JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by Respondents No.1 and 2 has been allowed with direction to the appellant-University of Rajasthan to declare the result of Respondents No. 1 and 2-writ petitioners. 3. The factual premise on which the writ petition was filed and relief was sought by Respondents No. 1 and 2 was that Respondents No. 1 and 2-writ petitioners were admitted to two years B.Ed. Course. They regularly attended B.Ed. classes for the first year and also appeared in the examination and were successful. Thereafter, they were admitted in the second year of B.Ed. course. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had submitted applications for appearing in the examinations but the appellant-University did not allow them to appear in the examination. Thereafter, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were granted readmission in the second year of B.Ed. Course. In the third year, they were allowed to attend the classes to the extent of shortage and thereafter, they again submitted application forms, but the appellant-University again did not allow them to appear in the examination. At this stage, Respondents No. 1 and 2 knocked the doors of this Court by filing writ petition. Under interim order, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were allowed to appear in the examination. However, their result was kept in sealed cover. 4. The submission of Respondents No. 1 and 2 before the learned Single Judge was that even if they have failed to complete the minimum required attendance in the second year of B.Ed. Course, they were entitled to readmission in the second year course in the subsequent year (third year) and once, they have completed the shortage of attendance in the third year, they were entitled to appear in the examination and upon successful attempt, the appellant-University was obliged to award degree of B.Ed. Course, they were entitled to readmission in the second year course in the subsequent year (third year) and once, they have completed the shortage of attendance in the third year, they were entitled to appear in the examination and upon successful attempt, the appellant-University was obliged to award degree of B.Ed. Relying upon the scheme of the ordinances engrafted in Ordinances 325, 326, 326A and 326B, case of Respondents No. 1 and 2 was that the scheme of the Ordinances itself allows them to take readmission in the third year because according to Respondents No. 1 and 2, the provisions contained in Ordinance 326B, on rational interpretation, would mean that a candidate even if fails to complete minimum attendance requirement in the second year, he/she has an opportunity as the Course is required to be completed within a maximum period of three years from the date of admission. The relief sought in the writ petition was opposed by the appellant-University on the averments that in terms of Ordinance 323, no candidate shall be allowed to appear in B.Ed. examination Part 1 and Part 2, unless he/she has attended 80% of the course work and other required eligibility. The stand taken by the University before the learned Single Judge was that Ordinance 326B is for the candidate who has failed in first and second year and the opportunity to complete B.Ed. Course for three years is applicable only in the said case of failure, but not a case of short attendance. The argument raised by Respondents No. 1 and 2 before the learned Single Judge was accepted. Repelling the contention of the appellant-University, learned Single Judge held that under the scheme of the Ordinance, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were entitled to avail an opportunity of readmission and appear in the examination provided it is within three years. On such considerations, learned Single Judge directed the appellant University to award the degree. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that learned Single Judge, while interpreting the provisions of the scheme under various Ordinances referred to in the order has not correctly applied the principles, which have been laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Mundotia & Others Vs. University of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1481/2018 decided on 12.07.2019). University of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1481/2018 decided on 12.07.2019). His pointed submission is that scheme of the Ordinances does not allow the benefit of appearing in the examination to a candidate, who has failed to fulfill the minimum required attendance. He would submit that only those cases, where a candidate has completed minimum required attendance, whether it be Part 1 or Part 2 of the two years course, though with certain relaxations, benefits have been provided under the ordinances. His submission is that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Mundotia & Others Vs. University of Rajasthan & Others (supra) has expressly held that shortage of attendance would disentitle a candidate to take up the examination. According to learned counsel for the appellant-University, the right to admission and award of degree is only subject to fulfillment of statutory requirements as contained in the Ordinance of University and not de hors the same. Therefore, it is contended, the writ petition was wrongly allowed and Respondents No. 1 and 2 were not only entitled to any such relief as has been granted to them by the learned Single Judge. