhratya (Theory) and all practicals in January, 1998. Since now he has cleared all the papers, therefore, now it is not open to the University to say that he was ineligible to appear in the examination. .6. The submissions of the Counsel for the respondents is that there is no provision for allowing a candidate to clear the remaining papers in subsequent attempt when he had not appeared in the practical examinations at all and remained absent. The Counsel for the university has relied on Ordinance 329-N-31, more particularly Para No. 7. 7. I have considered the record of the case and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 8. Para No. 7 of the Ordinance 329-N-31 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-“7. A candidate who fails in Part-I or Part-II Examination shall be required to re-appear in only those subjects in which he has failed provided that if he fails to clear the examination as a whole in a maximum of four attempts (inability to appear at an examination shall be counted as an attempt) including the examination at which he first appeared. He shall be required to appear afresh at the Part-I or Part-II examination, as the case may be in all the subjects prescribed for the same”. 9. In the proviso of the said para of Ordinance 329-N-31, inability to appear in the examination has been taken to be an attempt. Here in the instant case, the petitioner was inable to appear in the examination on account of illness, therefore, he was rightly allowed to re-appear in the examination. 10. 9. In the proviso of the said para of Ordinance 329-N-31, inability to appear in the examination has been taken to be an attempt. Here in the instant case, the petitioner was inable to appear in the examination on account of illness, therefore, he was rightly allowed to re-appear in the examination. 10. I am further of view that now the university is also estopped from not considering the said inability as an attempt. Since the petitioner has cleared all the papers of Part-II examination, as would be evident from Annexures 1 and 3, hence, there was no justification for declaring him fail. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the university is directed to issue fresh mark-sheet of Diploma in Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder Training Part-II, Examination in second attempt held in January, 1998 showing the petitioner pass within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.