The court affirmed that university ordinances prescribing maximum duration for course completion are mandatory and binding; judicial discipline requires courts to follow settled Division Bench precedents rather than allowing relaxations based on isolated equitable facts in distinct cases.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. In the instant matter learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 772/2021 titled Rajasthan University of Rajasthan Vs. Mahesh Joshi & Anr. order dated 08.12.2022, and submitted that the lis at hand does not survive, in view of the said ratio.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16788/2022 titled Ms. Seema Pargi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. order dated 16.04.2026 wherein it is submitted that considering the Ordinance 299-V-10 and distinction drawn from the above referred judgment and the writ petition was allowed.

3. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments cited at the Bar.

4. In the case in hand, respondents have contended that the same facts, same point of law was considered in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 772/2021 (supra), thus, it is noted that the fact qua the students who have consumed more than 8 years, qua B. Pharmacy and B.Sc. (Nursing) course, was duly considered. The Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 772/2021 (supra) has categorically held that the same is not permissible under the said Ordinance.

5. Contrarily, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners upon Ms. Seema Pargi (supra) pertains to distinct facts, as therein the petitioner who was student of B.Sc. course was not permitted to appear in two papers in forth year examination, due to non completion of her forth year course, within a period of eight years, thus, the Court has made a distinction that petitioner was already granted permission by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 09.11.2022 to write the examination on two due papers and result thereof was declared subsequently, and she was declared pass in both the said papers. The Court has held that under due circumstances equity was created and the case was on peculiar facts. Howsoever, this Court is of a distinct view and is in conformity with the order passed by the Division Bench.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, and following the principle of judicial discipline, this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant petitions in view of the ratio passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 772/2021 (supra), which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. Accordingly, the instant bunch of the petitions are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.