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2-writ petitioners would submit that the scheme as engrafted under Ordinance 326B, on rational interpretation, would mean that a candidate of B.Ed. Course is entitled to complete the course within a maximum period of three years from the date of admission. He would submit that such a condition of completion of course in three years impliedly means that even in case where a candidate has not been allowed to appear in the examination either in Part 1 or Part 2 of B.Ed. Course on account of shortage of attendance, it is open for him/her to seek readmission, again pursue the course, complete the attendance requirement and then again appear in the examination. According to learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2, if a candidate has to lose his/her opportunity to appear in the examination for all times to come on account of shortage of attendance in any of the two years, it would cause him serious hardship and, therefore, interpretation, which cause undue hardship, needs to be avoided. According to learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2, if a candidate has to lose his/her opportunity to appear in the examination for all times to come on account of shortage of attendance in any of the two years, it would cause him serious hardship and, therefore, interpretation, which cause undue hardship, needs to be avoided. He would also submit that the factual premise on which decision was rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Mundotia & Others Vs. University of Rajasthan & Others (supra) were different from the present case. The said decision cannot be applied universally in all circumstances. He would next submit that in one of the judgments of this Court in the case of University of Rajasthan, Jaipur through its Registrar Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Bairwa and Mahatma Gandhi College of Education, Jaipur (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 310/2010 decided on 09.11.2010), in identical facts and situation, even when the Court found that the candidate was allegedly denied participation in the examination on account of shortage of attendance, the Court permitted the writ petitioner therein to complete the attendance in the current academic session and directed that on fulfillment of such condition, he be permitted to appear in the examination. Therefore, the relief granted to Respondents No. 1 and 2 does not warrant interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the order under challenge. 8. As to whether a candidate, who has failed to fulfill the requirement of minimum attendance, would be entitled to seek readmission in the next year and again take up the examination, would necessarily depend upon the examination and analysis of the scheme of examination for B.Ed. Course as provided in the Ordinances. 8. As to whether a candidate, who has failed to fulfill the requirement of minimum attendance, would be entitled to seek readmission in the next year and again take up the examination, would necessarily depend upon the examination and analysis of the scheme of examination for B.Ed. Course as provided in the Ordinances. The relevant Ordinances, which were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge are Ordinances 323, 324, 325 and 326, for convenience and reference, are reproduced hereunder: “O.323 No candidate shall be allowed to appear in the B.Ed examination part 1 & 2nd unless he/she has attended (80% for all course work & practicum, and 90% for school internship.) O.324 The examination for Degree of Bachelor of education for two years shall be in two parts-part 1st comprising theory papers & part 2 practice of teaching in accordance with the scheme of examination laid down from time to time. A candidate may in addition offer a special course in any one of the specialization prescribed under the scheme of examination from time to time, and if successful as mentioned to this effect will be made in the degree awarded to him. O.325 Candidates who fall in B.Ed examination in part 1or/ part 2 the theory of education may present themselves for re-examination there in at a subsequent examination without attending a further course at an affiliated training college. Provided that a candidate who fails in any one of the theory papers and secures at least 48% marks in the aggregate of the remaining theory papers may be allowed to reappear in the examination in the immediately following year in the paper in which he/she fails only. He/she shall be declared to have passed if he secures minimum passing marks prescribed for the paper in which he appeared and shall be deemed to have secured minimum passing marks only prescribed for the paper (irrespective of the marks actually obtained by him) for the purpose of determining his division in accordance with the scheme of examination. The candidate shall have to repeat the whole examination in subsequent year in case he fails to clear the paper in which he failed. O.326 Candidates who fail in the B.Ed. The candidate shall have to repeat the whole examination in subsequent year in case he fails to clear the paper in which he failed. O.326 Candidates who fail in the B.Ed. examination part 1 and part 2 only in the practice of teaching may appear in the practical examination in the subsequent year provided that they keep regular terms for four calendar months per year and give at-least 40 lessons (20 in part 1 & 20 in part 2) supervised lessons. O.326A: A candidate who complete a regular course of study in accordance with the provision laid down in the ordinance, at an affiliated teacher’s training college for two academic year but for good reasons fails to appear at the B.Ed. examination may be admitted to a subsequent examination as an Ex-student as defined in O.325 or O.326 above. O.326B: No candidate shall be permitted to appear as an Ex-student at more than one subsequent examination. The B.Ed program shall be of a duration of two academic years, which can be completed in a maximum of three years from the date of admission to the P.Ed. O.326C: A candidate who passed B.Ed. examination of this University or B.Ed examination of another University recognized by the Syndicate may be permitted to take a special course in a subject if he did not offer a course in the year which he passed the examination or in case he passed with a special course other than the one offered by him for the examination provided that in each case.” 9. Ordinance 323 