Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge, dated 13.06.2014, made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014, in W.P.(MD)No.10467 of 2014. 2. The learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 13.06.2014, had considered the issue relating to the request of the petitioner therein to write the second year B.D.S. Course examinations, scheduled to commence from 07.08.2014 and had directed the respondents to receive the examination fees, from the petitioner, for the second year B.D.S. Course and to permit her to write the examinations, subject to the result of the writ petitions relating to the matter, which are pending before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the petitioner in the writ petition/the first respondent herein, is not qualified to continue her second year B.D.S. Course, as per the Regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery, 2007, which says that any candidate who fails in one subject in an examination is permitted to go to the next higher class and appear for the subject and complete it successfully before he/she is permitted to appear for the next higher examination. Therefore, the petitioner, in the writ petition, who is the first respondent in the present writ appeal, ought not to be permitted to write the second year B.D.S. Course examinations, scheduled to commence from 07.08.2014, as per the interim order passed by this Court, in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014, in W.P.(MD)No.10467 of 2014. He had relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions. 1. Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Parminder KR. Bansal and others [ (1993) 4 SCC 401 ] 2. Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. Vs. Ku.Sheena Preethambaran and others [ AIR 2003 SC 3720 ] 3. Mahatama Gandhi University and another Vs. Gis Jose and others [2008 (4) CTC 741] 4. T.Shyla and others Vs. Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education, Chennai and others [ (2008) 6 MLJ 257 ] 4. We have considered the rival claims. We are of the considered view that the authorities cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, at this stage. T.Shyla and others Vs. Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education, Chennai and others [ (2008) 6 MLJ 257 ] 4. We have considered the rival claims. We are of the considered view that the authorities cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, at this stage. Further, the learned Single Judge had only passed an interim order, permitting the petitioner/the first respondent to write the B.D.S. Course examinations, scheduled to commence from 07.08.2014, subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petitions. 5. In such view of the matter, as we find no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)No.10467 of 2014, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 6. However, we make it clear that it would be open to the appellant to raise all the grounds available to it, at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, which is pending before this Court. 7. The appellant and the second respondent are directed to receive the examination fees payable by the first respondent herein, forthwith, to enable her to write the second year B.D.S. Course examinations, commencing on 07.08.2014.