GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Dibrugarh University and other respondents praying for a writ of mandamus against them for commanding them to declare the petitioner to have passed the Final Law Examination held by the University in 1967. 2. The petitioner obtained degree of Bachelor of Arts in the year 1963 and was admitted in the Jorhat Law College in 1965 which is a recognised professional college under the Dibrugarh University for prosecuting the Bachelor of Law degree course. The Dibrugarh University by the First Regulations relating to the Curricula and Syllabi of Post-graduate courses made the Law Course to be of two years' dura­tion and was divided into Law (Previous) and Law (Final), one year for each part. The Law (Previous) Examination has six papers with 100 marks in each paper and the Law (Final) Examination similarly the remaining six papers with 100 marks in each paper. The petitioner passed the Law (Previous) Examination obtaining more than 50% of the aggregate of the total marks. In due course, he sat for the Final Examination, but when the results were announced he was not shown as success­ful candidate. In the Law (Previous) Exa­mination he passed in all the papers and secured 357 out of 600 marks. In the Law (Final) Examination, although he secured more than 30% of marks, which is the minimum pass mark, in all the papers, his aggregate marks were only 267, that is to say, 33 marks less than 300 which is the minimum aggregate which, it is said, he is required to obtain in order to pass. The petitioner represented to the University that he should have been dec­lared to have passed the Law (Final) Exa­mination in accordance with the Rules of the University, but the respondents did not accede to the prayer. 3. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the University is wrong in applying the rules applicable to the Law Examina­tion of the Gauhati University in failing the petitioner. According to him, the Uni­versity ought to have adopted the rules applicable to the Master of Arts degree of the Gauhati University where the examina­tion is held in two parts, namely Previous and Final. According to him, the Uni­versity ought to have adopted the rules applicable to the Master of Arts degree of the Gauhati University where the examina­tion is held in two parts, namely Previous and Final. The learned counsel, in sup­port of his submission, draws our attention to the First Regulations of the Dibrugarh University published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated October 13, 1965 at page 616. By Article 3 (1), the Curricula, Syllabi and Text Books for Post-Graduate Courses in such subjects as prescribed by the Gauhati University shall be deemed to have been prescribed by the Dibrugarh University till they are modified by the Act. By the proviso thereof, the Law Course shall be of two years' duration and shall be divided into Law (Previous) and Law (Final) and the duration of these shall be one year each with papers and marks as shown below: (a) Law (Previous) Examination. 1. Indian Constitutional Law 100 marks. 2. Hindu Law and Muhammadan Law 100 marks. 3. Law of Contract 100 marks. 4. Criminal Law 100 marks. 5. Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act 100 marks. 6. Jurisprudence and Tort 100 marks. (b) Law (Final) Examination. 1. Administrative Law and Com­mercial Law or Labour Law 100 marks. 2. Land Laws and Indian Succession Act 100 marks. 3. Evidence and Limitation 100 marks. 4. Civil Procedure Code Drafting and Conveyances 100 marks. 5. Private International Law and General Principles of Cri­minal Procedure 100 marks. 6. Equity 100 marks. (2) The Syllabi, Text Books and Lead­ing cases in respect of the Law (Previous and Final) Examinations shall be the same as prescribed by the Gauhati University for its Law Course. Article 4 relates to Under-Graduate and Pre-University courses. Article 5 may now be read: "The Rules and Regulations for vari­ous Examinations of the Gauhati Univer­sity in force in that University on the date of establishment of the Dibrugarh Univer­sity, shall govern the Examinations under Articles 3 and 4 above-" 4. It is contended by the peti­tioner that since the Rules and Regulations of the Gauhati University are applicable in this case, those of the Gauhati University that are pertinent to and applicable to two years' course alone should govern the Law Course of the Dibrugarh University. It is contended by the peti­tioner that since the Rules and Regulations of the Gauhati University are applicable in this case, those of the Gauhati University that are pertinent to and applicable to two years' course alone should govern the Law Course of the Dibrugarh University. There is a two years' course in M.A. in the Gau­hati University and Section 4 of the Ordi­nance of the Gauhati University relating to M.A., M.Sc., and M.Com. Examinations provides that the