Judgment A.M. Khanwilkar; CJ.:- Two reliefs have been claimed in this petition. First relief is to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for first semester revaluation examination of BDS course conducted in 2013. The second relief is to direct the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner for the next academic year (second year) and allow the petitioner to participate for the said academic session. By way of interim relief, it is prayed that the respondent No. 1 be directed to allow the petitioner to submit her application form for the next academic session and further direct the respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to participate in the examination for the next academic year, subject to final outcome of the instant writ petition. Reverting to the first relief, it is not in dispute that the results of the first semester revaluation examination of the petitioner and similarly placed candidates have been withheld because of their involvement in criminal case registered by the STF concerning the very same examination. The offence as registered is a serious offence including of criminal conspiracy. No doubt, until the criminal case ends in conviction, it should be presumed that the petitioner is innocent. But at the same time the process of examination conducted by the University in which the petitioner had participated, having come under the cloud, the University cannot be faulted with its decision not to declare the results of the concerned candidates which includes the petitioner herein. Notably, the counsel for the University has stated on instructions before us that the University is now contemplating to hold inquiry into the said episode in respect of which the STF has already registered criminal proceeding. Further, that inquiry will be held in accordance with law, including to consider the action of rustication of the concerned student, if found involved on account of his/her acts of commission and omission, as may be discerned from the material that would come on record during inquiry to be conducted by the University. That process will be initiated within two weeks from today and taken to its logical end expeditiously. At least till such inquiry is conducted by the University, the University is justified in not declaring the results of the concerned candidates. 2. That process will be initiated within two weeks from today and taken to its logical end expeditiously. At least till such inquiry is conducted by the University, the University is justified in not declaring the results of the concerned candidates. 2. The next issue, is that, if the result of the first semester revaluation examination is not declared, whether the petitioner and similarly placed candidates can be permitted to pursue the next academic session of the same course? 3. According to the petitioner, in view of Chapter III(B) of Ordinance No. 177 Annexure R-1, it is obvious that the candidate even if has not passed out first semester, is entitled to keep terms to attend the next higher classes till the second examination. The petitioner has already resorted to that option and is pursuing the course. This fact, however, has been countered by the respondents on affidavit. It is stated on affidavit that neither the petitioner has been given admission in the second year BDS examination nor any class in the second year BDS examination has been attended by the petitioner. That assertion of the respondent has not been refuted by the petitioner. In that case, the question of permitting the petitioner to appear in the second examination does not arise. 4. Be that as it may, the question is: whether it is possible to accede to the second relief claimed by the petitioner. The second relief may be possible only if the petitioner were to pass the first year examination, which position can be culled out from sub-rule (2) of Rule A of Chapter-in of Ordinance 177. Chapter in of Ordinance 177 which deals with Examinations, reads thus:-- "III. Examinations : A. Each of the examination will be held twice a year in the months of March and September. 1. First B.D.S. Examination is open to a candidate, who after admission, has completed the prescribed, course of study for one academic year, (at least 10 months) and fulfils all the conditions required for appearing in the examination. 2. Second B.D.S. Examination is open to a candidate who has attended the prescribed course of study for one academic year and passed First B.D.S. Examination and fulfils all the conditions required for appearing in the examinations. 3. 2. Second B.D.S. Examination is open to a candidate who has attended the prescribed course of study for one academic year and passed First B.D.S. Examination and fulfils all the conditions required for appearing in the examinations. 3. Third B.D.S. Examination is open, to a candidate, who has passed the Second B.D.S. Examination and undergone the prescribed course of study for one academic year fulfils all the conditions required for appearing in the examinations. 4. Final B.D.S. Examination is open to a candidate, who has passed the Third B.D.S. Examination and undergone the prescribed course of study for one academic year and fulfils all the conditions required for appearing in the examination. B. General Rules: 1. Every candidate for any of the examination must produce the certificate of having attended not less than 75 percent of theory and practical hours respectively, in each of the subject of examination and completed the requirements to the satisfaction of Head of the Department and Head of the Institution. Every candidate will be required to appear in all subjects of particular examination. A candidate who fails to appear or fails in any of the subjects, before being permitted to reappear at the subsequent examination, shall produce evidence of having attended not less than 50 percent hours in theory and practical classes held in that subject prior to subsequent examination. 2. A candidate who passed in one or more subjects of any particular examination will be exempted from those subjects in the subsequent examination and will be allowed to appear in rest of the subjects till he passes in all. 3. A candidate who fails in the first examination will be allowed to keep terms to attend the next higher classes till the second examination. However, if the candidate fails in the Second examination also he will not be allowed to appear in next higher examination till he/she clears the lower examination. 4. Any candidate who fails to appear in the first examination will not be allowed to keep term or attend higher classes." (emphasis supplied) 5. From the plain and conjoint reading of these rules, it would necessarily follow that the candidate must first pass out first year examination to be qualified to appear in the second year examination, even though he has been allowed to keep terms, in view of Rule III. From the plain and conjoint reading of these rules, it would necessarily follow that the candidate must first pass out first year examination to be qualified to appear in the second year examination, even though he has been allowed to keep terms, in view of Rule III. The candidate whose results for the first year examination have not been declared, cannot be treated as having passed out the said examination, which is the requirement of these rules and for that reason such a candidate cannot be treated as eligible to appear for the second year examination. More importantly, the candidate must be able to produce the certificate of having attended not less than 75% of theory and practical hours respectively in each of the subject of examination and completed the requirement to the satisfaction of the Head of the Department and Head of the Institution. He alone will be entitled and eligible to appear in examination. 