Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J (Oral):— By way of this petition, the petitioner has questioned the Clauses 10.2 and 10.7 of Ordinance-10 of the respondent-University because of which, she was not permitted to take her Third Semester examination as she fall short in the requisite attendance. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 388 of 2016 but the Ordinance providing for the requisite attendance had not been challenged, and in view of the provisions contained in the Ordinance, she was not entitled to any relief. However, the said petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
2. The petitioner and another similarly situated candidate, who was also denied permission to appear in the examination for shortage of attendance, have filed fresh petitions questioning the particular Clauses of the Ordinance as being arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. These petitions were admitted for consideration on 16.12.2016
3. However, so far the present petitioner is concerned, the respondent-University has alleged that she had procured her Transfer Certificate on 02.12.2016 i.e, even before filing of this writ petition on 14.12.2016 It is, thus, contended that the petition is not maintainable. As regards the other contentions, it is alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is barred from challenging the rules and regulations or Ordinance of the University for, she had specifically undertaken to abide by the same at the time of taking admission.
4. The response affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, with the submissions that she has no intention to violate any undertaking but is pursuing her legal right to attend the academic programme in the respondent-University. As regards the matter concerning her procuring the Transfer Certificate, it is submitted that only after raising of such an issue in this petition, she has realised that amongst several documents handed over to her by the authorities, she had been issued the Transfer Certificate also. It is submitted that the petitioner was rather surprised and confused; and that she had never applied for a Transfer Certificate.
5. So far the present petition is concerned, we have expressed reservations in continuing with the same for the simple reason that the Transfer Certificate in question was definitely available with the petitioner at the time of filing this petition on 14.12.2016 but the same was neither referred to nor challenged in this petition. Faced with this position, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission for this petitioner again to withdraw so as to file another petition on all the grounds of challenge.
6. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University has opposed the prayer for withdrawal with the submissions that the fact regarding the Transfer Certificate was concealed in the writ petition but looking to the overall circumstances and particularly the fact that the matter concerns the academic career of the petitioner, we are inclined to extend indulgence of withdrawal with liberty to file afresh. Of course, in the interest of justice, it is provided that all the objections of the respondent shall remain open for consideration in the fresh petition, if filed by the petitioner.
7. With the observations foregoing, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw; and this petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.