is couched in negative language by providing that no candidate shall be allowed to appear in the B.Ed examination Part 1 and 2, unless he/she has attended (80% for all course work and practicum, and 90% for school internship). Ordinances 325, 326 and 326A deal with attendance. According to the provisions contained in Ordinance 325, candidates who fail in B.Ed examination in part 1 or/ part 2 in the theory of education are entitled to present themselves for re-examination at a subsequent examination without attending a further course at an affiliated training college. Ordinance 326 deals with another contingency where a candidate who fails in the B.Ed. According to the provisions contained in Ordinance 325, candidates who fail in B.Ed examination in part 1 or/ part 2 in the theory of education are entitled to present themselves for re-examination at a subsequent examination without attending a further course at an affiliated training college. Ordinance 326 deals with another contingency where a candidate who fails in the B.Ed. examination part 1 and part 2 only in the practice of teaching by providing that he/she may appear in the practical examination in the subsequent year provided that they keep regular terms for four calendar months per year and give at least 40 lessons (20 in part 1 & 20 in part 2) supervised lessons. 10. A comparative and comprehensive reading of the provisions contained in Ordinances 325 and 326 would reveal that they deal with a situation where a candidate has failed in the examination whether it be a practical or theory part. Obviously, a candidate, who has failed is one who was allowed to participate in the process of examination, which in turn would mean that he/she had secured minimum attendance. Therefore, the aforesaid two provisions only deal with those who have failed in the examination. These two provisions deal with a contingency as to what will happen where a candidate who completes a regular course of study in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Ordinance at a valid teachers training college for two academic years but for good reasons fail to appear in B.Ed. examination. Such a candidate may be admitted to a subsequent examination as ex-student as defined in Ordinances 325 and 326. 11. Ordinance 326A deals with third contingency. Except three contingencies, no other contingency has been provided in that Ordinance. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no provision which allows a candidate, who has failed to secure minimum required attendance, to appear in the examination either in the same year by condoning shortage of attendance or in the subsequent year either as ex-student or as a regular student by allowing him/her readmission. 12. Ordinance 326B, on which much emphasis has been laid, requires to be closely analysed. First part of Ordinance 326B provides that no candidate shall be permitted to appear as an Ex-student at more than one subsequent examination. 12. Ordinance 326B, on which much emphasis has been laid, requires to be closely analysed. First part of Ordinance 326B provides that no candidate shall be permitted to appear as an Ex-student at more than one subsequent examination. This clearly appears to be a capping because in the preceding Ordinances, opportunity to appear as ex-student has been provided to those who have failed in the examination. This also is indicative of the fact that facility to appear in the examination in the subsequent years is confined only to those who are ex-students. We do not find any provision allowing readmission in any of the parts of the B.Ed. Course. Furthermore, the Ordinance does not provide for any benefit like those granted to failed candidates in case where a candidate fails to fulfill minimum required attendance. 13. Second part of Ordinance 326B provides that the B.Ed program shall be of a duration of two academic years, which can be completed in a maximum of three years from the date of admission to the P.Ed. This again is in the nature of a limiting clause. Therefore, where a candidate has failed in the examination, though is entitled to appear as ex-student, this should be completed within three years. It clearly means that if a candidate fails in the second year in Part 2 of the B.Ed. course, he/she is required to take up the examination in the very next year and not on his/her choice. 14. Thus, both the parts of Ordinance 326B do not deal with a situation, either expressly or by implication, where a candidate has failed to secure minimum attendance requirements. The Ordinance is silent about the same. Even Ordinance 326C also does not deal with such a situation. 15. The provision appears to be harsh because in the absence of there being express provision contained, if a candidate of any of the years of B.Ed. course fails to secure minimum required attendance, he/she has no option but to leave the course and again seek readmission. But then, in the absence of any challenge to the said provision, we are unable to give it a meaning other than what obviously follow on a rational and logical interpretation as has been put on the same in analysis hereinabove. 16. But then, in the absence of any challenge to the said provision, we are unable to give it a meaning other than what obviously follow on a rational and logical interpretation as has been put on the same in analysis hereinabove. 