HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6361/2025 Mayank Bhumla S/o Shri Jagdish Patel, Aged About 25 Years, Profession- LL.b. Student R/o 80, Opposite Gopal Takeej, Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Through Registrar Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/2025 Hemant Khandelwal S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Khandelwal, Aged About 45 Years, Profession- LL.b. Student R/o Near Jain Aushadhlaya, Halwai Para, Alwar (Pin 301001) (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Through Registrar Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varendra Kumar Bakshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Maloo HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 30/07/2025 1. Petitioners have come out with following prayers in the instant writ petitions: “I. to direct the respondent to promote petitioner for second year LL.B. Class as per University of Rajasthan examination rules or Ambedkar University examination rules for LL.B. year 2020- 21, 2021-2022 and year 2022-23. II. to set aside Ambedkar University examination rules. III. to follow examination rules of University of Rajasthan. (2 of 2) [CW-6361/2025] IV. to pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioner. V. The costs of litigation may kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Prayer-I of writ petitions is dependent upon prayer-II. 3. It has been contended in these writ petitions by petitioners that since they failed to secure 48% marks in LLB Ist Year, therefore, they have not been promoted to LLB IInd Year. 4. Petitioners have prayed for quashing Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University Examination Rules in their entirety. However, upon perusal of the pleadings, this Court finds that writ petitions are bereft of any fundamental facts or specific grounds warranting such a challenge. Petitioners have neither identified any particular provision allegedly causing miscarriage of justice to them, nor have they demonstrated how such Rules infringe upon any of their fundamental rights. It is a settled principle that a statutory Rule can be challenged only on ground of being ultra vires the parent statute, violative of constitutional provisions, or enacted by an authority lacking competence. No such averments or material are forthcoming in present petitions. 5. In view of above, we find no merit or substance in petitioners’ challenge to the impugned Rules or in consequential prayers made by them. Therefore, writ petitions stand dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ RAJAT/NEERU/80-81