ORDER : V.K. SHUKLA, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to permit him to appear in the forthcoming examination of LL.B., VIth Semester and to declare the result of LL.B. Vth Semester by issuing the mark sheet. He has also prayed for quashing of the mark-sheet, Annexure-P/1 and for a direction to the respondents to issue fresh mark-sheet declaring him as having passed the Examination of LL.B. IIIrd Semester. He has further sought for a direction to produce the entire record relating to the LL.B. IIIrd and Vth Semester Examinations. 3. The respondent-University has filed the return and submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to appear in the Vth and VIth Semester Examinations of the LL.B. Three years Course in view of the provisions of Ordinance No.111 which prescribes the eligibility of a candidate for admission to Semester Examinations and restrictions/prohibitions to participate in next Semester Examination of LL.B. 4. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to refer to the facts and relevant provisions of the Ordinance governing the field of eligibility of a candidate for appearing in the Semester Examinations of LL.B. Three years Course and also the prohibitions contained in the Ordinance. 5. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner took admission in the LL.B. (IIIrd Year) (Old Course) in the year 2008. The petitioner appeared in the Ist Semester Examination in year 2008 and he was declared failed in the said examination. Thereafter, in the year 2009 he appeared in the IInd Semester Examination along with ATKT of the Ist Semester Examination as an ex-student. He passed the IInd Semester Examination but again failed in the Ist Semester Examination. He appeared in the IIIrd Semester Examination in the year 2011 and also appeared in the Ist Semester Examination but he could not clear the Ist Semester Examination even in the third attempt and, therefore, the result of the IIIrd Semester Examination was not declared, and the same was withheld by the University. 6. He appeared in the IIIrd Semester Examination in the year 2011 and also appeared in the Ist Semester Examination but he could not clear the Ist Semester Examination even in the third attempt and, therefore, the result of the IIIrd Semester Examination was not declared, and the same was withheld by the University. 6. The petitioner has submitted that since he has cleared IInd Semester Examination, therefore, he appeared in the LL.B. IVth Semester in the month of June, 2011 and was declared passed in the same. However, he could not pass LL.B. Ist Semester Examination and, therefore, the result of LL.B. IIIrd Semester Examination was not declared as it was withheld. He again appeared in LL.B. Ist Semester Examination held in December, 2014 and was declared failed due to short in aggregate. This mark-sheet, Annexure-P/3, was issued on 21-7-15. 7. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 21580/15 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents for giving him correct marks in English and Indian Penal Code papers of Ist Semester Examination as there were calculation mistakes in respect of certain answers. The petition was allowed and directions were issued to the University to issue fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner regarding LL.B. Ist Semester (Old Course). Thereafter, the revised result of LL.B. Ist Semester Examination of December 2014 was declared on 29-02-16, Annexure-P/7, in which the petitioner was declared passed. His withheld result of LL.B. IIIrd Semester Examination 2010-11 was declared on 26-5-16, but he failed in aggregate, vide mark-sheet, Annexure-P/1. The respondent-University has issued their mark-sheets in the light of directions passed by this Court. 8. The petitioner submitted an application for re-totalling of LL.B. IIIrd Semester result of 2010-11 on 13-6-16 but by that time the answer-sheets were already destroyed/eliminated in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance of the University except T.R. which is preserved after a period of six months from the date of declaration of results. Accordingly, vide letter dated 23-6-16, the respondents communicated the petitioner rejecting the application for re-totalling and asked him to take back his fees for re-totalling. 9. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents denying the re-totalling of LL.B. IIIrd Semester Examination being contrary to Clause 5 of Ordinance 5. He has prayed for direction to issue fresh mark-sheet of LL.B. IIIrd Semester Examination declaring him passed. 9. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents denying the re-totalling of LL.B. IIIrd Semester Examination being contrary to Clause 5 of Ordinance 5. He has prayed for direction to issue fresh mark-sheet of LL.B. IIIrd Semester Examination declaring him passed. He has further prayed that the University be directed to declare his Vth Semester Examination and he be permitted to appear in LL.B. VIth Semester Examination. 