The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding academic standards and not interfering in academic discipline, as emphasized by legal precedents cited by the court.

JUDGMENT

1. Since, these writ petitions share common facts and questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided vide this common order.

2. In all these cases, the petitioners, who are students of B.Sc. (Nursing) four years course, were admitted in the course in the year 2013. They are aggrieved of the action of the respondent, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (for brevity- 'RUHS') whereby, they have been denied permission to write the remaining papers(s) of B.Sc. (Nursing) course, examination-2022.

3. The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that since, after their admission in the year 2013, examination for the first time took place in the year 2015 and not in the year 2014, the Ordinance, 299-V-10 does not come in way of permitting them to write the remaining papers(s) in the examination-2022. They submit that although, the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Fauran Singh v. RUHS and Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10298/2019 and other connected matters, has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.77/2021; but, since mere stay does not wipe out its effect as the special appeal is still pending, this Court must allow these writ petitions on the basis of judgment in case of Fauran Singh (supra). They, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and action of the respondent-

4. RUHS be quashed and set aside which may be directed to permit them to write the remaining papers of B.Sc. (Nursing) four years course in examination-2022.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the RUHS submits that as per the amended as also under the un-amended provision of Ordinance 299-V-10 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances, the course of B.Sc. (Nursing) is required to be completed within maximum eight years. He submits that since, the petitioners could not complete the same within the aforesaid period, they are not entitled to appear in the remaining paper(s). Refuting the contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners that since their first exam of B.Sc. (Nursing) course was conducted in the year 2015 instead of the year 2014, they are entitled for one more chance, he submits that the examination of B.Sc. (Nursing) Part-1 was scheduled in the month of December, 2014 and was delayed by a month only and hence, the restrictions imposed by the Ordinance cannot be relaxed. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic situation, the petitioners were given additiional chance upto April, 2022 to clear the due paper(s) but they failed therein also. He submits that since the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Fauran Singh has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court, no relief can be extended to the petitioners based on that judgment. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. Indisputably, as per Ordinance 299-V-10, a candidate of B.Sc. (Nursing) course is required to complete it within a period of eight years. Although, Part-1 examination of B.Sc. (Nursing) course for the students admitted in the year 2013 was conducted in the month of January, 2015, which was scheduled in the month of December, 2014; still, the period of eight years, even if counted from the year 2015, comes to an end in year 2021 and hence, the respondent has rightly denied the petitioners permission to write the due paper(s) in ensuing examination-2022. The petitioners have even failed to clear the due paper(s) in the extended chance given upto the month of April, 2022.

8. It is trite law that Court should not interfere in the academic discipline.

9. A three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (1992)4SCC435, held as under:

"12. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient manage