JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Shri Jagdish Pathak for the petitioner and Shri Anil Tiwari for the respondent University. 2. The petitioner, a B.Sc. student of Post Graduate College, Ghazipur, an affiliated college of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University (hereinafter referred to as the University), appeared for the IIIrd year examination in the session 2006-2007. When the results were declared and mark-sheet was distributed, he found that he has passed the examination in second division over all obtaining 914 out of 1800 marks. However, in Chemistry he secured only 66 out of 200 marks in the three theory papers, which, according to his expectation was much low and, therefore, in accordance with the Rules and Ordinances he applied for taking the improvement examination in the three Chemistry theory papers. After accepting his declaration the University allowed the petitioner to appear for the improvement examination and on declaration of the results he was shown to have secured only 55 out of 200 marks and, therefore, over all he was declared to have failed. Thus, the present petition for the following reliefs has been filed : (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to produce the answer book of the petitioner in Chemistry I and II paper of B.Sc-III year (Improvement) examination 2007. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to give correct marks after proper evaluating the answer book of the petitioner in Chemistry I and II paper of B.Sc-III year (Improvement) examination 2007 and further issue the mark-sheet accordingly. 3. The three answer books were summoned which were also examined by the petitioner and the Court but, it is apparent that the marks reflected in his mark-sheet were the same which were given by the examiner in the three papers. 4. However, now the contention of the petitioner is that he should be declared as having passed his B.Sc. examination on the basis of the original part III marks in the subject of Chemistry and the result of the improvement examination be ignored. In support of his prayer he has relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of Pratibha Maurya v. State of U.P. and four others, (Writ Petition No. 55628 of 2006) decided on 28.11.2006. 5. In support of his prayer he has relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of Pratibha Maurya v. State of U.P. and four others, (Writ Petition No. 55628 of 2006) decided on 28.11.2006. 5. It is evident from a perusal of the reliefs sought in this petition that no such prayer has been made and neither there are pleadings to that effect. However, since he has filed a supplementary affidavit and it is a student matter the Court ignores the technical lapse. 6. In the counter affidavit the Rules regarding improvement examination have been annexed and so also resolution of the Examination Committee. It provides that only those students are allowed to appear in improvement examination who have obtained the requisite marks as fixed in the Rules to enable them to improve their performance. Where a student has remained absent in a subject but has secured the requisite marks in other subjects, he is also allowed to take the improvement examination. But all students who apply for taking the improvement examination have to give an undertaking along with their original mark-sheet that the marks of the subject in which they are seeking improvement be cancelled irrevocably and marks obtained in the improvement examination be taken into account as the final marks for all purposes. The petitioner had also given the aforesaid declaration and after cancellation of the original marks of Chemistry he was allowed to take the improvement examination. Once the petitioner has given the aforesaid declaration he cannot be allowed to resile from it. This solemn declaration has to be a respected and enforced because otherwise all students obtaining reasonable marks would take a second chance in the examination which may lead to several difficulties, including dislocation of sessions. The primary object of the improvement examination appears to grant another chance to a student who may not have appeared in the main examination due to illness etc. or those students who for any other personal reason may have been handicapped at the time of writing the answers. But, in all cases it is the student who has to decide himself taking into account his own mental calibre as to whether he can improve upon his past performance. or those students who for any other personal reason may have been handicapped at the time of writing the answers. But, in all cases it is the student who has to decide himself taking into account his own mental calibre as to whether he can improve upon his past performance. In the present case, from the facts, it is evident that the petitioner had only taken a chance without seriously considering whether he could improve on his past performance. No doubt it may be a hard case where the petitioner has been admitted in the M.Sc. course but the Court cannot go against the Ordinances and the rules of the University, especially when there is no challenge either to the Ordinances or the Rules which provide for the aforesaid procedure. Unless and until the petitioner successfully challenges Ordinances No. 22.06, he cannot force the University to act against it. No doubt, the learned Single Judge in Pratibha Maurya’s case had directed the University to treat the original marks as final, but it did not consider the affect of the Rules and Ordinances and the declaration given by the candidate. In fact the said decision, as the wordings suggest, was peculiar to the facts of that case and was not meant to be a ratio of universal application. 7. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. ————