[2026:RJ-JP:1844] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 501/2020 Yogesh Dadhich S/o Shrawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Krishnapuri, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10922/2020 Yogesh Dadhich S/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Krishanpuri, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, J.l.n Marg, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta. Mr. Nakul Bansal. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Maloo. Mr. Vishnu Bohra. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 16/01/2026 1. Both the writ petitions arising out of issue relating to the petitioner's entitlement to continue the Course by pursuing the 3rd and 4th semester of MPEd Course and appearance of petitioner in examination. 2. SBCW No. 10922/2020 is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to sit in the Course and SBCW No. 501/2020 is filed challenging the [2026:RJ-JP:1844] (2 of 5) [CW-501/2020] action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to sit in the examination. 3. This Court by way of interim orders in both the writ petitions, directed the respondent-Authority to allow the petitioner to sit in the examination. 4. The application is now filed seeking direction that the results may be declared as the interim direction was given not to declare the result, even though the petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination. 5. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petitions are that the petitioner has joined the MPEd Course in the year 2015-16 and the said Course is for the period of two years. The petitioner completed 1st year Course by sitting in the 1st and 2nd semester. Before commencing the 2nd year Course i.e. 3rd and 4th semester, it appears that the petitioner gained employment with the Government. As a result, he could not pursue his 2nd year Course. After completing the probation, he made a request before the Appointing Authority to pursue the said discontinued Course while granting him study leave. The Appointing Authority recommended the case for grant of study leave to the Higher Authority. Basing on such recommendation, the petitioner seems to have made a request before the University to allow him to continue the 2nd year MPEd Course i.e. to allow him to pursue the 3rd and 4th semester of the said Course. When the permission was not given to pursue the remaining discontinued Course, the petitioner filed the present writ petition being SBCW No. 501/2020. When the examination [2026:RJ-JP:1844] (3 of 5) [CW-501/2020] schedule was declared, the petitioner filed another writ petition being SBCW No. 10922/2020 seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to allow him to sit in the examination. 6. The case of the respondents is that the duration of the said Course is of 02 years and the Course must be completed within the extended period of one year. The petitioner, after completing the 1st year Course, discontinued the 2nd year Course on account of his gainful employment and subsequently, he approached the respondent-University seeking permission to allow him to sit in the Course without obtaining any permission from the Employer i.e. the State Government. However, when such a permission was not granted, he was not allowed to sit in the examination. Challenging the same, the writ petition being SBCW No. 501/2020 has filed and this Court by way of interim orders, permitted the petitioner to sit in the examination and subsequently, the petitioner filed another writ petition being SBCW No.10922/2020 seeking direction to the respondent- Authorities to allow him to sit in the Course. Without pursuing the said Course, the petitioner cannot be permitted to sit in the examination and his results cannot be declared and he is not entitled for any issuance of Course' Completion Certificate. 7. It is also the case of the respondents that the Course' Duration was of 02 years and further extended for 01 year. That means the Course must have been completed by 2017- 18. The writ petitions are filed in the year 2020. Though the [2026:RJ-JP:1844] (4 of 5) [CW-501/2020] interim directions were given to the petitioner to allow him to sit in the examination, even though when the results are declared, the petitioner is not entitled to grant any Course' Completion Certificate for the reason that the petitioner did not sit in the Course by completing the remainder one year duration; therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions. 8. The undisputed facts revealed from the case of both the parties are that the petitioner's duration of the Course was 02 years, from which, 1st year Course is completed and the 2nd year Course is discontinued for the reason of gainful employment. The petitioner has not produced any permission from the Employer to allow him to complete the remaining Course. Further the maximum period allowed for the Course was 03 years and the petitioner is not able to bring out before this Court any power to relax such a condition existing with the University. Further, unless the petitioner is allowed to sit in the Course, he cannot be allowed to sit in the examination; till date no such permission is granted. Therefore, he has no right to participate in the examination. Even though, the petitioner participated in the examination, as a consequence of interim directions granted by this Court and even the petitioner's results are declared, he is not entitled for grant of any Course' Completion Certificate, even if, he has successfully passed 3rd and 4th semester of the 2nd year Course for the reason that the Course itself is a regular Course and he had [2026:RJ-JP:1844] (5 of 5) [CW-501/2020] not appeared in the Course for 3rd and 4th semester of the 2nd year Course with the authorization. 9. In view aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the present writ petitions are misconceived and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, the present writ petitions are dismissed. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J Poonam/8-9