M.C. Jain, J.
1. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4159/83 University of Jodhpur v. Kamlesh Kumar Khatri, decided on December 5, 1984 this writ petition has to be dismissed as their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not agreed with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. In the aforesaid appeal, that view has been reversed and their Lordships of the Supreme Court have agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 442 of 1982- Sitaram v. University of Jodhpur, decided on May 12, 1982,
2. Although, the writ petition has to be dismissed but a controversy has arisen in this writ petition as to whether the petitioner can be allowed to take the benefit or advantage of an interim , order passed by this Court in pursuance of which the petitioner has given an undertaking to the effect that he will not claim any benefit and advantage under the interim order of this Court. The petitioner, under the interim order was allowed to keep terms and in pursuance thereof the petitioner has appeared in the' next higher class keeping terms. It may also be stated here that a regular examination was also conducted in October 1984, but in view of the interim order of this Court the petitioner could not appear in that regular examination held in 1984.
3. Much arguments have been advanced by Mr. Parekh appearing on behalf of the University that when the petitioner has given an undertaking that he will not claim any benefit and advantage under the interim order and it the Court allows to by pass the undertaking the breach of undertaking would be nothing short of contempt of this Court. He also contended that the interim order passed by this Court is binding on the parties and the petitioner now cannot be allowed to give a go by to the interim order in pursuance of which an undertaking has been submitted by him.
4. How far the above contentions have validity and force, can he examined in the light of the circumstances, which cannot be lost sight of. It may stated that a final view was given by a Division Bench of this court. Till that view is set aside the view given by the Division Bench was binding on all courts and authorities in the Mate of Rajasthan and under the decision of the Division Bench, benefit of admission could have been and should have been given to the petitioner keeping terms. In Kamlesh Kumar Khatri's appeal before the Supreme Court, the operation of the Division Bench's decision was not stayed. So the view of the Division Bench was good and in accordance with that view, it became the bounden duty of all to abide by that decision. so far as Kamlesh Kumar Khatri's case is concerned it is true that special leave was granted by the Supreme Court subject to the condition that the order granting leave will not prejudice the respondent Kamlesh Kumar Khatri was allowed to keep terras pursuant to the order of the Division Bench. However, the Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal in its order made it clear that the order of the Supreme Court will not in any way prejudice Shri Khatri. This Court directed the petitioner to furnish an undertaking, pursuant to which undertaking was given This Court could have passed the interim order in the right of the Division Bench decision which, was binding on the Single Judge. Direction of giving an undertaking would not in any way affect the petitioner's case. In any case, the petitioner was allowed to sake admission keeping terms and the University under the orders of the Court gave admission. If this Court allows the petitioner to take benefit or advantage under the orders of the Court, then this by no stretch of imagination can be considered to constitute breach of undertaking on the part of petitioner. In my opinion, considerations of equity cannot be ignored by this Court, despite the fact that under the direction of this Court an undertaking has been furnished by the petitioner. Petitioner's interest otherwise would suffer in the manner that when he has been given admission keeping terms, he could not undertake examination, which was held by the University in October, 1984. The matter can also be judged from this aspect as well that the writ petition could have been disposed of in the light of the Division Bench decision, then the petitioner would have become entitled to keep terms. In view of Kamleshkumar Khatri's case pending before the Supreme Court, this petition was not disposed of.
5. Similarly, so far as the binding character of the interim order is concerned, suffice it to say, that while passing the final order in the case, the Court can take into consideration the events, which have taken place so far and the Court is free to adjudge the equities between the parties. In view of the interim order the petitioner could not take regular examination held in 984. If equity is not adjudicata, it would mean that the petitioner would suffer double loss. In pursuance of the admission taken, he will have no benefit and the benefit of appearing in the regular examination has already gone out of his hands. It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court has consistently in number of decisions have settled the equities between the students and Education Authorities in the manner that whatever advantage the students have taken in pursuance of the order,. those advantages, they were allowed to reap. When the admissions were given even to the ineligible candidates, who have passed the examinations, such advantages have been allowed by the Supreme Court. Reference may be made in this connection to Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew AIR 1980 SC 1230, Smita Johnbhai Master and Ors. v. State of Gujarat : AIR1981SC1633 , State of M.P v. Nivedita Jain : 1SCR759 , Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib : (1981)ILLJ103SC , Arti v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 0065/1981 : 3SCR34 , R.K. Khandelwal v. State of U.P. : 1SCR283 , State of M.P. v. Indian Medical Association : (1981)4SCC516 , Principal King George's Medical College v. Dr. Vishan Kumar Agrawal : 1SCR503 and Miss Neeharika Tak v. University of Jodhpur 1983 WLN (UC) 32.
6. Mr. Parekh has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati : 2SCR801 . Nowhere, in this judgment, it is pointed out that the Supreme Court has taken a view contrary to what has been expressed in the decisions referred to above.
7. In cases, dealing with the career of the students affecting their valuable and precious years of study, technicalities or legalism should not enter into consideration and humanistic approach should be adopted, while dealing with the educational matters of the young living beings. Furnishing of undertaking in pursuance of an order of the Court, in my opinion, should not come in the way in adopting the aforesaid approach. Various shades of interim orders are passed by the Courts but ultimately and finally the matter has to be judged and examined in the light of existing equities. Else, it may be that the order may be harsh and operating very hard on the life of a student. Guided by this consideration, in my opinion, despite the undertaking the petitioner can be allowed the benefit and advantage taken by him in pursuance of the order, whereby he was allowed to keep terms. If the petitioner has appeared in the examination keeping the terms, then the University is directed to declare his result and if he succeeds, then he shall be given the benefit thereof.
8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with the above observations and directions.