10. Combating the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner the respondents-University submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 111, Annexure-R/1, since the petitioner could not pass his Ist Semester Examination, therefore, he could not have appeared in the IIIrd Semester as per the provision contained in sub-clause (vi) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance wherein it has been specifically provided that no student shall be allowed to appear in the IIIrd Semester Examination unless he has passed the Ist Semester. Admittedly, in the present case when the petitioner appeared in the IIIrd Semester Examination in the year 2011, had not passed the LL.B. Ist Semester Examination. He has been declared pass in the LL.B. Ist Semester Examination of the year 2014 in 2016 pursuant to the orders of this Court. In the same manner, he could not have appeared in Vth Semester Examination without passing IIIrd Semester Examination. He was declared failed in IIIrd Semester Examination of 2010-11 vide Annexure-P/1 which was issued in June 2016 in compliance to the order passed by this Court on 5-2-16 in W.P. No. 21580/15 even then he failed in the IIIrd Semester Examination because of short in aggregate. The period of making application for revaluation/re-totalling was already expired. 11. A specific query was posed to the counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner could have appeared in the IIIrd Semester Examination without passing the Ist Semester Examination. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal provision in this regard and he submitted that he had appeared in the subsequent Semester examination of the Course and he had also passed the IInd and IVth Semester Examinations, therefore, he could have appeared in the IIIrd and Vth Semester Examinations. 12. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal provision in this regard and he submitted that he had appeared in the subsequent Semester examination of the Course and he had also passed the IInd and IVth Semester Examinations, therefore, he could have appeared in the IIIrd and Vth Semester Examinations. 12. On the basis of the facts and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the question that arises for consideration before us whether the relief prayed by the petitioner in the petition can be granted and as to whether the petitioner, who has not cleared and passed the IIIrd Semester Examination, can be permitted to participate in the Vth and VIth Semester and as to whether this Court after a long lapse of nearly five years when the answer sheets have been destroyed, can direct the respondent/ University to conduct re-totalling or revaluation of the petitioner's answer sheets of the IIIrd Semester Examination held in the year 2010-11. 13. The University has framed Ordinance No.111, relating to LL.B. (Hon's.) (Part-I, II & III) (TDC) (Semester System). The respondents-University has adopted the Semester System for the LL.B. 3 years Degree Course. Amendments have been introduced in the said Ordinance which are in accordance with the directives of the Bar Council of India and Board of Studies in Law of the Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. These rules have been adopted and notified by the University subject to change from time to time in accordance with the directives of the Bar Council of India/Deptt. of Higher Education, Govt. of M.P./Acts/Statutes & Ordinance. From the scheme of the Semester System it is clear that the student has to appear and pass in six semester examinations for obtaining the Degree of Bachelor of Law (Hon's.) (Three years course). 14. Each academic session is consisting of two semesters. The first academic session consists of Ist and IInd Semester; second academic session consists IIIrd and IVth Semester; and the third academic session is consisting Vth and VIth semester. The eligibility regarding admission to the Ist Semester Examination is prescribed in sub-clause (b) of the Ordinance No.111 (Annexure-R/1). Clause 4 of the Ordinance provides eligibility and restrictions for admission to the semester examinations and also the provision of ATKT. The relevant clause from (i) to (x) are reproduced hereunder: "4. The eligibility regarding admission to the Ist Semester Examination is prescribed in sub-clause (b) of the Ordinance No.111 (Annexure-R/1). Clause 4 of the Ordinance provides eligibility and restrictions for admission to the semester examinations and also the provision of ATKT. The relevant clause from (i) to (x) are reproduced hereunder: "4. Assessment : (i) A candidate who has appeared in the odd semester (I/III/V) of any particular year will be promoted to even semester (II/IV/VI) of that year irrespective of failing in any two number of theory of practical examination. (ii) A