JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a B.Tech Mechanical Engineer student in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. Considering the grades which the petitioner has received in the first semester, the University has taken a decision to drop the petitioner for first year and she is now made ineligible for re-admission in first year as well. In other words, her studies have come to an end midway. The reason assigned by the University for doing so is that a student has to get minimum 6 Cumulative Grade Point Average out of 10 in the first semester as well as in the second semester and in case a student gets less than five Cumulative Grade Point Average in the first two semesters, he/she has no right to continue studies as the student is then considered below par for B.Tech studies. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 2. In the first semester, the petitioner has done 8 courses in which she has cleared 5 and failed in 3. In the second semester, the petitioner again cleared 5 courses and failed in 2. The case of the petitioner is that under the Rules applicable in the University, the petitioner was liable to be given another chance to repeat the courses, she could not clear and this has been denied to her. In other words, had she been given the chance, she would have cleared the courses in the first year as well and would have got admission in the third semester. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the University Mr. Rajendra Dobhal on the other hand submits that the question of repeating the course in which one has failed does not arise in the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner has failed to get the minimum grade and except for the discretion of the Vice Chancellor under the Rules, the petitioner has no chance for either repeating the first two semesters, or to be given any other benefit. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has come this far only due to her efforts, diligence and hard work, one chance needs to be given to her to improve her grades and pursue her studies further. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Mandal vehemently argues that the student’s case be treated sympathetically. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has come this far only due to her efforts, diligence and hard work, one chance needs to be given to her to improve her grades and pursue her studies further. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Mandal vehemently argues that the student’s case be treated sympathetically. He further submits that the fact that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste community and had to struggle against different odds while competing for the B.Tech in the prestigious University, and this fact be taken into consideration, as once out of the University, it will be very difficult to compete again for B.Tech course. 5. The petitioner has already deposited the fee for repeating the courses in which she has failed. Considering that the entire career of the petitioner is at stake, the case of the petitioner needs to be considered sympathetically and in case it is possible, the petitioner may be permitted to appear in those papers which she has not cleared or to start studies afresh, but a decision on this aspect needs to be taken by the Vice Chancellor, who is the head of the Institute. Let a decision be taken in the matter by the Vice Chancellor of the University as expeditiously as possible on grounds urged by the petitioner and her counsel, referred above. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed.