25. There can be no cavil with the proposition enunciating the above-extracted passage. A finding, which is dependant on the facts and circumstances of a case, obviously does not constitute a binding precedent, or “law declared”, within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is also a trite principle that the ratio decidendi of a judgment is the statement of the law as applied to the legal problems raised by the facts as found, upon which the decision was based. If one were, however, to apply the said principle to the judgment of the Division Bench in Awadesh Kumar (supra), one finds, even from a reading of the second para of the judgment, that the challenge of the petitioner in that case, as squarely laid before the Division Bench, was that, though he could not complete the L.L.B. course during the prescribed span period, he was entitled to appear in the back papers even beyond the span period. The challenge in that case was, therefore, identical to that in the present case. In the awareness of the existence of Ordinance X-C, the Division Bench has held that there is no provision of relaxation of the span period, and, consequently, that no right could be claimed by any student, to appear in back papers beyond the span period. The appeal of the appellant Awadesh Kumar was also, as a result, dismissed. Clearly, therefore, the italicised findings in para 6 of the judgment in Awadesh Kumar (supra) , constitutes the ratio decidendi of the said decision, applying the understanding of the concept of ratio decidendi , as enunciated in para 22 of Dalbir Singh (supra), on which Mr. Saini seeks to rely.
