JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present petition, petitioner is seeking the following reliefs : “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the 3rd Semester Examination of Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA). (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the 1st Semester Back Paper Examination alongwith their 3rd Semester Examination. (iii) to issue any other and further order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) to award cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have taken admission in Bachelor of Business Administration Course in the respondent University in the Academic Session 2006-07. The entire course was for three years, each year consisting of two semesters. Petitioners appeared in the examination for 1st and Ilnd semesters held in December, 2006 and May, 2007 respectively. After the examination of the Ilnd semester, petitioners filled the application forms for re-admission in the second year alongwith prescribed fee for Rs. 18,300/-. These forms as well as fee were deposited in the month of October, 2007. Since the petitioners were failed in some of the papers of first year examination, they submitted their application forms for appearing in the back paper examination, simultaneously with the examination of 3rd semester alongwith the prescribed fee. Petitioners claimed that the fee were accepted and the petitioners were enrolled in Iind year and permitted to study in the IInd year. Petitioners claimed that they have been orally given understanding they would be allowed to appear in the IlIrd semester examination but now the petitioners are not being permitted to appear in the IlIrd semester examination and also in the back papers of the Ist semester examination. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners were given understanding that they may be permitted to appear in the IlIrd semester examination and in the back papers, thus the fee were deposited. They were enrolled and permitted to continue their studies of the Ilnd year. He submitted that some of the students similar to the petitioners case have been permitted to appear in the examination. 4. They were enrolled and permitted to continue their studies of the Ilnd year. He submitted that some of the students similar to the petitioners case have been permitted to appear in the examination. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University filed counter affidavit, in which the University has taken the stand that as per clause (9) of the Ordinance, for appearing in the IlIrd semester examination, students have to clear more than 50% papers in the 1st and Ilnd semester examinations and as per clause (13) of the Ordinance, they can be allowed to appear in back paper only in case if in 50% papers, they would secure atleast 40% marks separately or jointly with internal assessment. While in the present case, petitioners failed in more than 50% papers in the 1st and Ilnd semester examinations, thus, they were not be permitted to appear in the IlIrd semester examination and also not been allowed to appear in the back paper because they have secured less than 40% marks separately as well as jointly with internal assessment. He further submitted that the petitioners can be permitted in the examination only in accordance to the provisions of the Ordinance. In case, if the petitioners have deposited the fee and also continued their studies of the Ilnd year and if the provisions of the Ordinance do not allow them legally to appear in the examination, they cannot be allowed to appear. He submitted that the petitioners have deposited the fee at their own and for which no permission was granted. He further submitted that the Ilnd semester examination was held in May, 2007 and result was declared in the month of October, 2007. He submitted that the earlier Vice Chancellor of the University appears to have wrongly allowed some of the students to appear in the IIIrd semester examination contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance and in respect of which necessary action will be taken. But in any view of the matter, petitioners cannot be permitted to appear in the examination contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the Ordinance, Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. 6. As per clause (9) of the Ordinance, it is necessary that the students should pass in more than 50% papers in the Ist and Ilnd semester examinations. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the Ordinance, Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. 6. As per clause (9) of the Ordinance, it is necessary that the students should pass in more than 50% papers in the Ist and Ilnd semester examinations. As per clause (13) of the Ordinance, students are entitled to appear in the back paper in case if he/she secure atleast 40% marks separately as well as jointly with internal assessment and not less than 50% of the papers. Petitioners are not able to show that the petitioners fulfil the condition of clause (9) and (13) of the Ordinance. Merely because the petitioners’ fee has been accepted and the petitioners have been permitted to continue their studies in the Ilnd year, they cannot be permitted to appear in the examination contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance. In case, if some of the students have been allowed to appear in the examination illegally or contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance, same cannot be basis to allow the petitioners to appear in the examination contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance. 7. In the case of Km. Radha v. Vice Chancellor, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur and others, 2004(1) ESC 59, Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein it has been held that under the Rules of Kanpur University only those students could appear in the back paper examination who had secured 33% marks in the aggregate. The appellant had secured 32.67% marks and, therefore, she was held not eligible to appear in the back paper. Division Bench of this Court held that law is to be strictly complied with. 8. In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, (1986) 2 SCC 667 , Apex Court held as follows : "10. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the students who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance that students of the medical college established by the Daru-Salam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University. Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interest of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Sri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. The case of the medical college started by the Daru-Salam Trust appears to stand on a different footing as we find from the record placed before us that permission had been granted by the State Government to the Trust to start the medical college and on that account, the University had granted provisional affiliation. We also find that the Medical Council of India took strong and serious exception to the grant of provisional affiliation whereupon the University withdrew the affiliation granted to the college. We are unable to treat what the University did in the case of the Daru-Salam Medical College as a precedent in the present case to direct the University to do something which it is forbidden from doing by the University Act and the regulations of the University. We regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardizing their future careers. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time. We are happy to note that the University acted watchfully and wakefully, issuing timely warnings to those seeking admission to the institution. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time. We are happy to note that the University acted watchfully and wakefully, issuing timely warnings to those seeking admission to the institution. We are sure many must have taken heed of the warnings issued by the University and refrained from seeking admission to the institution. If some did not heed the warnings issued by the University, they are themselves to blame. Even so if they can be compensated in some manner, there is no reason why that may not be done. We are told that the assets of the institutions, which have sprung out of the funds collected from the students, have been frozen. It is up to the State Government to devise suitable ways, legislative and administrative, to compensate the students at least monetarily. The appeal filed by the society is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/-. The writ petition filed by the students is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs." 9. In the case of Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jagjit Singh and another, AIR 1995 SC 705 , Apex Court held as follows : "Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra­ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The extra­ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law—indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law—but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law." 10. In the case of State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, reported in (2006) 1 SCC, 667, Apex Court held as follows : "75. The fact that all appointments have been made without following the procedure, or services of some persons appointed have been regularised in the past, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a normal mode which must receive the seal of the Court. Past practice is not always the best practice. If illegality has been committed in the past, it is beyond compensation as to how such illegality can be allowed to perpetuate. The State and the Board were bound to take steps in accordance with law. Even in this behalf Article 14 of the Constitution will have no application. Article 14 has a positive concept. No equality can be claimed in illegality is now well settled. (See State of A.P. v. S.B.P.V. Chalapathi Rao, 29, SCC para 8; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh 30, SCC para 13 and State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Prasad Singh, 31 SCC para 30). 11. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any merit in the present case. However, the Chancellor of the University is directed to make the enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action against the guilty persons. 11. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any merit in the present case. However, the Chancellor of the University is directed to make the enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action against the guilty persons. Registrar of the University is directed to send the copy of the order to the Chancellor for appropriate action. The fee, which has been taken from the petitioners may either be refunded to the petitioners alongwith interest @ 15% or may be adjusted with the fee payable by the petitioners on the basis of their claim. Registrar General of this Court is also directed to send one copy of this order to the Chancellor for appropriate action referred herein above within ten days. 12. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stand disposed of. ————