JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- By way of this order, I shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.26944 and 27034 of 2013 as the common issue is involved in both the cases. However, the facts are extracted from CWP-26944-2013. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that his prayer for a mercy chance to appear in two papers of BAMS 1st Prof., to be held in December, 2013, has been rejected illegally by the respondents. It is alleged that the petitioner had already cleared 4 out of 6 subjects but due to ill health of his father, he could not clear the remaining 2 subjects. 3. The petitioner got admission in BAMS 1st Prof. in respondent no.2-College affiliated to respondent no.1-University. The BAMS 1st Prof. consists of 6 subjects, namely, Sanskrit, Kriya Shareer, Padarth Vigyan, Ayurved Ka Itihas, Rachna Shareer and Ashtang Hridya. There are 10 papers of the aforesaid 6 subjects. The annual examination of BAMS 1st Prof. was conducted in November/December-2011 in which the petitioner appeared but could not clear even one of the subjects. It is alleged that father of the petitioner was not keeping good health as he was suffering from Coronary Artery Disease coupled with Diabetes Mellitus. His father was admitted in a hospital in Ludhiana on 18.11.2011, underwent by-pass surgery on 19.11.2011 and discharged from the hospital on 29.11.2011. 4. The petitioner appeared in two re-appear chances given by respondent no.1 in May/June-2012 and November/December 2012 but could not clear the subjects of BAMS 1st Prof. He then appeared in the 3rd and final re-appear chance in all 6 subjects in May/June 2013 and cleared 4 subjects but could not clear 2 subjects i.e. Sanskrit and Ayurved Ka Itihas. The petitioner has, thus, cleared 4 out of 6 subjects i.e. 7 papers out of total 10 papers and as such, his result was declared as fail in the BAMS 1st Prof. It is also alleged that the petitioner had attended the classes of BAMS 2nd Prof. for 1- ½ years but was not allowed to appear in the annual examination of BAMS 2nd Prof. which were held in May/June-2013. He applied for a mercy chance to appear in remaining two subjects but, vide communication dated 29.11.2013, he was informed about the rejection of his request. 5. for 1- ½ years but was not allowed to appear in the annual examination of BAMS 2nd Prof. which were held in May/June-2013. He applied for a mercy chance to appear in remaining two subjects but, vide communication dated 29.11.2013, he was informed about the rejection of his request. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in a similar set of circumstances, another student of different college affiliated to respondent no.1, namely, Jaspreet Kaur, could not clear BAMS 1st Prof. However, she was given mercy chance by respondent no.1 in which she could clear only one subject and was again given another mercy chance to clear the remaining one subject in May/June-2012 vide letter dated 10.05.2012. It is further submitted that one student, namely, Amanpreet Kaur was also given two mercy chances to clear her BAMS 1st Prof. Firstly she was given a mercy chance during May-June 2010 and when she could not clear the said subject, another mercy chance was afforded to her in November/December 2010. The petitioner has also placed on record information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, about the students who have been given mercy chance and has claimed parity. The petitioner has also made a reference to an interim order passed by this Court in CWP No.3870 of 2013 to buttress his arguments. 6. After notice, reply has been filed by the Registrar of respondent no.1-University in which it is alleged that the University has been established under the Guru Ravidas Ayurved University Punjab Act, 2009, which came into force w.e.f. 01.02.2011. Prior to the establishment of respondent no.1-University, the Ayurvedic, Yoga, Homeopathy Colleges/Institutions in the State of Punjab were affiliated to the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. Since its establishment, the respondent-University is following the ordinances/norms framed by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. As per the said Ordinances, the Vice-Chancellor of the University can grant mercy chance(s) to the students. It is alleged that in order to maintain transparency and uniformity, mercy chance is allowed only to those students who have re-appear in one subject of their respective course but since the petitioner is having re-appear in two subjects, his request for mercy chance was rejected by the University, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 7. It is alleged that in order to maintain transparency and uniformity, mercy chance is allowed only to those students who have re-appear in one subject of their respective course but since the petitioner is having re-appear in two subjects, his request for mercy chance was rejected by the University, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 7. It is alleged that insofar as Jasprret Kaur is concerned, she has been given mercy chance to re-appear as an exceptional case because she is physically handicapped having her left leg polio-riddled, got operated her left leg in the year 2001 and since then she is taking continuous treatment for which she placed on record medical certificates and prescriptions. She further stated that she cannot even carry out daily rituals of life without the help of an attendant. Considering her ailment and the hardship being faced by her, she was granted a mercy chance to appear in examinations held in May/June 2011. She could not clear the papers and again got re-appear. Then, she made a representation in November 2011 to the Vice-Chancellor for granting ‘Grace Marks’. Her request was considered sympathetically by the University and instead of granting her ‘Grace Marks’, she was given another mercy chance for examinations held in November/December 2011. 8. Insofar as Amanpreet Kaur is concerned, it is submitted that reliance has wrongly been placed upon her case. 9. It is further alleged that the interim order passed in CWP No.3870 of 2013 cannot be taken as a precedent which was passed owing to the fact that the counsel for the University was absent due to his personal difficulty, which is clearly borne out from the order itself. 10. It is further alleged that the examination of BAMS Course were scheduled to be held in December, 2013 and the University received three applications including that of the petitioners in both the cases for grant of mercy chance. Since both the petitioners were having re-appear in two subjects, therefore, they have been denied the mercy chance. It is also alleged that in the examination held in May-June 2013, the University had received 6 applications for grant of mercy chance out of which except for one student who had re-appear in 2 subjects, the remaining five students were granted mercy chance. 11. It is also alleged that in the examination held in May-June 2013, the University had received 6 applications for grant of mercy chance out of which except for one student who had re-appear in 2 subjects, the remaining five students were granted mercy chance. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is found that even in the information collected by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) with regard to grant of mercy chance given to the another students, except for Jaspreet Kaur and Amanpreet Kaur, no other student has been pointed out who has been given mercy chance to appear in examination despite the fact that the student had re-appear in two subjects. As far as the interim order passed by this court in CWP No.3870 of 2013 is concerned, the reading of the order itself shows that since the counsel for the respondent-University did not appear despite many opportunities, the interim arrangement was made but final order has not been passed in the said case. 12. Be that as it may, once the University has decided not to grant mercy chance to a student who has got re-apper in two subjects, the same cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right and insofar as the discrimination part is concerned, the petitioner cannot equate himself with the physical conditions of Jaspreet Kaur because the petitioner himself is hale and hearty and not alone in the family as it is not mentioned in the writ petition that there is no other member in his family to look after his ailing father. As a matter of fact, the petitioner could not clear any subject in the examination held in November/December 2011. He was given two re-appear chances in May-June-2012 and November/December-2012 but still could not clear any of the subject of BAMS 1st Prof. Then, he appeared in 3rd and final re-appear chance in all 6 subjects but could clear only 4 subjects and failed in Sanskrit and Ayurved Ka Itihas. He was given two re-appear chances in May-June-2012 and November/December-2012 but still could not clear any of the subject of BAMS 1st Prof. Then, he appeared in 3rd and final re-appear chance in all 6 subjects but could clear only 4 subjects and failed in Sanskrit and Ayurved Ka Itihas. Thus, out of 10 papers, he could clear only 7 papers and now prayed for a mercy chance to appear in the remaining 2 subjects which has been rightly declined by the University maintaining the consistency in their approach as besides Jaspreet Kaur, no other student has been given any such chance and the circumstance in her case have been fully described in the reply filed by the respondents which appears to be justified in the facts and circumstances of her case. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and hence, the same are hereby dismissed. ----------------