6. In the present case, the respondents have asserted that, in any case, this requirement has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. That assertion, as aforesaid, has remained unrefuted. In other words, the petitioner not having passed out the first year examination and secondly also because she is not able to produce the certificate of having attended not less than 75% of theory and practical hours respectively, the question of issuing direction to the University to allow her to appear in the second examination does not arise. That would be a case of misplaced sympathy. 7. We may usefully refer to the decisions relied by the counsel for the State. The Apex Court in the case of Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and others, AIR 2003 SC 3720 , in paragraph 6 in particular, held that on several occasions earlier it had deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders, passed in the petitions. The Court went on to observe that in most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result has been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results into very awkward and difficult situations as the indulgence shown to the candidates stares straight into the face of the regulations. In another decision in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Km. It results into very awkward and difficult situations as the indulgence shown to the candidates stares straight into the face of the regulations. In another decision in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Km. Ramona Perhar, AIR 1995 SC 241 the Apex Court observed that in the past it has emphasized in several decisions that passing of interim orders - more particularly of a mandatory nature - is neither a matter of course nor a matter of charity. The power to grant interim orders is coupled with the duty to consider all the relevant facts and legal principles relevant in that behalf. Admissions to educational institutions should not be granted by interim orders - at any rate, not without fully hearing the respondents. In yet another case, of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another, AIR 1993 SC 2412 . The Apex Court in para-6 has observed thus:-- "6. Sri Gambhir is right in his submission. We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions." 8. Indeed, at the commencement of the hearing the counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us to pass interim relief, but instead of considering the grant of interim relief, which argument may be same as for final relief, we called upon the Advocates appearing for the petitioner to address on the main reliefs itself. 9. Indeed, at the commencement of the hearing the counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us to pass interim relief, but instead of considering the grant of interim relief, which argument may be same as for final relief, we called upon the Advocates appearing for the petitioner to address on the main reliefs itself. 9. We have already adverted to the two reliefs claimed in the present petition and in the companion petitions in which separate orders will be passed, as the principle underlying would remain the same. The first relief of issuing directions to the University to declare result of first year examination cannot be countenanced as the process of examination is subject-matter of criminal case and indicating involvement of the petitioner in the commission of a serious crime. Moreover, the University has now decided to initiate action against all the similarly placed candidates by holding an inquiry at the University level, independently, which will not only redress the apprehension of the candidates such as petitioner before us, but also assuage the aspirations of the common man who is watching the entire situation with great interest and concern. The issue regarding mass copying and malpractices committed in the BDS Examination conducted in the year 2013, is in public domain and has shattered the faith of common man in the educational institutions and University which is supposed to be temple of education. With the in-house inquiry by the University, concerning the examination of 2013 to identify the persons involved would certainly instill faith in all concerned and in the Institutions imparting education. That inquiry, as noted earlier, will be initiated within two weeks from today. Until that inquiry is taken to its logical end, the question of declaring the results of the petitioner and similarly placed candidates concerning the examination which is already under cloud does not arise. The University is within its right to withhold the results of such candidates until the completion of the proposed inquiry. If, in the said inquiry, finding of guilt is recorded against the petitioner and similarly placed persons, it can be a just cause to rusticate the concerned candidates. The University is within its right to withhold the results of such candidates until the completion of the proposed inquiry. If, in the said inquiry, finding of guilt is recorded against the petitioner and similarly placed persons, it can be a just cause to rusticate the concerned candidates. If the University was to resort to rustication of the petitioner and similarly placed persons on account of their acts of commission and omission in the examination in question, it is unfathomable as to how the Court can issue direction to the University to hasten declaration of result of such examination. Such a direction would inevitably render the proposed enquiry to be conducted by the University fait accompli. Indeed, if the petitioner were to be exonerated in the said enquiry, the University as a necessary consequence of the finding would be obliged to declare the results of the petitioner and similarly placed persons of the first year examination. That decision will have to be taken on case to case basis by the University. Further, indisputably, the University does not have any power to relax the mandatory requirement of 75% attendance, which is notified by the Dental Council of India in exercise of power under the Dentists Act, 1948. The Appropriate Authority has also framed Regulations known as Dental Council of India BDS Regulations, 1996. In other words, even if the first year examination result of the concerned candidates were to be declared by the University after due inquiry, it would not necessarily follow that the said candidates can straightway appear for the second year examination. The said candidates would, nevertheless, have to satisfy the other requirements such as of having kept the minimum attendance specified by the Regulations and Ordinance No. 177. Only on fulfilment of all such requirements, the University may permit the concerned candidate to appear in the second year examination. Indeed, if the petitioner or similarly placed candidates are found eligible to appear in the ensuing second year examination which is commencing from 8th March and onwards, the University may have to provide for separate supplementary examination for such candidates, to do complete justice to them. We are not inclined to make any further observations in this petition. The same is disposed of accordingly. ______________