candidate will be promoted to the available semester of the next academic year (III&IV) provided the backlog is not carried for more than two papers (theory or practical) of the immediate previous year. (iii) A candidate who has failed in two theory papers or a combination of more than two theory and practical papers will become ex-student of that affiliated college/Deptt. (iv) A student with ATKT or short in Aggregate shall be given two chances to pass the semester examination i.e. one main + other with next odd or even semester. (v) A student who is short in aggregate are allowed to appear in two papers only. (vi) No student shall be allowed to appear in the third semester examination unless he has passed first semester. (vii) No student shall be allowed to appear in fourth semester examination unless he has passed second semester. (viii) No student shall be allowed to appear in fifth semester unless he has pass third semester. (ix) No student shall be allowed to appear in sixth semester unless he has pass fourth semester. (x) A candidate may carry a backlog of two papers (Theory or practical) or both upto last semester of the three years course;" 15. From reading of the Ordinance it is lucidly clear that no student shall be allowed to appear in the IIIrd Semester Examination unless he has passed the Ist Semester Examination. It is further provided in clauses (vii) and (viii) that a student shall not be allowed to appear in the IVth Semester unless he has passed the IInd Semester Examination and he will not be allowed to appear in the Vth Semester unless he has passed the IIIrd Semester Examination. It is further provided in clauses (vii) and (viii) that a student shall not be allowed to appear in the IVth Semester unless he has passed the IInd Semester Examination and he will not be allowed to appear in the Vth Semester unless he has passed the IIIrd Semester Examination. In the same manner in clause (ix) it is further provided that no student shall be allowed to appear in the VIth Semester unless he has passed the IVth Semester Examination. 16. Thus, in the present case, from factual scenario, it is luminescent that the petitioner appeared in LL.B. Ist Semester Examination in the year 2008 and was declared failed in the said examination. Thereafter, as per provisions of the Ordinance, he appeared in IInd Semester Examination in the year 2009 and also appeared in Ist Semester Examination along with ATKT. He passed IInd Semester Examination but again failed in the Ist Semester Examination. Again in academic session 2010-11 he appeared in IIIrd Semester and also in Ist Semester Examination, he failed in Ist Semester Examination and, therefore, his result of IIIrd Semester Examination was declared withheld by the University because he was not even eligible to appear in IIIrd Semester Examination, unless he has passed the Ist Semester Examination. He appeared in IVth Semester Examination in the year 2010 but could not clear the IVth Semester examination. He passed the IVth Semester Examination in the year 2011. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner could not clear Ist Semester Examination from the year 2008 till 2016. Since he has not passed Ist Semester Examination, therefore, his IIIrd Semester result was declared withheld. From 2008 till 2015 he did not challenge the action of the University. In year 2015, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 21580/15 challenging the result of LL.B. Ist Semester Examination, 2014 and in compliance to the directions of this Court he was declared passed by mark-sheet, Annexure-P/7, issued on 29-02-2016 but again failed LL.B. IIIrd Semester Examination 2010-11 when the result was declared failed in aggregate, vide mark-sheet, Annexure-P/1, issued on 26-5-16. 17. The petitioner has not explained the delay for not challenging the result of his Ist Semester Examination from the year 2008 to 2015 and also withholding of the result of IIIrd Semester Examination. 17. The petitioner has not explained the delay for not challenging the result of his Ist Semester Examination from the year 2008 to 2015 and also withholding of the result of IIIrd Semester Examination. The respondents-University has filed a copy of the order dated 23-6-16 (Annexure-R/5) whereby the examination form and result of Vth Semester Examination has been cancelled on the ground that since the petitioner has not passed the IIIrd Semester Examination, therefore, he is not eligible to appear in the Vth Semester Examination. Thus, the position today which has emerged from the fact is that the petitioner has not passed the IIIrd Semester Examination, therefore, he could not appear in Vth Semester as per provisions of the Ordinance. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 23-6-16 (Annexure-R/5). 