Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. The petitioner, a student of 2nd respondent-Institute, pursuing his B.A. /LL.B (Hon’s) 5 years course, aggrieved by non-declaration of his result of 7th semester and subsequent refusal to admit him in 8th semester, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the following prayers: “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to sit in 9th semester as per the old syllabus by invoking the provisions of University Ordinance, Clause No.12.8 (g), otherwise the LL.B Course of the petitioner will ruined, in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) That the respondent No.2 may be directed to send the internal assessment of the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 University and thereafter, the University may kindly be directed to declare the result of the petitioner for 7th semester forthwith. iii) That the respondents may also be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination of 8th semester.” 2. At the very outset, it is desirable to make reference to clause 12.8 (A) of the University Ordinance, relevant for the purpose of the decision of this case, which reads as follows: 12.8 (A): A candidate is required to pass in all the courses of B.A LL.B (Hon’s) in each semester: i) A candidate who appears in the examination and fails to obtain pass marks in any course in the First semester, may be permitted to proceed to the second semester but shall not be permitted to proceed from the second to the third semester without appearing in the examination and having qualified 50 percent of the total number of courses prescribed for first and second semester taken together; ii) At the time of the third semester examination the candidate may appear in the course in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the First semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the third semester. But he shall not be permitted to proceed from the third semester to the fourth semester without appearing in the examination; iii) At the time of the fourth semester examination a candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the second semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the fourth semester but he shall not be permitted to proceed from the fourth semester to the fifth semester without appearing in the examination and having qualified 50% of the courses of third and fourth semester taken together and all courses of the first and second semester. iv) At the time of fifth semester examination a candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the third semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the fifth semester. But he shall not be permitted to proceed from the fifth to the sixth semester without appearing in the examination; v) At the time of sixth semester examination a candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the fourth semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the sixth semester. But he shall not be permitted to proceed from the sixth to seventh semester without appearing in the examination and having qualified 50% of the courses prescribed for fifth and sixth semester taken together and all the courses of the third and fourth semesters; vi) At the time of the seventh semester examination a candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the fifth semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the seventh semester. But he shall not be permitted to proceed from the seventh semester to eighth semester without appearing in the examination; vii) At the time of the eighth semester examination a candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the sixth semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the eighth semester. But he shall not be permitted to proceed from the eighth semester to ninth semester without appearing in the examination and having qualified 50% of the courses prescribed for the seventh and eighth semester taken together and all the courses of fifth and sixth semesters; viii) At the time of the ninth semester examination a candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the seventh semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the ninth semester. But he shall not be permitted to proceed from the ninth semester to tenth semester without appearing in the examination; ix) At the time of the tenth semester examination a candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the eighth semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the tenth semester.” 3. The semester-wise tabulated information pertaining to the appearance of the petitioner in the examination from time to time annexed as R-II to the reply by the 2nd respondent-Institute, reads as follows: First Year Semester-I Regular exam held on November 2007 Course-I Passed in re-appear Course-II Passed Course-III Passed Course-IV Passed in re-appear Semester-II Regular exam held in June, 2008 Course-V Passed in re-appear Course-VI Passed in re-appear Course-VII Passed in re-appear Course-VIII Passed in re-appear Second Year Semester-III Regular exam held in November 2009 Course-IX Passed in re-appear Course-X Passed in re-appear Course-XI Passed in re-appear Course-XII Failed in regular and twice in reappear Semester-IV Regular exam held in June, 2010 Course-XIII Passed in re-appear Course-XIV Passed Course-XV Passed Course-XVI Passed Third Year Semester-V Regular exam held in November 2010 Course-XVII Failed in regular and re-appear Course-XVIII Passed in re-appear Course-XIX Passed in re-appear Course -XX Passed in re-appear Course-XXI Passed in re-appear Semester VI Regular exam held in June 2011 Course-XXII Failed in regular and reappear Course-XXIII Failed in regular and re-appear Course- XXIV Passed in re-appear Course- XXV Failed in regular and re-appear Course-XXVI Passed in re-appear Semester-VII The petitioner was not allowed to appear in the Semester-VII examination of November 2011 as he did not satisfy the requirement of H.P. University Ordinance 12.8(A)(V). 