( 1 ) BY our order dated 11-9-81 we had summarily rejected the above four Misc. Civil applications for review of the order passed by the then Chief Justice B. J. Divan and myself as per our judgment dated 18-8-81 in the special civil applications nos. 2530 and 2779 of 1981 (Miss Sonal P. Shah v. Guj. Uni. XXII G. L. R. 934) First of those two petitions was Sled by four students three of whom were regular students of M. A. Part I whereas the fourth student was an external student for the said examination. In the second petition the petitioners were the external students of the very examination. The subject matter of the challenge in the first of the two petitions was the decision of the Gujarat University purporting to be dated 19-6-81 pursuant to which the University had decided to grant mass promotions to its students who were in the first year and second year of B. A. B. Sc. and B. Com. courses and who were the students of M. A. M. Sc. and M Com. part I examinations but in respect of postgraduate students of Part I examina- tion the benefit was confined only to regular students and not to external students By the order of the Division Bench of this court to which I was a party as one of the two Judges it was held that the decision of the University grant mass promotion was bad at law and it was further directed that the respondent University should hold the examinations for M. A. part I and all other examinations without mass promotions which were ordered to he given. In the second petition also a declaration was granted that the respondent-University had no power or authority to promote any student to any class without holding appropriate examinations.

( 2 ) IN those two petition the Gujarat University was the respondent no. 1 and the State of Gujarat was the respondent no. 2 as it was alleged that the decision of the Gujarat University was the outcome of undue pressure exerted by the State of Gujarat on the University. This allegation against the State was negatived by us as not having been substantiated. Qua the State the matters since then rested there and in the present proceedings the State has still been impleaded as a party only by way of abundant caution and the State has rightly sat on the fence declaring that they had nothing to say one way or the other.

( 3 ) THE Misc. Civil application no 434/81 is filed by the Gujarat University against the judgment in the special civil application no. 2530 of 1981 whereas the second Misc. Civil application no 435/81 is filed by the very University against the judgment in the special civil application no. 2779 of 1981. It is to be noted that both the special civil applications were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment but the University by way of abundant caution has filed two separate review applications registered with the office as the Misc. Civil application nos. 434 and 435 of 1981 impleading the respective petitioners of those two petitions and the State of Gujarat as opponents in these review petitions.

( 4 ) THE Misc. Civil applications nos. 458 and 459 of 1981 were filed by six students studying in the undergraduate courses of this university styling their applications as review applications under sec. 114 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 226 of the Constitution and inherent powers of the Honble High Court. The said students are required to file two applications because by common judgment the two special civil applica- tions nos. 2530 and 2779 of 1981 were disposed of.

( 5 ) INITIALLY the two earlier review applications bad come up before the Honble Chief Justice M. P. Thakkar and myself for admissional hearing and ultimately all these matter have been entrusted to us as the members of the Full Bench. The Honble Chief Justice has assigned these matters to us by virtue of his administrative powers under Rule 2 (6) of Part I of High-Court Appellate Side Rules. We heard the matters on 8-9-81 9 and 10-9-81 and after some hearing