18. Valiant efforts have been made by the counsel for the petitioner to persuade us to accept the contention that since the petitioner had passed the IInd and IVth Semester Examinations, therefore, he be allowed to appear in the Vth and VIth Semester Examinations. He has also prayed that the respondents-University be directed to conduct re-totalling of marks of the IIIrd Semester Examination 2010-2011 in which mark-sheet is issued, Annexure-P/1. We are not impressed with the said argument. There is mandatory provision in the Ordinance and the scheme of the semester examinations, is that there shall be six Semester Examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (Hon's.) (Three years course) (Old). Each academic sessions is consisting of two semesters. The first academic session consists of Ist and IInd Semester; second academic session consists IIIrd and IVth Semester; and the third academic session contains Vth and VIth semester. Under the scheme even with ATKT, a student has to pass a particular semester examination before a particular next semester examination. 19. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs that there are specific prohibitions that no student shall be allowed to appear in the IIIrd Semester Examination, unless he has passed the Ist Semester Examination. In the same manner, no student shall be allowed to appear in the Vth Semester Examination, unless he has passed the IIIrd Semester Examination. 20. From the facts of the present case it is crystal clear that the petitioner passed his Ist Semester Examination of the year 2008 in 2016 and when he appeared in the IIIrd Semester Examination he had not passed the Ist Semester Examination. 20. From the facts of the present case it is crystal clear that the petitioner passed his Ist Semester Examination of the year 2008 in 2016 and when he appeared in the IIIrd Semester Examination he had not passed the Ist Semester Examination. Likewise, he had not passed IIIrd Semester Examination when he appeared in the Vth Semester Examination. The University has rightly held that revaluation/re-totalling of answer-sheets of the IIIrd Semester Examination, 2010-11 in the year 2016 was not possible as the answer-sheets were destroyed in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance as only T-R was preserved. 21. Thus, we do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the action taken by the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to take up the Vth Semester or the VIth Semester Examination of the Course. 22. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 16700/14 [Sakshi Bharadwaj v. State of M.P. and others, decided on 24-02-15], under the similar circumstances has held as under: "We have heard the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent - University. We have also carefully gone through Clause No.(xxii) of paragraph 4 of Ordinance No.111. The said Clause clearly stipulates that the reevaluation/ scrutiny of marks of the answer books shall be allowed as per the provisions of relevant Ordinance of the University. We are of the considered opinion that a bare reading of the said Clause makes it clear that the reevaluation/ scrutiny permitted in the said clause only relates to marks of answer books and does not relate to re-evaluation of the entire answer-sheets. It is also clear from the stand of the respondent that under the provisions of this Clause they have undertaken reevaluation and scrutiny of marks and have awarded 8 more marks. In conclusion we are of the considered opinion that in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the cases of Ku.Vinita Rupra and Pranshu Indurkhya (minor) (supra) in the absence of a provision for re-evaluation of the entire answer paper coupled with the fact that no allegation of mala fides or tampering or of gross negligence resulting in injustice is made out, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to for revaluation of her answer sheet and is, accordingly, rejected. We are also of the considered opinion that in view of the prohibition contained in sub-clause (iv) and (viii) of Ordinance No.111, the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the 5th semester examination as she has failed to pass the 3rd Semester Examination. The petition, filed by the petitioner being meritless, is hereby dismissed." 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner is merit-less and the relief sought by the petitioner in the present petition deserves to be and is hereby rejected in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. At this stage the counsel for the petitioner has prayed that apart from the issues raised in this petition, he be afforded an opportunity to submit a representation before the respondents-University to consider his case sympathetically. Without issuing any direction in this regard, we observe that in case the petitioner submits a representation, the University may take the same into consideration in accordance with law. 25. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.