The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Regulation 17(a)-2(iii) and the court's reliance on precedents to allow the issuance of the consolidated marksheet of M.Sc. (Computer Science) M.D.S. University syllabus to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. The writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"A. by appropriate writ and direction the order the respondent University may kindly be directed to issue the consolidated marksheet of M.Sc. (Computer Science) MDSU syllabus Final Year immediately or within 07 days.

B. Any other appropriate writ, or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

C. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

3. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner took admission in PLV Memorial College, Jodhpur in the M.Sc. (Computer Science). The bone of contention is that the petitioner could not qualify two papers in M.Sc. (Previous), but was promoted to M.Sc. final year and was allowed to appear in the final year examination of M.Sc. (Computer Science) with the due papers. In the final examination held in 2015, though he passed in all other subjects but he again failed in MSC 106 Operating Systems of M.Sc. Pre. The petitioner again re-appeared in the examination Session of 2015-16 regarding the due papers whereby again he was declared failed in MSC 106 Operating Systems. In the meanwhile, the affiliation of the college, for the particular course, was transferred from M.D.S. University, Ajmer to J.N.V. University, Jodhpur. The University issued an advertisement on 27.04.2017 (Annexure-5) for the M.D.S. University, Ajmer syllabus that anybody with due papers are invited to give examination are having the last opportunity of clearing it, thereafter, no further examinations of M.D.S. University course would be conducted. The petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement, filled the form for Computer Science and deposited the examination fee. The petitioner was declared passed in the said examination, a copy of the mark-sheet dated 30.01.2018, issued by the respondent-University, which is Annexure-7 of the writ petition. The petitioner, thereafter, sought the marksheet so as to get the benefit of the overall qualification of M.Sc. but the same was not given, and thus, he had no option but to approach this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent University invited the students of M.D.S. University vide open advertisement, and thereafter, in pursuance of this advertisement, the petitioner submitted the examination fee and examination form which were accepted and the petitioner was given an entrance card, the fee receipts are also annexed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the proper marksheet was issued on passing the said examination and now the respondents are denying the M.Sc. Degree on the pretext that the petitioner was ineligible to fill the form as after two chances, he was not entitled to get the third chance. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents are barred by estoppel to take a stand of debarring the present petitioner from M.Sc. Degree on account of more than two chances in light of their own regulations because they with open eyes have invited the students, and thereafter, accepted the examination form and examination fee and allowed the petitioner to participate in the examination, which he consequently passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if some untoward information was concealed by the petitioner or there was some role attributed to the present petitioner, which would have resulted into his disqualification on ineligibility then it was upto the University to have debarred him, but the petitioner with a fair approach and a transparent procedure, applied for the examination and cleared the same, and thus, cannot be blamed