ORDER B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.10.2003, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for admission in LL. M. Course on the ground that the admission stood closed on 16.8.2003, and the result of the appellant of revaluation was declared on 15.9.2003.
2. In the instant case, admittedly, the applicant could get the marks which could have made him eligible for admission in LL.M. Course only by revaluation and its result was declared on 15.9.2003 and admission stood closed on 16th August. 2003.
3. The result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. Therefore, if the result of a candidate is not declared till the last date of submission of the application, he becomes ineligible for making application. Vide U. P. Public Service Commissioner v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 : Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandra Sekhar. (1997) 4 SCC 18 : State of Rqjasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, JT 1997 (7) SC 287 ; Vtkal University v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 193 and Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 706.
4. In Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U. P. and Ors.. AIR 1991 SC 1131, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in any training or technical course, once the classes have started, the Court should not issue direction for admission in the mid of the academic session. The Apex Court held that in a technical course, to admit a student after four months of commencement, would not at all be justified.
5. Same view was reiterated in Dr. Pramod Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India. (1991) 2 SCC 179 ; State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, 1992 (3) AWC 1804 (SC) : 1993 (Supp) 1 SCC 594 and Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 258. In which the Apex Court held that in order to maintain excellence it is not permissible to permit admission in the mid of academic session for the reason that the student could have no opportunity to study the full course to reach his excellence or come at par excellence. Admission in the mid term would disturb the course and also work as a handicap to the student himself to achieve the excellence.
6. In State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla, (1994) 1 SCC 175, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved the orders passed by various High Courts issuing directions for admission of the student after commencement of the courses.
7. Thus, in view of the above, the legal position emerges that it is not permissible for the Courts to issue direction for admission in the mid of the academic session as the candidate would not be able to complete the course and achieve the excellence.
8. Thus, in view of the above, as the result of the revaluation was subsequent to the date of the closure of admission and the course has started about three months ago, no direction can be issued to admit the appellant in LL.M. course even if the vacancy arises.
9. Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.