JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant-University, and Sri Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. 2. The Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar is in appeal before us against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3013 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019. Both Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-University and Sri Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, agree that the writ petition itself be disposed of along with the special appeal. 3. Respondent No. 1 herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3013 of 2019 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to give him admission in the Fifth Semester/III Year B.Tech course after completing the required formalities; to permit him to persecute his Fifth Semester/III Year B.Tech course; a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the first respondent to grant permission to the respondent-writ petitioner to appear in the compartmental examination in all non-cleared papers, in which he had secured lesser than the fixed bench mark in the previous academic years; and for a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the first respondent to apply the Rules and Regulations framed by the AICTE, in letter and spirit, in its undergraduate engineering course i.e. B.Tech course. 4. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondent writ petitioner joined the B.Tech course, offered by the appellant-University, in the Academic Year 2017-18. He joined the second year B.Tech course in the academic year 2018-19. On the ground that he had failed in three subjects in the second year B.Tech course, he was detained in the second year, and was not permitted to pursue his third year B.Tech course. The respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court complaining of discrimination between persons belonging to the same class. On the ground that he had failed in three subjects in the second year B.Tech course, he was detained in the second year, and was not permitted to pursue his third year B.Tech course. The respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court complaining of discrimination between persons belonging to the same class. It is his case that students, who joined the second year B.Tech course through lateral entry, are being given the benefit of appearing in a compartmental examination, irrespective of the number of subjects they have failed in the second year and are being permitted, in the interregnum, to undergo the third year engineering course; and on the other hand students, promoted from the first year to the second year, are required to repeat the second year if they fail in three subjects in the second year. Not only does the respondent-writ petitioner seek parity with the lateral entry students admitted directly into the second year, he also seeks to be similarly treated with that of final year B.Tech students, who are not required to undergo their final year B.Tech course again even if they fail in three subjects, but are permitted to appear in the ensuing examination and, in case they pass in such an examination, they are awarded B.Tech degrees. 5. In the inter-locutory order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted the submission, urged on behalf of the appellant-University, that there was no justification in retaining students in final year and asking them to undergo the final year B.Tech course once again, since these students were not to be awarded their degrees until and unless they passed all the subjects in the final year; and the syllabus was also changed. The learned Single Judge opined that the mere fact that the final year students were completing their course would not justify their being given the benefit, which had been denied to the respondent-writ petitioner, who is a student of the second year, as, in both cases, for the affected students it was the loss of one year; and a change in the syllabus was immaterial as the compartment in which the final year students would appear would be based on the old syllabus, and not the new syllabus. On the ground that, when a benefit is granted to one section, the same cannot be denied to the others unless the University had justifiable reasons for classifying the students, the learned Single Judge was of the, prima facie, view that such a classification was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As an interim measure, the respondents (appellants herein) were directed to permit the respondent-writ petitioner to appear in the third-year examination, and allow him to complete the formalities of registration for the third year, which was to be subject to the final determination of the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 6. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-University, would submit that a final decision in this regard is yet to be taken by the Academic Council; it is only the proposal submitted by the Vice-Chancellor, which has been questioned in the writ petition; the respondent-writ petitioner belongs to the 2017-18 batch; the Regulations were amended from the Academic Year 2018-19; while the old Regulations would continue to apply to all students, who were admitted during the Academic Session 2017-18 or prior thereto, the amended Regulations would apply to those students who are admitted in the Academic Year 2018-19, and thereafter; since the respondent-writ petitioner is governed by the old Regulations, he cannot claim parity with students who are governed by the amended Regulations; students admitted directly, in the second year, by lateral entry are those who have undergone a three-year Diploma course in engineering; such students are given the concession of not having to undergo the first year B.Tech course; the respondent-writ petitioner has not undergone the three-year Diploma course and cannot, therefore, claim parity with those students who entered the second year through a lateral entry; and, consequently, the learned Single Judge had erred in permitting the respondent-writ petitioner to join the third year B.Tech course, though he had failed in three subjects in the second year. 7. 7. On the other hand, Sri Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that students, admitted laterally in the second year, undergo the same second year course as those who are promoted to the second year after having completed the first year B.Tech course; they are taught the very same subject, and are required to give the very same examination, which students like the petitioner are required to; once these lateral-entry students are admitted to the second year, they form a homogeneous class of students studying in the second year B.Tech course; they are similarly situated as that of students promoted to the second year from the first year; and the distinction drawn, on the basis of the birth-mark of the students, and in making a distinction between students who are promoted from the first year to the second year, and those who are admitted laterally in the second year, amounts to hostile discrimination, and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would further state that, while the respondent-writ petitioner is being asked to repeat his second year because he had failed in three subjects, the final year students are however not asked to repeat the final year, despite having failed in three or more subjects in the final year; and this also amounts to discrimination and is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. We