JUDGMENT : Since the controversy involved in all these five writ petitions is similar and the relief sought by the petitioners is identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience they are being decided by this common order. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioners in 4th Semester of B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) course and permit them to pursue their studies in the said semester of B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) course. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petitions, according to the petitioners, are that all the petitioner got admission in the B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) Batch 2010 in the I Semester, through entrance test held by the respondent-University. In the 1st Semester examination 2010, petitioner Sanjay Kumar secured 4.293 Grade Point Average (GPA), petitioner Navish Kumar secured 4.198 GPA, petitioner Kamlesh Kumar secured 4.127 GPA, petitioner Sammi Bauriyan secured 3.761 GPA and petitioner Ms. Poonam Thapa secured 4.762 GPA. (It may be noted that the petitioners have wrongly mentioned the GPA as cumulative grade point average (CGPA) in paragraph 4 of the memo of writ petitions. Copies of the mark-sheets issued by the University have been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition in each case. Since the GPA secured by the petitioners in the 1st Semester Examination was below 5, therefore, in the remarks column of the mark-sheet, the University has put a stamp, which reads thus: “You will be on Academic Probation during the next Semester.” Thereafter, the petitioners were admitted in the II semester of the 1st year course. In the said semester also, the petitioner Sanjay Kumar secured 6.286 GPA, petitioner Navish Kumar secured 7.025 GPA, petitioner Kamlesh Kumar secured 6.296 GPA, petitioner Sammi Bauriyal secured 7.291 GPA and petitioner Ms. Poonam Thapa secured 5.439 GPA. (Petitioners again wrongly mentioned the GPA as CGPA in column no. 6 of the petitions). Copies of mark-sheet of II semester examination have been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition in each case. Poonam Thapa secured 5.439 GPA. (Petitioners again wrongly mentioned the GPA as CGPA in column no. 6 of the petitions). Copies of mark-sheet of II semester examination have been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition in each case. In these mark-sheets, in the remarks column the University has put a stamp which reads thus: “You are dropped from the University on account of poor academic performance.” According to the petitioners, they were never dropped from the University, rather they were given admission to the III semester course of the year 2011-12 and they appeared in the examination in the month of December, 2011. The result of the III semester was declared on 5-1-2012. Petitioner Sanjay Kumar secured 4.296 GPA meaning thereby he obtained 4.904 Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). Petitioner Navish Kumar secured 4.280 GPA, i.e. 4.962 CGPA. Petitioner Kamlesh Kumar secured 4.466 GPA i.e. 4.895 CGPA. Petitioner Sammi Bauriyal secured 3.965 GPA, i.e. 4.731 CGPA. Petitioner Ms. Poonam Thapa secured 4.682 GPA, i.e. 4.971 CGPA. It is pertinent to mention here that the CGPA of all the petitioners is below 5. Copies of mark-sheet of III semester have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petitions and in the remarks column, it bears a seal “You are dropped from the University on account of poor academic performance.” According to the petitioners, they have also deposited their fees for the next semester of the B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) course with the respondent-University, which was accepted by the University. The grievance of the petitioners is that even then the University is not permitting them to pursue their studies, since an endorsement was made on the mark-sheet of 3rd semester and that the petitioners are being dropped on account of poor academic performance. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in each petition. An extract from paragraph no.3 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition of petitioner Sanjay Kumar is being reproduced hereunder, which is necessary to resolve the controversy involved in the petitions- “3. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.1 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was admitted to B. Tech. (Agricultural Engineering) programme of this University through AIEEE counselling in the first semester 2010-11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.1 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was admitted to B. Tech. (Agricultural Engineering) programme of this University through AIEEE counselling in the first semester 2010-11. At the end of I Semester 2010-11 he secured a GPA of 4.293 out of 10.00 and as per academic regulations he was placed on Academic Probation in the II-Semester 2010-11 with the clear warning that if he fails to secure a CGPA of 6.00 out of 10.00 at the end of II-Semester 2010-11 he would be dropped from the University with a right the petition for readmission and that if he fails to attain a C.G.P.A. of 5.000 out of 10.000, he would be dropped from the University permanently on poor academic performance. The relevant regulation on the subject is reproduced hereunder : Clause (44) (a), Chapter III-Regulations on Admission, Enrolment and Continuance of students. Dropping from the University : 44(a) If any Under-graduate student fails to attain CGPA of 6.000 out of 10.000 at the end of academic year he/he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with the right to petition for the readmission. The following categories of first-degree students shall be treated as finally dropped from the University but with a provision for readmission under category 1 of 44(a) upon petition and such conditions as laid by the University. I) If any Under-graduate student fails to attain a CGPA of 5.000 out of 10.000 at the end of the first academic year. In case a student has been permitted to drop I or II semester of his/his first academic year, his/his CGPA at the end of first two semesters of his/his stay in the University will be counted for this purpose. II) If any