16. The provisions contained in Ordinance 323 that no candidate shall be allowed to appear in the B.Ed examination part 1 and 2 unless he/she has attended (80% for all course work and practicum, and 90% for school internship) is to be read in the context of the provisions which limit the candidates’ right to appear in the examination in two years. The interpretation placed upon the provision that this would include the right that a candidate is entitled to get readmission in the third year and complete the shortage, as we have stated hereinabove, is not referred to hereinabove. The interpretation, which has been placed by us, finds support from the judgment of the Division of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Mundotia & Others Vs. University of Rajasthan & Others (supra) where the aforesaid Ordinance 326B was interpreted. It was held as below: “We have examined Ordinance 325 of the University Ordinance which inter alia provides that candidates who fail in B.Ed. Examination in part I or/ Part 2 the theory of education may present themselves for re-examination there in at a subsequent examination without attending a further course at an affiliated training college. Ordinance 326 of the University Ordinance provides that the candidates who fail in the B.Ed. examination Part I and II only in the practice of teaching and internship may appear in the practical examination in the subsequent year provided that they keep regular terms for four calendar months per year and give at least 20 lessons (10 in part 1 and 10 in part 2) supervised lessons. Ordinance 326A provides that a candidate who complete a regular course of study in accordance with the provision laid down in the ordinance, at an affiliated teacher’s training college for two academic year but for good reasons fails to appear at the B.Ed. examination may be admitted to a subsequent examination as an Ex-student as defined in Ordinance 325 or 326. Ordinance 326B provides that no candidate shall be permitted to appear as an ex-student at more than one subsequent examination. The B.Ed. examination may be admitted to a subsequent examination as an Ex-student as defined in Ordinance 325 or 326. Ordinance 326B provides that no candidate shall be permitted to appear as an ex-student at more than one subsequent examination. The B.Ed. programme shall be of duration of two academic years, which can be completed in a maximum of three years from the date of admission to the B.Ed. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid clauses of the University Ordinance would make it clear that a candidate, who has completed required minimum attendance in Part I and II, may be permitted to appear in examination of III year as ex-student. That is why maximum duration of B.Ed. has been indicated to be three years but there is no escapement from attendance. If the attendance falls short from minimum requirement, then such candidate/student cannot be granted degree.” Therefore, it is quite clear that the benefit of appearing in the examination in the subsequent year as ex-student is confined to those who failed to secure minimum required attendance. 17. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of University of Rajasthan, Jaipur through its Registrar Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Bairwa and Mahatma Gandhi College of Education, Jaipur (supra). After going through the said judgment, we find that in that case also, the Division Bench of this Court held that the candidates having failed to secure minimum attendance were not entitled to appear in the examination. However, thereafter, it was not considered as an issue raised by the parties before the Court as to whether in such a case, the candidate would be entitled to readmission in the next year to complete the minimum attendance requirement and then appear in the examination. All that which was held by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case reads as below: “Shri Jai Kishan Yogi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-respondent no.1, has prayed that petitioner-respondent no.1 may be permitted to pursue B.Ed. course and to give main examination on completion of requisite attendance. Prayer being reasonable is hereby allowed. Petitioner, in case is able to complete attendance in the current academic session, be permitted to appear in exam. No costs.” 18. course and to give main examination on completion of requisite attendance. Prayer being reasonable is hereby allowed. Petitioner, in case is able to complete attendance in the current academic session, be permitted to appear in exam. No costs.” 18. In view of above consideration, the decision in the case of University of Rajasthan, Jaipur through its Registrar Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Bairwa and Mahatma Gandhi College of Education, Jaipur (supra) does not constitute a binding precedent. Rather, elaborate consideration based on interpretation of statutory scheme contained in the Ordinances in the case of Rajasthan & Others (supra) lays down the ratio, which is binding precedent. 19. Though it has not been argued, nor any decision has been rendered by learned Single Judge, in order to find out whether it is permissible under the law to consider condonation of shortage of attendance, we enquired from learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant-University fairly submits that there is provision of condonation of shortage of attendance as contained in Ordinance 145. However, the same would not be applicable in the present case as condonation of absence is limited to certain percentage of shortage of attendance ranging from 3% to 6%. We also enquired whether shortage of attendance of Respondents No.1 and 2 is within the aforesaid limit so that some direction could be issued to consider the case of Respondents No. 1 and 2. However, to the misfortune of Respondents No.1 and 2, their percentage of shortage of attendance is far more than what is permissible under Ordinance 145. 20. A writ of mandamus can be issued to perform statutory/legal obligation or to enforce a statutory/legal/constitutional right. Once we have held that there is neither any statutory right in favour of petitioners, nor statutory obligation cast upon the appellant-University, in our considered opinion, writ of mandamus could not be issued to the appellant-University to award degree to Respondents No. 1 and 2. In view of above, we are unable to uphold the directions which have been issued by the learned Single Judge. 21. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.