4. The undisputed facts are that on the basis of his performance in the examination, the petitioner continued to be promoted upto 6th semester. 4. The undisputed facts are that on the basis of his performance in the examination, the petitioner continued to be promoted upto 6th semester. Even he was promoted to 7th semester also in July, 2011, however, provisionally subject to acquiring eligibility on declaration of the result of 6th semester conducted in July, 2011 and left out failed courses of 5th semester, including Course No. XII of 3rd Semester. When the result was declared, he cleared 50% courses of 5th and 6th Semester, but failed to clear course No. XII of 3rd semester. Hence, his admission in 7th semester could not be regularized. 5. While the petitioner claims that he was allowed to appear in the examination of the 7th semester, the 2nd respondent while denying the same to be wrong, has come forward with the version that since he failed to acquire eligibility for regularization of his admission in 7th semester, no roll number was issued to him to appear in the examination of 7th semester nor did he appear in the said examination. Though the 1st respondent-University did not file any reply to the writ petition, however, the learned standing counsel for the University clarified this aspect and the clarification so offered by him has been taken down by this Court in its order dated 12.10.2012, which reads as follows: “ In view of the averments in the writ petition that the petitioner had appeared in the examination of 7th semester of LL. B. Course conducted by the 1st respondent-University, whereas the 2nd respondent–College has denied this fact in reply to para-4 of the writ petition and the 1st respondent-University opted not to file any reply. This matter is listed today for necessary clarifications. Learned counsel representing the st respondent-University on instructions submits that the petitioner did appear in 7th semester examination in November, 2011, however, his result could not be declared for want of internal assessment, which was to be made available by the 2nd respondent-College to the University. It has also been clarified that the petitioner was not given admission in 8th semester, hence not attended any class.” 6. The fact thus remains that the petitioner did appear in the examination of 7th semester held in November/December, 2011, however, his result has not been declared for want of internal assessment which was to be made by the 2nd respondent-Institute and forwarded to the 1st respondent-University. The fact thus remains that the petitioner did appear in the examination of 7th semester held in November/December, 2011, however, his result has not been declared for want of internal assessment which was to be made by the 2nd respondent-Institute and forwarded to the 1st respondent-University. In the meanwhile, the 8th semester commenced, most probably in the month of March, 2012. The petitioner was denied admission in that semester also, may be on account of his failure to clear Course-XII of 3rd semester and also his admission in 7th semester being not regularized nor his internal assessment in respect of that semester forwarded to 1st respondent-University. This has led in making representation dated 20.4.2012, Annexure P-1 to the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.1-University. 7. Office endorsement dated 20.4.2012 enclosed to the representation reveals that the petitioner had cleared 50% Courses of 5th and 6th Semesters by that time. Hence, he was eligible for being promoted to the 7th semester, however, by that time, the 7th semester was already over and even he appeared in the examination of the said semester, but for want of clearance of one of the courses pertaining to 3rd semester, neither his admission in 7th semester was regularized nor his result declared. 8. Representation Annexure P-1 was dealt with by the 1st respondent-University and vide letter dated 9.5.2012, (Annexure P-2), the Director of 2nd respondent-Institute was intimated to deal with the situation himself being duly competent. The stand of the said respondent qua this aspect of the matter in reply to the writ petition is that the said communication bearing no despatch number was not received in the office of respondent No.2-Institute. In another document i.e. affidavit dated 8.5.2012, Annexure P-3, an effort has been made to explain the failure on the part of the petitioner to seek admission in 8th semester on account of his having met with an accident on 1.4.2012, immediately after declaration of the result of 5th and 6th semesters and he being referred from District Hospital, Solan for further treatment to PGI Chandigarh on 1.4.2012. Since the petitioner was allegedly prevented to seek admission in 8th semester due to his accident and the circumstances beyond his control, the provisions contained under clause 12.8(g) of University Ordinance, which read as follows, have been pressed into service: “12.8(g) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice Chancellor may, however, permit a candidate who is otherwise eligible to appear at the examination, to proceed from one semester to another without appearing at the examination if to the satisfaction of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice Chancellor the candidate was prevented from appearing in the said examination on account of serious illness, or other unforeseen circumstances beyond his/her control provided that intimation to the effect, accompanied by documentary proof thereof, is communicated to the University within a week of the expiry of the concerned examination.” 