under-graduate students fails to attain a CGPA of 5.000 in his/his second year onwards. It is stated here that the aforesaid academic regulation was amended w.e.f. July 2011 for the academic 2011-12 and one more opportunity has been provided to the students studying under the internal examination system in under graduate programme. The amended provision is reproduced hereunder: 44(b) Student readmitted on the conditions laid down by the University shall register as hereunder: (I) That he/he will have to repeat all the courses he/he had studied in the previous academic year or first two semesters. The amended provision is reproduced hereunder: 44(b) Student readmitted on the conditions laid down by the University shall register as hereunder: (I) That he/he will have to repeat all the courses he/he had studied in the previous academic year or first two semesters. (II) That if he/he fails to attain a CGPA of 6.000 out of 10.000 at the end of academic year or first two semesters he/he is repeating, he/he will be dropped finally from the University with no right to petition for readmission. The petitioner secured a CGPA of 5.173 out of 10.000 at the end of II-Semester 2010-11 and therefore he was dropped from the University on account of poor academic performance but with a right to petition for readmission. Accordingly, as per above quoted regulation, he was readmitted and allowed to pursue 2nd year i.e. third semester (Ist semester of academic year 2011-12) of his studies after giving a bond of securing a CGPA of 6.00 out of 10.000 at the end of I-Semester, 2011-12. However, at the end of the first Semester of 2nd year (2011-12) i.e. at the end of third Semester of his studies he failed to secure the desired prescribed CGPA i.e. 6.00 out of 10.00 and he barely could secure a CGPA of 4.971 out of 10.00 and as per regulation s quoted above he was dropped from the University permanently owing to the fact the he could not even secure a CGPA of 5.000 out 10.000. Therefore, the action of the University is not arbitrary rather it is under the regulatory provisions framed by the highest body of the University i.e. Academic Council long ago say 30 years ago and never in the history of the University any student who failed to secure a CGPA of 5.00 out of 10.00 was allowed to continue his/his studies in the University of his/his second year onwards in case of under graduate studies under internal examination system as in the case o petitioner. True copies of the amendment and bond are being annexed as Annexure no. CA-1&2 to this counter affidavit.” The petitioner Sanjay Kumar has only filed rejoinder affidavit in his writ petition no. 224 of 2012. In rest of the writ petitions, the petitioners have not filed rejoinder affidavit. True copies of the amendment and bond are being annexed as Annexure no. CA-1&2 to this counter affidavit.” The petitioner Sanjay Kumar has only filed rejoinder affidavit in his writ petition no. 224 of 2012. In rest of the writ petitions, the petitioners have not filed rejoinder affidavit. It may be noted here that the petitioner Sanjay Kumar in his rejoinder affidavit has not disputed the provisions of Clause 44 Chapter III which deals with the regulation regarding admission, enrolment and continuance of students. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently contended that the action on the part of the University is totally arbitrary and illegal because the petitioners are being dropped from the University in the mid of the session, i.e. academic year 2011-12. Learned counsel also contended that as per Regulation 44(a) if any under-graduate student fails to attain a CGPA of 5.000 in his/her second year onwards, the concerned student can be dropped from the University and that the second year of the petitioner would be completed at the end of IV semester examination, therefore, dropping of petitioners after III semester is totally arbitrary and illegal. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, appearing on behalf of the respondent-University has submitted that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived since the petitioners in the cases at hand were on academic probation as mentioned in the mark-sheet pertaining to I semester examination. Since the petitioners were dropped in the II semester on account of their poor academic performance as per Regulation No. 44(a). Learned counsel for the University also submitted that the CGPA of all the petitioners was between 5 and 6, therefore, as per regulation they were given right of petition. On the petitions made by the petitioners, the Vice Chancellor constituted a petition committee and all the petitioners had given their undertaking as would appear from Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit in all the petitions and they undertook that they shall obtain the minimum GPA 7-00 and CGPA 6-00 or above at the end of I semester 2011-12 i.e. III semester. By a perusal of the mark-sheets and averments made in paragraph no. 8 of the writ petitions, all the petitioners failed to secure CGPA 6 and GPA 7, therefore, they were finally dropped in conformity with the regulation, referred to above. By a perusal of the mark-sheets and averments made in paragraph no. 8 of the writ petitions, all the petitioners failed to secure CGPA 6 and GPA 7, therefore, they were finally dropped in conformity with the regulation, referred to above. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record and the averments made in the writ petitions as well as in the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner Sanjay Kumar, the only question to be decided in the case at hand is whether the petitioners are entitled to get admission in the IV semester of the II year of the academic session 2011-12 and whether the petitioners were dropped by the respondent-University de hors the provisions of academic regulations. These facts are not disputed by the petitioners that in the I semester examinations, all the petitioners secured CGPA below 5, while as per University Academic Regulation, an undergraduate student has to secure CGPA above 6 out of 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a plea that the University cannot drop a student in the mid session. Learned counsel has relied upon the extract of Regulation 44(a), which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. From a bare perusal of the said Regulation 44(a) clause (II) it is obvious that if any under-graduate student fails to attain a CGPA of 5.000 in his second year onwards, then such student may be dropped. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the University has dropped the petitioners in the third semester, i.e. 1st Semester of the academic session 2011-12. I have pondered over the matter. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived for the simple reason that the petitioners have already been dropped at the end of 1st academic year 2010-2011. The petitioners were given a right to petition as the CGPA of the petitioners was above 5 and below 6 in view of Regulation 44(a) of the Academic Regulations, which reads thus : “If any Under-graduate student fails to attain CGPA of 6.000 out of 10.000 at the end of academic year he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with the right to petition for the readmission.” Moreover, disposal of petitions for readmission of the dropped students is governed by Regulation no. 46 of the Academic Regulations of the University, which reads as under:- “46. The petitions of dropped students for re-admission shall be examined by a petitions committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. The committee shall advise the Vice-Chancellor in respect of each petition whether it may be rejected or accepted, subject to such conditions as the committee may deem fit. In case any student has to take make-up examination(s) his performance for the purpose of dropping shall be judged on the basis of the results already available without waiting for the make-up examinations. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor in such cases shall be final. The petitions committee constituted above shall also decide the complicated case of make-up examinations not strictly covered in the regulations, referred to it by the Deans of the Colleges and make necessary recommendations. On the basis of the recommendations of the Petitions Committee necessary decision may be taken by the Deans of the College concerned.” In the case at hand, the petitions of the petitioners were allowed and they were permitted to pursue their studies in the third semester subject to the undertaking given by the petitioners. The procedure of dropping from the University is contained in Clause 44(a) as has been amended on 12-8-2011, which provides that if any under-graduate student fails to attain CGPA of 6.000 out of 10.000 at the end of academic year he/she shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with the right to petition for the readmission on such condition as laid down by the University, therefore, the condition, which were laid down by the University are in conformity with the amended Regulation Clause 44(a). In the case at hand, none of the petitioners could secure the CGPA above 6.000 of out 10.000 and GPA about 7.000 out of 10.000, as undertaken by the petitioners. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Saurab Kandari Vs. G.B.Pant University and others [2004(1) U.D., 618] and contended that the fraction of marks if any shall be rounded off to the next higher number in the total. In that writ petition, this Court has dealt with sub-clause (3) of Rule 30 of Chapter IV of the Academic Regulations of the University. G.B.Pant University and others [2004(1) U.D., 618] and contended that the fraction of marks if any shall be rounded off to the next higher number in the total. In that writ petition, this Court has dealt with sub-clause (3) of Rule 30 of Chapter IV of the Academic Regulations of the University. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-University has submitted that the said regulation, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 9 of the judgment which has been relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioners, has no relevance to the case at hand because the student in that case was a student of B.Tech. (Civil Engineering). I have perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel failed to show to the Court that the regulation referred to in the case of Saurab Kandari also applies to the students of B.Tech. (Agricultural Engineering) and that fraction of marks shall be rounded off to the next higher number. Moreover, in the cited case, in paragraph no.9 of the judgment, there is no mention of either CGPA or GPA. Clause 30(3) of the said Regulations only deals with the rounding up of fraction of marks obtained by a student. In any view of the matter, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not help the petitioners. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners were dropped in the academic session of the year 2011-12, i.e. at the end of second semester and not in the mid of the session as is the case of the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners were given right to petitions and they were admitted in the third semester on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioners. The petitioners could not maintain the minimum G.P.A. of 7.000 and C.G.P.A. of 6.000 out of 10, as undertaken by them at the end of I semester 2011-12, therefore, the petitioners were rightly denied admission. So far as the fees is concerned, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the University informed the Court that the fees was deposited by the petitioners on-line and in the counter affidavit it was stated that they may take their fees back and the University has no objection on this count. In paragraph no. So far as the fees is concerned, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the University informed the Court that the fees was deposited by the petitioners on-line and in the counter affidavit it was stated that they may take their fees back and the University has no objection on this count. In paragraph no. 25 of the counter affidavit, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners are free to ask for refund of fee and the fees will be refunded as and when they apply for the same. In the result, the writ petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. All the five writ petitions are dismissed summarily. All pending applications stand disposed of.