find considerable force in the submission of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-University, that the petitioner, a second-year student, cannot seek parity with a final year engineering student. After completing the final year B.Tech course, a candidate appears in the final examination. Even if he has failed in one subject, he is not awarded a degree till he appears in the ensuing examination, and passes in the said subject. The only distinction is that such a student is not retained in the final year, but he is required to pass in all subjects, in which he had failed in the final year, thereafter before he is awarded the B.Tech degree. The only distinction is that such a student is not retained in the final year, but he is required to pass in all subjects, in which he had failed in the final year, thereafter before he is awarded the B.Tech degree. The respondent-writ petitioner, a second year B.Tech student, can hardly complain of discrimination comparing himself with the final year students for those who are undergoing the second year B.Tech course form a class different and distinct from those who are undergoing the final year B.Tech course; and as these students form two different and distinct classes, the complaint of discrimination must fail. 9. We are, however, impressed with the submission of Sri Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, that the differential treatment meted out by the appellant-University to those students who are promoted from the first year to the second year on the one hand, and those who are admitted directly in the second year on the other, is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is true that the students, who are admitted to the second year laterally, are those who have undergone their three-year Diploma course in engineering. Those students, who have completed their three-year Diploma course in engineering, are given the concession of not being required to undergo the first year B.Tech course, and are admitted straightway in the second year B.Tech course. 11. While the basis of their entry into the second year B. Tech course may be different, once these Diploma-Holders join the second year B.Tech course, they undergo the very same course of study, which students, who are promoted from the first year to the second year, undergo; they appear in the very same examination; and their answer-sheets are also evaluated in the very same manner. After their admission into the second year, students who are promoted from the first year to the second year and those who are admitted laterally in the second year B.Tech course, form one homogeneous class. They cannot, thereafter, be distinguished on the basis of their birth-mark in so far as their entitlement to be promoted, to the third year B.Tech course, is concerned. They cannot, thereafter, be distinguished on the basis of their birth-mark in so far as their entitlement to be promoted, to the third year B.Tech course, is concerned. Upon their integration in the second year, students from both the streams, i.e. those promoted from the first year to the second year and those inducted laterally in the second year, must be treated on par thereafter, as their birthmark gets obliterated with the integration, and no distinction can thereafter be made on the basis of their original birthmark. (S. Sivaguru vs. State of T.N., (2013) 7 SCC 335 ; B. Manmad Reddy Redy & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy & Ors, (2010) 3 SCC 314 ; and Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 ). 12. While students, promoted from the first year to the second year, are detained in the second year, if they fail in more than two subjects in the second year, no such restriction is placed on those who are laterally admitted into the second year B.Tech course. Even if they fail in all the subjects in the second year, these lateral entry second year B.Tech students are promoted to the third year, and are being permitted to appear in the compartmental examination, on passing of which they would continue in the third year. It is only if they fail in the compartmental examination also, are they then required to undergo the second year B.Tech course again. This would, undoubtedly, amount to discrimination and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. We may not be understood to have held that students, who fail in certain subjects in a particular year, should invariably be permitted to appear in the compartmental examination, and should be provisionally promoted to the third year in the interregnum, for these are all matters for the University to decide and not for this Court to stipulate. 13. We may not be understood to have held that students, who fail in certain subjects in a particular year, should invariably be permitted to appear in the compartmental examination, and should be provisionally promoted to the third year in the interregnum, for these are all matters for the University to decide and not for this Court to stipulate. In its order, in Special Appeal No. 938 of 2018 dated 26.11.2018, a Division Bench of this Court had opined that permitting students to appear in the second year B.Tech course even without passing the first year B.Tech course would result in half-baked engineers coming out of the colleges affiliated to the University, without having acquired the requisite knowledge to be conferred the Bachelor's Degree in Engineering; and any such direction would also be contrary to larger public interest of ensuring excellence in education. 14. The question whether students should be promoted from the second year to the third year despite having failed in some of the subjects in the second year, or whether they should be asked to repeat the second year course all over again, are all matters for the University, in its wisdom, to decide. All that we have held is that all students, undergoing the second year B.Tech course, must be treated on par; and should not be distinguished on the basis of their birth-mark, i.e. they should be treated on par whether they are promoted to the second year from the first year or are laterally admitted directly into the second year on their having completed their three-year Diploma course. 15. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-University, would seek permission of this Court for the Academic Council to re-examine the matter, and take an appropriate decision afresh in accordance with law. 16. While we see no reason not to permit the Academic Council to examine the matter afresh, suffice it to observe that, any decision which the Academic Council may take, must ensure parity in treatment between all students who have undergone the second year B.Tech course, and no distinction on the basis of their birth-mark is permissible. We make it clear that the order under appeal shall remain in force till the Academic Council takes a decision afresh in accordance with law. 17. We make it clear that the order under appeal shall remain in force till the Academic Council takes a decision afresh in accordance with law. 17. Since any delay in a decision being taken by the Academic Council may well result in students, such as the petitioner, losing their attendance as also the opportunity to appear in the internal examination, the Academic Council shall take a decision at the earliest and in any event within ten days from today. 18. Both the Special Appeal and the Writ Petition are accordingly disposed of. No costs. 19. Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 05.11.2019.