9. Nothing seems to have happened on the submission of affidavit Annexure P-3 also and hence, the petitioner made representation dated 20.7.2012 Annexure P-5 to the Chancellor of the H.P. University and the Director of the 2nd respondent-Institute. There seems to be no response thereto also. 10. In order to substantiate the contention that the petitioner met with an accident, reliance has been placed on Annexure P-6, a copy of final adjustment bill issued by PGI Chandigarh accompanied by Out Door Patient ticket issued by District Hospital, Solan. 11. In view of the pleadings on record and the submissions made on both sides, the moot question for consideration is whether it would be appropriate to issue direction to the respondents to declare the result of the 7th semester of the petitioner and allow him to appear in the examination of 8th semester without any attendance for want of admission in that semester and further direction to allow him admission in 9th semester, already commenced in July, 2012. 12. Nothing else, except for clause 12.8 (g) of the University Ordinance has been brought to the notice of this Court in support of the case of the petitioner, during the course of arguments. 12. Nothing else, except for clause 12.8 (g) of the University Ordinance has been brought to the notice of this Court in support of the case of the petitioner, during the course of arguments. The provisions contained under clause 12.8(g) of the Ordinance referred supra, make it crystal clear that the same allow a student to proceed from one semester to another without appearance in the examination, if to the satisfaction of the Vice Chancellor, he/she was prevented from appearing in the examination in question, on account of serious illness or other unforeseen circumstances beyond his/her control, that too, if the intimation to this effect duly supported by documentary proof is given to the University within a week of the expiry of the concerned examination. 13. Here this is not the situation, because it is not a case where due to his ailment or any other disability and circumstances beyond his control, the petitioner was prevented from appearing in any examination, but on account of so called accident and injuries he allegedly received, he could not pursue his case for admission in 8th semester. Thus, he is not entitled to any benefit of the above provisions in the University Ordinance. Irrespective of this, for want of better particulars it cannot be inferred from affidavit Annexure P-3 as to what type of injuries the petitioner had received on his person in the so called accident, whether any FIR against the accident was lodged with the police and what was the total period during which he remained confined to bed or was advised medical rest. The final assessment bill Annexure P-6 relied upon in this behalf suggests that the petitioner was admitted in PGI on 2.4.2012 and discharged on 3.4.2012. It is the discharge slip which would have thrown some light qua nature of the injuries he received, the nature of hospitalization for the same and also the medical rest advised to him etc. OPD ticket enclosed to Annexure P-6, if believed to be a genuine document, would show that the petitioner was admitted thereby in the District Hospital, Solan, on 1.4.2012. He was referred to PGI/Fortis on the same day. OPD ticket enclosed to Annexure P-6, if believed to be a genuine document, would show that the petitioner was admitted thereby in the District Hospital, Solan, on 1.4.2012. He was referred to PGI/Fortis on the same day. Being a case of admission, when discharged from the District Hospital, there should have been a discharge slip issued at the time of his discharge and not OPD ticket, which contains cutting in name of the petitioner and being a xeroxed copy not even attested also by the petitioner or learned counsel, representing him, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of the injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident. Above all, there is no reference in this document that the petitioner received head injury in a motor vehicle accident. In a case where the injuries are received by anyone in a motor vehicle accident, the doctor attending upon the victim is under a legal obligation to inform the police before admitting him for treatment. Therefore, for such lapses, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner met with an accident and as a result thereof was prevented from pursuing his case for admission in 8th semester. 14. Above all, when the petitioner failed to qualify Course-XII of 3rd semester in which he had appeared alongwith examination of 6th semester in the month of June, 2011, he was not eligible for admission in the 7th semester, irrespective of he having qualified 50% courses of 5th and 6th semesters and it is for this reason, the 2nd respondent-Institute while resorting to the provisions contained under clause 12.8 (A)(v) of the University Ordinance, had not regularized his admission in 7th semester provisionally, pending declaration of his result of 6th semester and left out courses of 5th semester including course-XII of the 3rd semester. 15. 