JUDGMENT : This order shall decide W.P.No.3731/2011(O)-Mukund Kumar Chourasia Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya & another and W.P.No.3733/11(O)-Gulshan Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya & another. Facts of W.P.No.3731/11(O) are that the petitioner is a student of LL.M. He appeared in 1st Semester of the course in March-April, 2010 in which he could not clear one subject namely Law and Social Transformation in India. The University has provided A.T.K.T. to such student to clear the said subject alongwith the next examination, but in the 2nd semester, petitioner was not extended such an opportunity to appear in the aforesaid subject as there was no arrangement to appear in the remaining subject of 1st Semester. The petitioner has been permitted to appear in the said subject at the time of conduction of the 3rd Semester examination on 21.2.2011 and petitioner has appeared in the said subject. But now petitioner is not being permitted to appear in the 3rd Semester scheduled from 26.2.2011, because he had not cleared first semester. Facts of W.P.No.3733/11(O) are that the petitioner could not clear two subjects of 1st Semester for which petitioner was permitted by the respondents to appear alongwith 3rd Semester examination and the petitioner has already appeared in two subjects namely Law and Social Transformation in India and Mass Media Law. Except these facts, other facts are identical to the facts of W.P.No.3731/11. It is submitted by Shri Sheel Nagu, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the controversy has been settled by this Court in Writ Petition No.1511/11 Shivanshu Pandey & another Vs. State of M.P. & others decided on 25.1.2011 and similar directions may be issued in the case of the petitioners. Aforesaid contention is not opposed by the learned Counsel for respondents who submitted that the present case may be disposed of W.P.No.3731/11 25.2.2011 in the light of the order passed by this Court in Shivanshu Pandey (supra). In Shivanshu Pandey (supra), this Court considering similar controversy held thus:- "Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Trivedi, Shri Manoj Sharma, Shri Surendra Verma, Shri H.C.Chourasia, Shri Adtiya Sharma, Shri Ritesh Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Kaurav, Counsel for respondent no.2 University. Looking to the controversy involved in this case, all the aforesaid cases are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. In W.P.No.18152/2010, the respondent no.2 Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur has filed reply. Shri P.K. Kaurav, Counsel for respondent no.2 University. Looking to the controversy involved in this case, all the aforesaid cases are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. In W.P.No.18152/2010, the respondent no.2 Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur has filed reply. So the facts are taken from the aforesaid case. The controversy in all cases is in a short compass. The petitioners are the students of LL.B. (Three Years Degree) course. They got admission in July, 2009 in the course. They studied for the examination of Ist semester. Ist semester examinations were conducted in the month of December, 2009- Jan.2010. In the said examination, the petitioners could not clear all the subjects, maximum in two papers. 2nd semester commenced on 6th August, 2010 and continued upto 23 August, 2010. The result of the 2nd semester examination was declared on 20th October, 2010. Thereafter the 3rd semester commenced from August, 2010 and continued up to December, 2010. The examination for 3rd semester are scheduled from 27th of this month. The students, who could not clear two or less subjects in the Ist semester moved to the University to permit them to appear in the remaining subjects of Ist semester along with 3rd semester. The University though directed these students to clear remaining papers of Ist semester, but has not permitted to appear in the examinations of 3rd semester. This has caused grievance to the petitioners to approach this Court for ventilation of the grievance. Shri P.K.Kaurav, the learned counsel appearing for the University assisted by Shri Prof. S.S. Rana, Examination Controller of the University, submitted that as per Ordinance no.111 relating to LL.B( Honours) (Part-I, Part-II, Part III) (TDS) (Semester System) effective from 2008-09 provides following provisions: W.P.No.3731/11 25.2.2011 1. Assessment (iv) A student with ATKT or short in Aggregate shall be given two chances to pass the semester examination I.e. one main+ other with next odd or even semester. (v) A student who is short in aggregate are allowed to appear in two papers only. (vi) No student shall be allowed to appear in the third semester examination unless he has passed first semester. (v) A student who is short in aggregate are allowed to appear in two papers only. (vi) No student shall be allowed to appear in the third semester examination unless he has passed first semester. (x) A candidate may carry a backlog of two papers (Theory or practical) or both