The court affirmed that while the right to education is fundamental, adherence to procedural timelines is essential for academic participation.

ORDER

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The present writ petitions are common to the extent that all pertains to Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and the petitioners herein are contesting their right to give their respective examinations. Counsel for the petitioner submits that looking into extreme hardship caused to students due to pandemic Covid-19, an extra-ordinary situation has arisen leading to disturbance in academic schedule, resulting into all of the students coming to this Court for saving their academic year. Counsel for the petitioner submits that they are students of B.Com, B.A., B.Sc, M.Sc, M.A., LLB and BBA LLB.

3. The basic contention of counsel for the petitioner is that due to extreme pandemic condition lock-down, curfew/restriction, the petitioners could not fill-in their examination form in time, thus, were deprived of their right to appear in their respective exam and upon approaching this Court, this Court permitted them to appear in exam provisionally without creating any right in their favour. Counsel for the petitioner submits that outcome of their appearing in respective examination under the interim order is that they ought to be given benefit of being promoted according to their results. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that right to education is a fundamental right even in higher education and any deviation from academic year would result into extreme hardship and disturbance to the career of petitioners.

Counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments passed by this Court in :- Gulabchand Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1979/1984, decided on18.01.1985); Smt. Neetu Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6556/2005, decided on 01.12.2006); Nitesh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner & Ors.(D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.244/2016, decided on 25.05.2016); Niharika Tak Vs. The University of Jodhpur (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.72/1981, decided on 12.01.1983); Shilpi Lodha Vs. Registrar, National Law University (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2354/2017, decided on 22.05.2017).

4. Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petitions on the count that as per Ordinance 82 R/w Ordinance 111, the fee deposition schedule is prescribed alongwith late fee. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ruchit Ojha Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4990/2020, decided on 02.03.2021), relevant portion whereof reads as follows :-

"7. Learned counsel tried to justify filing of the subsequent/present petition by arguing that since the University itself has decided to promote the students to next class, the petitioner had preferred the writ petition in a bid to avail such opportunity.

8. In considered opinion of this Court, the notification dated 20.6.2020 nowhere requires any application form to be filled-in by the student.

9. The petitioner's right of submitting application form has earlier been adjudicated and decided by this Court. The writ petition was withdrawn when this Court was not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner.

10. In earlier writ petition, the petitioner had sought an interim direction to allow him to sit in the examination of II year when one paper was already over and petitioner had not even filled the examination form.

11. In the facts of the present case filing of fresh petition is a clear abuse of the process.12. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed, however, without any cost, considering that petitioner is a student. "

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of Ruchit Ojha (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as the reason in the petition included multiplicity of petitions whereas in the present case no such multiple petitions have been reported.

6. Upon hearing counsel for the parties at length and perusing