15. No doubt he had attended the classes of 7th semester and even appeared in examination conducted in the month of November/December, 2011 and irrespective of he having not qualified the Course-XII of 3rd semester, a direction to the respondents to consider his case for declaration of result of 7th semester could have been issued, however, in a situation when he was not allowed admission in 8th semester nor did he attend any class of that semester, which as a matter of fact is already over in the month of April/May, 2012 and its examination is also over, the issuance of such a direction would be a futile exercise because in view of the introduction of new syllabus from 2009 session, 8th semester under the old syllabus may now not be available for admission during 2013-14 session and it is the students under the new syllabus who will be promoted to 8th semester, hence he can not be admitted in 8th semester under old syllabus . 16. In such a situation, to tinker with the relevant provisions, discussed supra, governing admission in the course, is not warranted. Hon’ble Apex Court in Director (Studies) Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59, where a student pursuing his course in Hospitality and Hotel Administration found in possession of a slip while appearing in the examination was disqualified under the relevant rules for one academic session, however, the High Court allowed him to appear in the forthcoming examination with the direction to keep his result in a sealed cover and declare the same only after obtaining orders from the Court, has held as under:- “ Before commenting on this interim order we would like to say that this Court has repeatedly disapproved of passing of such interim orders in educational matters vide CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719 (SCC para6), CBSE v. P. Sunil Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 377 , Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kumar Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 , etc. As noted in the above judgments of this Court, such interim orders amount to misplaced sympathy which are wholly uncalled for and often result in creating confusion and is destructive of academic discipline and academic standards.” 17. As noted in the above judgments of this Court, such interim orders amount to misplaced sympathy which are wholly uncalled for and often result in creating confusion and is destructive of academic discipline and academic standards.” 17. In the case in hand when the performance of the petitioner is so poor that in all the courses upto 6th semester he could clear only 5 in 1st attempt and the remaining by way of reappearance and for that matter even by reevaluation also, it would not be proper to tinker with the relevant provisions under the University Ordinance and to do so, would not be in the interest of academic discipline and academic standards of the 2nd respondent-Institute and rather a misplaced sympathy. 18. It is worthwhile to mention here that upto 6th semester the petitioner can complete the courses under the old syllabus and so far as the remaining courses 7th semester onwards are concerned, he will have to undergo the same as per the new syllabus, may be by qualifying additional subject(s) as per the syllabus, as has come in reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Institute. 19. The present is thus not a case where the career of the petitioner is blocked on account of his failure to qualify the th semester and seek admission in the 8th semester under the old syllabus. He may continue, if so advised, his course further under new syllabus and for the loss of any kind, likely to be caused to him, he cannot blame the system, but will have to suffer on account of his own deeds and conduct. On his representation Annexure P-1, the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent or letter Annexure P-2 conveying the same to the Director of the 2nd respondent-Institute, is again a matter of controversy because the said respondent has disputed the receipt thereof and also pointed out that the same bears no despatch number. 20. There being no despatch number on this document is sufficient to doubt its authenticity. Respondent No.1 opted not to file any reply admitting/denying the consideration of representation Annexure P-1 and issuance of letter Annexure P-2 to the 2nd respondent-Institute. 20. There being no despatch number on this document is sufficient to doubt its authenticity. Respondent No.1 opted not to file any reply admitting/denying the consideration of representation Annexure P-1 and issuance of letter Annexure P-2 to the 2nd respondent-Institute. The fact, however, remains that the representation Annexure P-1 has now come to the notice of the 2nd respondent and the said respondent may take notice of issuance of letter Annexure P-2 also as well as the subsequent representation Annexure P-5 addressed to the Chancellor of the University and a copy endorsed to its Director. Therefore, without making any observation qua the merits, if any, in the representations hereinabove, this Court leave open the same to be considered by the Director of the 2nd respondent-institute sympathetically, in accordance with the Ordinance and Statute of the University and also any other relevant instruction issued in that behalf and if permissible to get declared the result of the 7th semester of the petitioner by making internal assessment and also to allow him to continue his course in 8th and 9th semesters as well as 10th semester under the old syllabus. The decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner. With the above observations, this petition stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.