Short Note : 1. The petition was directed against the order of Jiwaji University by which the provisional permission to appear at the examination of B.A. Part III was cancelled. After passing intermediate examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad (West Pakistan), the petitioner, in August 1970, sought admission to continue course in B.A. Part III in Janata Snatak Mahavidyalaya, Dabra. The Principal of the College gave the admission provisionally subject to the approval by the University. Held: It is manifest from the Jiwaji University Act that the University is to maintain a level of academic standard in the degrees they conferred. For doing so, the Academic council also prescribes the necessary curriculum and the teaching and other requirements and attainments before a candidate became eligible to appear at the examination. The aim was not merely to see that the candidates before the conferral of the Degree passed the relevant examination but that before passing they had acquired a certain level of academic standard and it is to assure this that the Academic council laid down many conditions, such as of percentage and passing of the eligibility examination. The Ordinance and Rules required that before passing at the examination in Part III, it was incumbent that the petitioner had passed the equivalent examination of part II of the University. By enrolling as a student under the University, the petitioner did not attain the necessary eligibility for appearing in B.A Part III examination. The Equivalence Committee did not consider the examination passed by the petitioner equivalent to Part II B.A. Degree Examination of the University. The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to appear in the Part III B.A. Examination. This was not only in consonance with the Ordinance and Rules but also for maintenance of such academic standard for which the University alone was the best judge and it would not be for the Court to suggest whether in the instant case the petitioner became eligible for the examination or not. The permission to appear at the examination was tentative subject to the condition that the petitioner satisfied the University authorities that he had become eligible by passing an equivalent examination from other University. The University did all that was within their power to find out whether Part I of Pakistan University could be considered equivalent to Part II of Jiwaji University. The University did all that was within their power to find out whether Part I of Pakistan University could be considered equivalent to Part II of Jiwaji University. But since this was not found to be so, the University authorities were justified in cancelling the provisional permission given to the petitioner. It was implicit in provisional permission that it would not avail if the necessary conditions were satisfied. Shri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 , Premji Bhai v. Vice Chancellor, Ravishanker University, Raipur and other, 1967 JLJ 464 distinguished. 2. It was then contended that the University had allowed respondent. No.2 to prosecute his studies as a regular student in M.B.B.S. under the Jiwaji University though he passed the Intermediate and Higher Secondary certificate Examination from Hyderabad, Sind (Pakistan) like the petitioner. This, it was urged, was discriminatory. This Court is unable to accept this argument for two reasons. First the respondent No.2 is not similarly placed as the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was seeking permission to appear in Part III Examination of B.A. Degree, after having passed Part I from the University of Sind where the degree course is of only two years. It was necessary for the petitioner's case to know whether Part I of Sind University was equivalent to Part II B.A. Degree of the Jiwaji University. This would not arise in the case of respondent No.2, and secondly, the University has no hand in the admission to the Medical College in the State The admission to the Medical Colleges is solely done by the Government and it was for them to have seen whether the respondent no.2 was bright enough for being given admission in a Medical College. The State Government has not been made a party to this petition and, therefore, this Court is unable to know the circumstances under which respondent No.2 was given the admission. This Court, therefore, thinks that the arguments founded on discriminatory treatment being violative of Art.14 cannot be pressed successfully. Petition dismissed.