Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner was admitted to Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) by respondent No. 1-University in the year 2006 and allocated respondent No. 2-College. In April 2007 examination for BCA Part-I was held. Petitioner appeared in the said examination. The result of BCA Part-I was declared in June 2007. Petitioner successfully passed 8 theory papers and two practical. However, She was placed under compartment in two papers, (i) one introduction to Computers and Information Technology and (ii) Computer Organization and Architect. Petitioner appeared in the aforesaid two papers in the aforesaid two papers in the Supplementary examination held in September 2007, however, she cleared only one paper of Computer Organization and Architect. Petitioner appeared in the aforesaid two papers in the supplementary examination held in September 2007, however, she cleared only one paper of Computer Organization and Architect. In the meantime, the petitioner had been granted admission to BCA Part-II. She also appeared in BCA Part-II examination held in April, 2008. She passed all the papers of BCA Part-II except one where she was placed under compartment. In April 2008, the petitioner was to appear in the compartment paper of BCA Part-I but she could not appear in the second chance. She was granted special chance to clear the said paper of Introduction to Computer and Information Technology (BCA Part I) by the University vide its communication dated 17.7.2008 on deposit of requisite fee. The petitioner appeared in the said paper in September 2008 and cleared the same. Before the petitioner could clear the said paper, she was admitted in BCA Part-III pending clearance of all the compartment papers. At the time of her admission, she was asked to give an undertaking that in case she does not clear her compartment of BCA Part-I paper, her admission shall stand cancelled. After granting admission to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 in BCA Part-III a request was made to University respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2-College vide its letter dated 19.3.2009, to issue Roll Number to the petitioner for appearance in BCA Part- Ill examination. The University, however, refused to grant Roll Number vide its dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P8) in view of the decision of the syndicate in the meeting held on 9.3.2008. The University, however, refused to grant Roll Number vide its dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P8) in view of the decision of the syndicate in the meeting held on 9.3.2008. It was communicated to the College that the petitioners admission to BCA Part-III itself was impermissible and the petitioner cannot be granted Roll Number for appearance in the examination. 2. The petitioner was to appear in the final BCA Part-III examination which was to commence from 5.4.2009. Having denied the roll number for the aforesaid examination, the petitioner field this writ petition seeking a direction to permit her to appear in the final year examination of BCA and declare her result. 3. This Court vide its order dated 4.4.2009 permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination of BCA Part-III provisionally subject to final outcome of the writ petition. It was also directed that the result of examination shall be kept in a sealed cover to be opened depending upon the final outcome of the writ petition. It was specifically ordered that there shall be no equity in favour of the petitioner. 4. On being put to notice, both respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their separate replies. Respondent No. 2 has supported the case of the petitioner whereas respondent No. 1 has seriously objected to claim of the petitioner for declaration of her result for BCA Part-III on the ground that she was ineligible for admission to BCA Part-III and thus her result could not be declared. 5. Respondent-University has relied upon the Ordinances 11 to 14 of Guru Nanak Dev University (for short "GNDU") Ordinances as notified in Calender 1999 governing BCA-I. The relevant Ordinances are reproduced hereunder : "11. A candidate, who having attended the prescribed number of lecturers, does not appear in the examination or having appeared, has failed or has been placed under compartment may be allowed to appear as an ex-student on the recommendation of the Principal concerned. In such case, the candidate shall be examined as per the course outlines in force at that time for that examination. 12. Each candidate shall be required to obtain at least 35% marks in each paper/practical separately. 13. In such case, the candidate shall be examined as per the course outlines in force at that time for that examination. 12. Each candidate shall be required to obtain at least 35% marks in each paper/practical separately. 13. A candidate who obtains 40% of the aggregate marks in the prescribed subjects but has failed in two subjects by obtaining not less than 20% of the marks in those subjects, shall be permitted to appear in those subjects only at the next two consecutive examinations, and if he passes at either of those examinations, he shall be deemed to have passed the examination. Note : These amendments will take effect from the session 2001-2002. 14. A candidate who is placed in compartment under ordinance 13 above may join provisionally by the next higher class, if he is otherwise eligible under the ordinances relating to the concerned examination. If he fails to quality in the compartment subject at the supplementary examination, he shall be eligible to appear again at the next annual examination in that subject along with the examination of the next higher class, which he had provisionally joined. If he fails to quality even at the annual examination, his candidature for the higher class shall stand automatically cancelled and his result shall not be declared and if it has been declared, it shall stand annulled. Thereafter, he shall have to appear in all subjects as a regular or private candidate if he is otherwise eligible under the relevant Statutes/Ordinances. However, to clear the compartment paper one extra chance shall be granted to those candidates who could not clear it after availing the two admissible chances, but had appeared and passed the next higher examination simultaneously of this University. (*) Amended vide GNDU Syndicate para No. 21 (XIII) dated 27.9.2001." 