result of the successful candidates in the Previous Examinations shall be announced in a single pass list without divisions; the classification of the final result will be declared on tie combined assessment of both the Previous and Final Examinations. According to the learned counsel, under Section 4 of the Ordinance, the petitioner should have been declared to have passed on the combined assessment of both the Previous and Final Law Examination as he has secured an ag­gregate of 52% of marks which is more than the minimum 45% for M.A. Second class pass in the Gauhati University. It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether under Article 5 of the First Regu­lations it is permissible to employ the yardstick of the M.A. Course of the Gau­hati University in declaring the result of the Law Course under the Dibrugarh Uni­versity. Article 5 refers to "various exa­minations of the Gauhati University" to govern the examinations of the Dibrugarh University. It is difficult to accept the contention that Law Examinations of the Dibrugarh University are not equated with those of the Gauhati University. It is evident that in both the Universities there are 12 papers for the entire Law Course. While in the Gauhati University the course is spread in three years with four papers for each year, namely Preliminary, Inter­mediate and Final, the Dibrugarh Univer­sity after adopting the prescription of Cur­ricula, Syllabi and Text Books of the Gau­hati University made a departure by intro­ducing a two years' course for law keep­ing intact the Curricula, Syllabi and Text Books of the entire course. While dofng so, they divided the papers into two groups of six papers as set out above. The entire course in both the Universities has 1200 marks and a candidate has to secure 30% minimum marks for passing in each paper, while at the same time he has to secure an aggregate of 50% marks in each course or examination. While dofng so, they divided the papers into two groups of six papers as set out above. The entire course in both the Universities has 1200 marks and a candidate has to secure 30% minimum marks for passing in each paper, while at the same time he has to secure an aggregate of 50% marks in each course or examination. There is no provision in the Rules under the Gauhati University in the Law Course to carry over the marks of one course to the other and the result of each course is assessed independently without reference to the other course or courses. The underlying principle in the Law Course in the Gauhati University is that a candidate has to secure 30% mini­mum marks in each paper and a total aggregate of 50% in each course. There is no combined assessment of the three courses while declaring the result of the Final Law Examination. The combin­ed assessment of Previous and Final Exa­minations provided for in M.A. Course is not laid down for the Law Course. We are, therefore, unable to hold that Article 5 of the First Regulation requires the Dibrugarh University to adopt the com­bined assessment of the two years' M.A. course laid down under Section 4 of the Ordinance of the Gauhati University are to correlate the Law Course with the M.A. course in absence of any definite rules in that behalf. In dealing with the Law Exa­minations of the Dibrugarh University, those alone of the Gauhati University are the guideline under Article 5. The M.A. examination, merely on account of the si­militude of the duration of the course, cannot take that place. There is, there­fore, no violation of any statutory rules by the Dibrugarh University in not declaring the petitioner as having passed the Final Law Examination of the Dibrugarh Univer­sity. We do not find any difficulty in ap­plying the rules of the Law Course in force in the Gauhati University even in the case of the two years' course under the Dibrugarh University. We do not find any difficulty in ap­plying the rules of the Law Course in force in the Gauhati University even in the case of the two years' course under the Dibrugarh University. There is no devia­tion by the Dibrugarh University from any principle or method embodied in the rules of the Gauhati University regulating the conduct of examination in Law Course in not declaring the petitioner successful in the Law (Final) Examination, with the number of papers arranged in two water­tight compartments under the Dibrugarh University instead of three under the Gau­hati University, the method followed by the former is the only rational way to work out the examination programme of the Law Course. The Dibrugarh University com­mitted violation of no rules in the instant case. We are, therefore, unable to issue a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for against the respondents in this case. 5. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. We will, however, make no order as to costs. B.N. Sarma, J.:- 6. I agree. Petition dismissed.