upto last semester of the three year course;" Referring to the aforesaid, it was submitted that the student, who could not clear Ist semester, is entitled to clear the Ist semester at the time of examination of 3rd semester but he cannot be permitted to appear in 3rd semester as he could not clear Ist semester as per Ordnance 4(vi) of the aforesaid. It is further submitted by Shri Kaurav that after clearance of the Ist semester, he shall be entitled to appear in the 3rd semester examinations which shall be conducted along with the 5th semester examination. The University has rightly not permitted these students to appear in the 3rd semester along with remaining papers of the Ist semester and this petition may be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this shall cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. The Rule itself is not correct. Though the University has provided ATKT, but has not permitted to clear remaining examinations of the Ist semester in the ensuing semester i.e. second semester. but has provided that those students who have cleared all the papers of Ist semester may appear in those at the time of examination of 3rd semester, but they shall not be entitled to appear in the examination of 3rd semester. Once a student fails or could not clear Ist or 2nd semester, he has to waste one year in the last as he can not appear in the ensuing semester to clear earlier semester. There is anomaly in the Ordinance which is causing serious prejudice to the students. Though Shri Kaurav appearing for the University tried to convince this Court that the aforesaid provision has been made just to facilitate students to clear earlier semester so that they may undergo study of six months for the ensuing semester, but we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the respondent no.2. Though Shri Kaurav appearing for the University tried to convince this Court that the aforesaid provision has been made just to facilitate students to clear earlier semester so that they may undergo study of six months for the ensuing semester, but we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the respondent no.2. If a student could not clear the Ist semester in 2 or less subjects, he has to wait for the 2nd year to clear along with third semester and to lose one complete year at the end of the course. There is apparently anomaly. When the University has provided ATKT to the W.P.No.3731/11 25.2.2011 students, then it ought to have permitted the student to clear earlier semester in the next semester and for this purpose the principle of ATKT ought to have been applied or the University ought to have provided supplementary examination to the students, but by not providing this, the University has put an unreasonable rider on the students depriving them to appear in the higher semester, just to clear the earlier semester. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the contention of respondent no.2 by which the students can be deprived to appear in the subsequent semester and has been permitted to clear earlier semester. In view of the aforesaid, we allow all the petitions and direct thus: (a) The respondent-University shall permit all the students of 1st semester, who could not clear two or less paper to appear in the examination of 1st semester along with 3rd semester. (b) The respondent University shall permit all such students to clear 3rd semester also so that their one year may not go waste. At this stage, Shri Kaurav learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that as per Ordinance, the student is entitled to clear 3rd semester provided he has cleared 1st semester so the University be permitted to declare the result of remaining papers of 1st semester firstly and in case the student clears all the subjects of the 1st semester then the University be permitted to declare result of 3rd semester as per direction of this Court. The aforesaid contention appears to be just and reasonable and in accordance with clause 4 (vi) of Ordinance No.111 and the prayer is allowed. The aforesaid contention appears to be just and reasonable and in accordance with clause 4 (vi) of Ordinance No.111 and the prayer is allowed. The University is permitted firstly to declare the result of Ist semester and after passing all the subjects of 1st semester, result of 3rd semester shall be declared of such students. This order shall be applicable in respect of those students also who are short in aggregate or could not clear 2 or less papers and shall be given effect to accordingly." As controversy has been decided by this Court, though in respect of a student of LL.B. Course but it is stated at the Bar that provision is similar and similar benefit can be extended to the petitioners who are students of LL.M. In view of admitted position by the parties, we dispose of these matters in terms of the order passed by this Court in Shivanshu W.P.No.3731/11 W.P.No.3733/11 25.2.2011 Pandey (supra). Aforesaid order shall be applicable in the case of petitioners, as far as it is applicable. No order as to costs. C.C. today.