6. Under Ordinance 11, a candidate, who does not appear in any examination or failed to appear or placed under compartment may be allowed to appear on the recommendation of the Principle concerned in subsequent examination. Under Ordinance 12 each candidate is required to obtain at east 35% marks in each paper/practical separately. Ordinance 13 provides that where a candidate, who obtains 40% of the aggregate marks in the prescribed subjects but has failed in two subjects by obtaining not less 20% of the marks in those subjects, is entitled to appear in those subjects at the next two consecutive examinations. Ordinance 13 provides that where a candidate, who obtains 40% of the aggregate marks in the prescribed subjects but has failed in two subjects by obtaining not less 20% of the marks in those subjects, is entitled to appear in those subjects at the next two consecutive examinations. Similarly, Ordinance 14 provides that a candidate, who is placed under compartment under Ordinance 13 will be permitted to join the next higher class provisionally if he is otherwise eligible. It is further stipulated that if such candidate failed to qualify in the compartment subject at the supplementary examination, he will be eligible to appear again at the next annual examination in that subject along with the examination of the next higher class. It is however, mentioned that if he fails to qualify even at the annual examination, his candidature for the higher class shall stand automatically cancelled and his result shall not be declared and if it has been declared, it shall stand annulled. In such eventuality, he shall have to appear in all subjects as a regular or private candidate. It is further provided in the Ordinances that if candidate fails to clear the compartment in the above manner, he shall be provided one extra chance simultaneously. 7. In case of the petitioner, she was placed under compartment in provided he had appeared and passed the next higher examination two papers of BCA Part-I. She cleared only one paper in the supplementary examination held in September 2007 and did not avail second chance alongwith annual examination of BCA Part I. She was given a special chance to clear that paper. Since she could not clear the papers in two chances in compartment of BCA Part-I by April 2008, her admission in next higher class i.e. BCA Part II made provisionally in July 2007 was irregular in view of Ordinance 14. She also had compartment in one paper of BCA Part II as well. Thus, she could not pass compartment paper of BCA Part I and BCA Part II examination simultaneously and her admission to BCA Part III in July 2008 was totally in contravention of Ordinance 14. Respondent-University has further relied upon the Syndicate decision dated 9.3.2008 (Annexure R3), which reads as under : "6. Thus, she could not pass compartment paper of BCA Part I and BCA Part II examination simultaneously and her admission to BCA Part III in July 2008 was totally in contravention of Ordinance 14. Respondent-University has further relied upon the Syndicate decision dated 9.3.2008 (Annexure R3), which reads as under : "6. A student whose result is published late by the Guru Nanak Dev University or other recognised Universities/Boards can be admitted without late fee within twelve working days (including two transit days) from the date of Universities/Boards result notification. All such cases must be reported by the Principal to the University office within fifteen days from the date of actual admission so as to ascertain that the lower examinations in which they have appeared are equivalent to the corresponding examination of this University. Provided that the above provision will not be applicable in the case of candidates who become eligible on the basis of supplementary examination results. Vide Para 17 (Syndicate GNDU) 9.3.2008." In view of above Ordinances, petitioner having failed to clear the compartment paper of BCA Part I after availing two chances though in third special chance she cleared after admission to BCA Part II and even in BCA Part II she had compartment in one paper, thus, she was ineligible at the time of admission to BCA Part III where she was admitted by respondent No. 2-College in July 2008. 8. In sum and substance, the contention on behalf of the respondent-University is that the petitioner having failed to clear the compartment within the prescribed time particularly before admission to BCA Part III her admission to BCA Part III being totally in contravention of the Ordinances governing admission she could not be permitted for final examination on 5.4.2009. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ashu Singla v. Punjabi University, Patiala and another, 2004(2) SCT 484 wherein it has been held as under : "in our opinion, the provisional permission granted to the petitioner to take BCA Part-I (reappear) and BCA Part-II (main examination) deserves to be regularized. In his writ petition, the petitioner has categorically averred that he had not concealed any fact or document from the respondents. In his writ petition, the petitioner has categorically averred that he had not concealed any fact or document from the respondents. According to him, he had sought admission on the basis of result published the Gazette issued by the Board and as soon as the mark-sheet was received from the Board, he had submitted the same to the College authorities. This shows that the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation to respondents No. 1 to 3 to secure admission in the BCA Course. Indeed, it is not even the case of respondents No. 1 and 2 that the petitioner secured admission by making misrepresentation or playing fraud. In paragraph 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, a mild suggestion has been made that he managed to secure admission in connivance with respondent No. 3, but this has been controverted in the written statement of respondent No. 3. Thus, the petitioner, 1 cannot be blamed for the irregularity, if any, committed in his admission to the BCA Course. The blame for wrongly admitting the petitioner and allowing him to appear in BCA Part I examination squarely lies with the University." Based upon the above mentioned authority, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioners admission to BCA Part III by respondent No. 2-College was not illegal and she was entitled to appear in BCA Part III examination, for which, she had already been permitted by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2009. and the same be regularized. The University has relied upon a recent judgment of the Apex Court reported as Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. v. Gis Jose & Ors., 2008(4) SCT 267 : 2008(5) RAJ 566 : 2009(1) RSJ 438, wherein it has been held in paras 9 and 10 as under : "9. The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened. Such a course was disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and others, 2004(1) SCT 117 : 2003(7) SCC 719. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows : "6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. Sheena Peethambaran and others, 2004(1) SCT 117 : 2003(7) SCC 719. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows : "6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions." 10 In the present case, the college where the student was admitted in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write the examination which was totally illegal." The admission of the petitioner to BCA Part III was in contravention of Ordinance 14 of the GNDU Ordinances. Admission by respondent-College to the petitioner to BCA Part-III was totally illegal and in violation of the University Ordinances which has the force of law. In view of the dictum to the judgment of the Apex Court referred to here-in- above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of interim order dated 4.4.2009.