Judgment 1. AFTAB ALAM, J.:- The petitioner seeks a direction to the Magadh University to declare her result of B.A. Part III examination and to give her the degree for the three years course in Psychology Honours. The University is not agreeable to do so because, contrary to the regulations, the petitioner passed the Part i examination of the course after appearing for the Part III examination. 2 The writ petition was initially listed for admission before a single Judge. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on an earlier single Judge decision of the court in Bhawanand Jha Vs. B.N. Mandal University, 2004 (1) P.L.J.R. 260 . The decision in Bhawanand Jha was on similar facts and it undoubtedly supported the petitioners contention. But the learned single Judge hearing the case felt reservations about the decision and expressed his inability to follow it. He, therefore, referrerd this case to a division bench and that is how the case is listed before us. 3. The facts of the case are simple and without controversy. The petitioner took admission in the three years degree course in Psychology Honours in the session 1995-98. On completion of 1st year she appeared in the Part I examination held in November, 1996. The result was published in May, 1997 and she was declared fail. Nevertheless, according to the University Regulations, she was allowed promotion to the second year. In May, 1997 she appeared in the Part II examination but failed in one of the second year papers. In August, 1997 she appeared in the 1st year examination for the paper(s) in which she had failed and was once again unable to pass. (The result of the examination held in August, 1997 was declared in December, 1997). In July, 1998 she appeared in the Part I examination for the third time but once again she failed. (The result was published in Januaury, 1999). 4. Though the petitioner had not passed the Part I and Part II examinations, she was somehow promoted to the third year of the course. While in the third year, in September, 1998 she appeared in one of the Part II papers in which she had earlier failed and this time she was able to pass. (Result published in July, 1999). She appeared in the Part III examination of the course held in December, 1998. While in the third year, in September, 1998 she appeared in one of the Part II papers in which she had earlier failed and this time she was able to pass. (Result published in July, 1999). She appeared in the Part III examination of the course held in December, 1998. (While she had still not passed the Part I examination) and was able to clear it. Finally in July, 1999 she once again appeared in the Part I examination. This time she had to appear in all the papers of Part I because she had exhausted her three chances to clear only the paper(s) in which she had failed earlier. In the 4th attempt she was successful in passing the Part I examination. But by this time the University had realised that the petitioner was wrongly allowed promotion to the Part III course and she was further wrongly allowed to take the Part (II examination even without passing the 1st year examination of the course. The University accordingly withheld her result of the Part III examination giving rise to the controversy. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that once she was allowed to appear in the examination, rightly or wrongly, the University had no right to withhold the result and not to give her the degree for the course. In support of the submission, he relied upon, as noted above, a single Judge decision of the court in Bhawanand Jha (supra). In the reported decision petitioner Bhawanand Jha, like the present petitioner, had passed the 1st year examination of the three years degree course after passing the Part III examination. The slight difference in the two cases is that in Bhawanand Jha his result of the Part III examination was declared showing him as pass and he was also given the mark-sheets for all the examinations. The University was only withholding his degree. In the present case the University has neither declared the petitioners result of the Part III examination nor given her the mark-sheet. The case of Bhawanand Jha was allowed simply with reference to the Supreme Court decision in Kurukshetra University and all that was, said in that regard is as follows : "The stand of the University is right in its place. However, following the decision in the case of Shri Krishna Vs. The case of Bhawanand Jha was allowed simply with reference to the Supreme Court decision in Kurukshetra University and all that was, said in that regard is as follows : "The stand of the University is right in its place. However, following the decision in the case of Shri Krishna Vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 , having allowed the petitioner to appear at Part III examination, rightly or wrongly, the University cannot deny him the benefit of result. As stated above, the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner appeared and cleared all the Parts. The only irregularity was that he cleared Part-Ill examinatioon earlier than Part-I for which the University is equally to be blamed." 6. It, however, appears to me that in Bhawanand Jha the true basis on which the decision in Kurukshetra University was rendered was over-looked. Kurukshetra was decided on the facts of that case, specially taking into account the relevant regulation of that University. Para 6 of the decision is relevant where it was observed and held as follows : "Mr. Sibbal learned counsel for the appellant submitted two points before us. In the first place it was argued that once the appellant was allowed to appear at LL.B Part II Examination held on May 19, 1973 his candidature could not be withdrawn for any reason whatsoever, in view of the mandatory provisions of Clause 2 (b) of the Kurukshetra University Calendar Vol. I, Ordinance X under which the candidature could be withdrawn before the candidate took the examination. Secondly....In order to appreciate the first contention it may be necessary to extract the relevant portions of the statute contained in Kurukshetra University Calendar Volume I, Ordinance X. Clause 2 of this Ordinance runs as follows : "2. The following certificates, signed by the Principal of the College/Head of the Department concerned, shall be required from each applicant :- (a) that the candidate has satisfied himself by the production of the certificate of a competent authority that he has passed the examinations which qualified him for admission to the examination; and "(b) that he has attended a regular course of study for the prescribed number of academic years. Certificate (b) will be provisional and can be withdrawn at any time before the examination if the applicant fails to attend the prescribed course of lectures before the end of his team." The Last part of this statute clearly shows that the University could withdraw the certificate if the applicant had failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures. But this could be done only before the examination. It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to takle the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear." 7. In the case in hand no comparable regulation was brought to our notice. On the other hand regulation 7.1 of Regulations For Bachelor of Arts (General/Honours) Examination (Three Years Degree Course) provides as follows "7.1. There shall be University examination at the end of the first, the second and the third years of study to be known respectively as the B.A. (General/Honours) Part I, Part II and Part III examination. No student shall be admitted to the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part II class unless he has passed the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part I examination and to the Part III class unless he has passed the Part II examination. "Provided that if a student fails in, or fails to appear at, not more than two subjects at the B.A. (General)/(Honours) Part I/II examination he shall be remoted to the next higher class but he shall not be eligible for admission to the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part III class unless he has passed the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part I examination in the subject/subjects concerned. "Provided further that this facility for appearing in such carry over subject/ subjects shall be available to a student at not more than three consecutive examinations." 8. In the case of the petitioner the regulation was breached in two ways; first the petitioner was allowed promotion to B.A. Part III course even though she had not cleared the Part I examination. More importantly she was allowed to appear in the Part III examination even though she had not cleared the Part I examination. In the case of the petitioner the regulation was breached in two ways; first the petitioner was allowed promotion to B.A. Part III course even though she had not cleared the Part I examination. More importantly she was allowed to appear in the Part III examination even though she had not cleared the Part I examination. One might have over-looked and condoned if the irregularity was limited only to promotion to the third year without passing the 1st year examination. But it is difficult to disregard the breach of the regulation that allowed the petitioner to appear in the Part III examination even without clearing 1st year of the course. 9. Further, the relief claimed by the petitioner can not be granted without some practical difficulty. The first question that arises is what would be the session for which the degree might be given to the petitioner. It cannot be session 1995-98, for the petitioner had not passed all the examinations till the last examination of the session was held in December, 1998. It cannot be any other session either because the petitioner had not passed all the papers of all the three Parts in any other session. Though it may appear hard, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and no direction can be issued for giving her the degree for three years degree course in Psychology Honours for the session 1995-98. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed.