JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, as such, they are being decided by a common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri U.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the University. 3. In writ petition No. 5955 of 2008 (MS): Mayank Kumar Singh and others v. University of Lucknow and another, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the six petitioners were declared unsuccessful in Fourth Semester of LLB Honours in some papers and as such, they are eligible to appear in back paper as per the Notification dated 16.9.2008. However, the authorities of the University are arbitrarily forcing the petitioners to appear in all the papers, whereas the petitioners have prepared themselves for the subject paper in which they were declared failed. He further pointed out that petitioners are at present pursuing studies of Fifth Semester after deposit of the requisite fee. It was also pointed out that in the admit card, they have filled the subject (question paper) of Third Semester (LLB Honours) in which they have to appear and the requisite fee i.e., Rs. 270/- was deposited which was also accepted but the University authorities while issuing the admit card have mentioned that the petitioners should appear in all the papers of Third Semester as an exempted candidate. This arbitrary action of the University authorities would result in loss of one academic year, which would obviously affect the future career of the petitioners. 4. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed that they should be allowed to appear in LLB (Hons.) Fifth Semester Examination, 2008 and further not to compel the petitioners to appear in all the papers of Third Semester of which mark-sheet has already been issued to them instead be allowed to appear in LLB Third Semester Paper/subject, in which they were declared failed. 5. In writ petition No. 5995 of 2008 (MS), counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide student of LLB (Hons.) Five Years Course and at present, she is a regular student of Ninth Semester. The grievance of the petitioner is that the University authorities are not permitting the petitioner to appear in the back paper examination of Seventh Semester without there being any cogent reasons, which would adversely affect the career of the petitioner. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the University authorities are not permitting the petitioner to appear in the back paper examination of Seventh Semester without there being any cogent reasons, which would adversely affect the career of the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Apex Court in various decisions has laid down that education is a fundamental right, which cannot be curtailed or infringed without disclosing the reasons and following the due procedure of law. Therefore, the petitioners has prayed that she should be allowed to appear in LLB (Hons.) back paper of Seventh Semester Examination, 2008 so that her one academic year may not go waste. 7. In writ petition No. 5984 of 2008 (MS), counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the University of Lucknow has introduced the LLB (Hons.) Five Year Course based on the pattern of semester as in vogue in all the National Law Institutes having Five Years LLB Course. The petitioner had taken admission in the Five Years Course in the academic session 2007 in Narvadeshwar Vidhi Mahavidalaya, Lucknow, which is a recognized institution and is affiliated to the Lucknow University. At present the petitioner is pursuing the studies of Third Semester but he was not allowed to appear in the examination. The authorities of University have issued admit card requiring the petitioner to appear in all the papers of First Semester back paper examination as an exempted candidate. Thus, the authorities of University are playing with the career of the students. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Section 52 of the State Universities Act, 1973 provides procedure for amendment in the Ordinance and the competent authority to amend the ordinance is the Chancellor of the University. The amended ordinance, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, cannot be said to be a valid ordinance as neither the Registrar nor the Vice-Chancellor of the University is competent to unilaterally amend the same with retrospective effect. Clause 6 of the amended ordinance provides for Scheme of Examination, rules for promotion and back paper. Clause 6 of the amended ordinance provides for Scheme of Examination, rules for promotion and back paper. Rules for promotion and back paper reads as under : “(iii) Rules for Promotion and Back Paper : (a) A candidate who has failed at semester first examination shall be promoted to semester second, but he shall not be promoted to semester third if he has failed in more than two papers of semester first and second examinations and obtained less than 45% marks in aggregate. (b) A candidate who has failed at semester third examination shall be promoted to semester fourth, but he shall not be promoted to semester fifth unless he satisfied the following conditions : (1) That he has cleared semester first and second examinations separately securing not less than 40% marks in each paper and 48% marks in aggregate. (2) That he has failed in not more than two papers in semester third and fourth examination and has obtained not less than 45% marks in the aggregate. (c) The same rule for promotion shall apply onwards till the last semester examination. (d) Back paper facility shall be allowed to a candidate twice only. (e) Back paper facility shall in no case be allowed for improvement. (f) A candidate, who fails at a semester examination shall be allowed to take that examination as an exempted candidate at the aforesaid examination and such facility shall be allowed once only.” 9. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that he should be allowed to appear in Third Semester Examination of LLB (Hons.) Course along with the First Semester Back Paper Examination in Sociology-I and Constitutional Law-I and further to quash the amended invalid ordinance and consequent admit card of First Semester Back paper. 10. In writ petition No. 6024 of 2008 (MS), counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the bona fide students of Unity Law College, Lucknow, which is a recognized and affiliated college of the Lucknow University. Petitioner No. 1-Avinash Sharma is the student of Seventh Semester, whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3, namely, Shaurya Kumar Pandey and Dhananjay Tiwari are the student of Ninth Semester. The University of Lucknow has issued the Notification dated 16.9.2008, which provides that the students, who have failed in maximum number of four papers, they will be entitled for the back papers facility only in the current academic session 2008-2009. The University of Lucknow has issued the Notification dated 16.9.2008, which provides that the students, who have failed in maximum number of four papers, they will be entitled for the back papers facility only in the current academic session 2008-2009. On the other hand, Deen Faculty of Law has approved the proposal of the College, which provides that if the students are failed in First and Second Semester upto nine paper, they will be permitted to appear in special back paper. While praying that the University authorities may be directed to allow the petitioners to appear in Seventh Semester and Ninth Semester Examinations, the petitioners have also quashed the notice dated 6.12.2008. 11. Except in writ petition No. 5955 (MS) of 2008 : Mayank Kumar Singh and others v. University of Lucknow and another, no response has been filed by the University. 12. Counsel for the University has submitted that the petitioners of writ petition No. 5955 of 2008 (MS) have not stated correct facts and have twisted the facts just to mislead the Court whereas the correct fact is that the petitioner No. 1-Mayank Kumar Singh has yet to clear 9 papers of all the four semesters; petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Shubham Dwivedi and Shukla Singh have to clear 7 papers each; petitioner No. 4-Rohit Nandan has to clear eight papers; petitioner No. 5-Washim Ahmad has to clear five papers and petitioner No. 6-Lav Kumar Nigam has to clear 10 papers of the previous four semesters. Though the petitioners were legally obliged to have given clear and correct facts about the papers, in which they have already failed in previous semester before claiming the facility of back papers, but the same was not done by them. 13. Elaborating his submission, Counsel for the University has submitted that according to the Ordinance of the University regarding back papers, along with the relaxation granted to the students as a special case this year, it is provided that in the Five Years LLB (Hons.) course, the students appeared in 4th, 6th and 8th Semester of LLB (Hons.) course will be allowed back paper facility only if they have failed in not more than four papers in previous semesters. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Misra has further submitted that this Court passed orders directing the University to accept the fee along with late fee and allow the petitioners to appear in the examination, if otherwise, they are eligible. It is in these backgrounds that the University authorities had conducted an exercise to determine the eligibility of those students, who were approaching them for deposition of fee along with late fee under the orders of the Court. During that exercise, the University found that about 12 students are such, who have failed in more than the permissible limit of papers and, therefore, they cannot be given the facility of back paper. Thus, the Controller of Examination had issued a notice on 6.12.2008 itself, whereby details of all those students and their semester wise failure of paper was notified and it was clarified therein that such students were not found eligible to appear in the forthcoming semester examination. 15. Counsel for the University has further submitted that only in writ petition No. 5955 of 2008 (MS), the quashing of the notice/order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the Controller of Examination has been sought. Therefore, the petitioners writ petition Nos. 6024 (MS) of 2008 and 5995 (MS) of 2008 are not entitled to get any relief from this Hon’ble Court. Further, the impugned notice has been issued after examining all the materials on record and the counsel appearing writ petition No. 5995 of 2008 (MS) has not been able to show any material illegality in the said notice. 16. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that if an Ordinance of the University is not implemented in its letter and spirit since its incorporation and has been relaxed for long number of years, then whether it can be enforced for disadvantage of the students in the mid of the course and that too at the verge of the date of starting of examination, insofar as the students have been allowed to undertake the studies unconditionally and as such, for no fault attributable to the students, technicalities cannot be permitted in their way to appear in the examinations. It has also been stated that the guidelines dated 16.9.2008 cannot be treated as an Ordinance insofar as the same has been issued by the Controller of Examiner without satisfying the conditions as enumerated in Section 15 of the State Universities Act. It has also been stated that the guidelines dated 16.9.2008 cannot be treated as an Ordinance insofar as the same has been issued by the Controller of Examiner without satisfying the conditions as enumerated in Section 15 of the State Universities Act. He has also stated that it is not open for the Controller of Examination to amend an ordinance. Lastly, he submits that sympathetic view may be exercised in favour of the students under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly taking into consideration the career of the students. 17. In support of his submissions, Dr. L.P. Mishra has relied upon the cases of Karnataka Rare Earth v. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, (2004) 2 SCC 783 ; S.K. Kalim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar, (2006) 1 SCC 46 ; Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 286 ; Dwarka Nath v. L.T. Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671 , Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679 and Air India Statutory Corpon. v. United Labour Union, (1997) SCC (L&S) 1344. 18. The other senior members of the Bar including the counsel for the petitioners have also supported the submissions advanced by Dr. L.P. Mishra and have prayed for sympathetic consideration in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Rebutting the aforesaid arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the University states that the guidelines issued by the Controller of Examination was in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16 (a) of the State Universities Act. It has been delegated by the Examination Committee on him as provided under Section 29 of the State Universities Act. He further submits that there is no estoppel in law and further there is no restriction in implementation of the provisions of law. He further submits that it is not a technical prescription as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, but there are statutory prescriptions insofar as the Ordinance is drafted in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 53 of the State Universities Act. The circular dated 16.9.2008 issued by the Examination Controller contained guidelines in order to safeguard the interest of the students and to protect the sanctity of examination. The circular dated 16.9.2008 issued by the Examination Controller contained guidelines in order to safeguard the interest of the students and to protect the sanctity of examination. He further submits that ineligible students despite relaxation as provided in circular dated 16.9.2008, cannot be permitted to allow in the examination. He also submits that equity cannot precede law. 20. It is not being disputed by Mr. Upendra Nath Mishra that the Ordinance which has been promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 53 of the State Universities Act in the year 1998-99 has not been strictly adhered to and provisions of the same have continuously been violated by the University Authorities themselves on their own insofar as they have been allowing the students to appear in the back papers without any restriction though the Ordinance specifically provides appearance in two back papers. 21. It is well settled principle that there is no estoppel against law and the equity will not precede law, but abruptly applying the law strictly in its letter and spirit, that too, at the time when few days before the date of examination will admittedly jeopardize the career of the students insofar as they have been allowed to undertake the respective courses, they have paid the requisite fees including the examination which has been charged by the university as well as by the affiliated colleges. No objection has been raised while allowing the students to pursue their respective courses nor the fees which they have deposited including the examination fees has not been refunded to the petitioner. The students should have been informed well in advance the procedure to be followed with respect to examination and facility available to them with regard to the back papers, so that students may prepare themselves mentally. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts have been given wide powers to reach in justice wherever it is found. 22. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that one complete academic year of the students would go waste without there being any fault on their part, it is provided that the university authorities shall hold the examination of all petitioners, in the month of February 2009 who have not been allowed to appear in the examination and to declare their results by 28.2.2009. The University may permit all other similarly situated students, who have not approached this Court, but their case is identical to the petitioners provided there is no other legal impediment, like rustication of the students, suspension etc. It is further provided that the authorities will intimate by publication about the provisions of Ordinance by 15.2.2009 so that all the students of the University and the affiliated colleges may be aware about the said provisions in future examinations. The aforesaid conditions have been relaxed in the examinations which have been held in the month of November/December, 2008 in exceptional circumstances and shall not be treated as precedent. 23. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. ————