Judgment :- 1. There are 14 petitioners in this original petition. They are all Final Year M.B B.S. Students), Medical, College. Trivandrum. The petitioners have sought, I would say, a rather strange relief in this Original Petition. They want this court to issue a mandamus or other direction directing respondents 1, 2 and 4, viz., The Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum, the Director, Medical Education, Medical College-P.O., Trivandrum, the University of Kerala, represented by the Registrar, Trivandrum, to permit the petitioners to appear for the ensuing Final Year M.B.B.S. Part II Examination to be held by the University of Kerala, in case respondents S to 18 are allowed to appear for the said examination. I am told that the Final Year M.B.B S. Part II Examination begins on 14tb June, 1988. Similarly, a strange interim relief is also asked for by the petitioners. They want this court to pass an interim order directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 to postpone the ensuing final year M. B. B. S. Part II Examination scheduled to be held by the University in June, July 1988 to enable the petitioners to appear for the said examination, after completing the required final years postings. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners have not completed the required final year clinical postings. The petitioners were not successful in the second year M.B.B.S Examination for the first or the second time. They passed second year M.B B S. Examination held in September 1987, the result of which was published only in November 1987. The students-respondents in this Original Petition, however passed their second year M.B.B.S. Examination in the second chance. Though they have not also completed the required minimum clinical postings, they have got a better footing than the petitioners, since they were able to attend more clinical postings than the petitioners. The petitioners want me to consider both these sets of students, viz. the petitioning students and the respondents on an equal basis for the purpose of permitting them to sit for the Final Year M. B. B S. Examination. The Principal declined to treat them on the same basis. The counsel submits that this is a hostile discrimination and contravenes Art.14 of the Constitution. 3. I do not think that I can accept this submission of the; petitioners. The Principal declined to treat them on the same basis. The counsel submits that this is a hostile discrimination and contravenes Art.14 of the Constitution. 3. I do not think that I can accept this submission of the; petitioners. Obviously, by the petitioners passed the Second Year M.B.B.S. Examination only at their third chance, while the other students, viz., respondents 5 to 18, passed their examination, at any rate, at the second chance. In considering whether these two sets of students are to be treated alike for the purpose of allowing them to sit for Final Year M.B.B.S. Examination, there is really an intelligent differentia and makes them two different classes. So, I decline to accept the case of the petitioners that there is hostile discrimination by the Principal, attracting the intervention of this Court on the ground that the action of the Principal is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. 4. I need not say that in all democratic countries, the University autonomy is an entrenched principle. But it has to be kept in mind that a University is also a creation of Legislation. Naturally, the internal management, both in regard to administrative as well as academic matters, is governed by the provisions of the parent legislation, the statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules and contracts. I need not say ail the above aspects of internal administration and the academic matters should be consistent with our fundamental law-the Constitution of India. I have to bear in mind that the courts' primary function as regards these matters is to hold the University and its authorities and bodies accountable to the Constitution, the concerned parent Act and other subordinate legislations and contracts that apply to it. Court's interference is called for only for keeping a University and its authorities and bodies within their legal bounds and to see whether there is any violation of the statutory provisions for which a redressal is claimed. This, of course, will take in both administrative and academic matters. The concept of the autonomy of a University is its decision making power on who shall teach, whom shall the University teach, what shall be taught and how it will be taught. This, of course, will take in both administrative and academic matters. The concept of the autonomy of a University is its decision making power on who shall teach, whom shall the University teach, what shall be taught and how it will be taught. An expansion of this concept takes in: (i) the independence in appointments and promotions of teachers (who shall teach); (ii) freedom in the matter of selection of students (whom the University shall teach); (iii) freedom in determining the courses on study and methods of teaching and in selecting the areas and problems of research (what shall be taught). 5. As I said earlier, in all the above matters, normally, the University is guided by the statutory provisions in the form of parent Act, statutes, regulations and other statutes of the University itself. In this context, I may say that the courts can step in, when they are moved by an aggrieved or affected party with some apprehended or accomplished violation of provisions of law. Then it is the legitimate function of the court to act for keeping university authorities within their legal bounds for redressing, either apprehended or accomplished violations. If satisfied, then the court intervenes including in academic matters, of course, at the instance of an aggrieved party. Can such an intervention be really termed as an interference on academic autonomy of the University? 6. My answer is in the negative. Normally even in areas of litigation, where the court's interference has got legitimacy concerning university cases, courts have usually acted only within the parameters of cases where substantive or procedural breaches of the parent law or subordinate laws or contracts governing the activities or affairs in the University exist. Courts usually display attitude of judicial deference to academic expertise by refusing to interfere with academic decisions unless the impugned decision fell foul of one or the other parameter. I do not think that it is proper for this court to deviate from that principle that in academic matters concerning a University, this court should not substitute its judgment for that of the academicians. 7. Here in this case, the competent academic bodies have scheduled the Final Year M.B.B.S. Examination. The Rules provide certain minimum requirements for a student to get eligibility to sit for the Final Year M.B.B.S. Examination. 7. Here in this case, the competent academic bodies have scheduled the Final Year M.B.B.S. Examination. The Rules provide certain minimum requirements for a student to get eligibility to sit for the Final Year M.B.B.S. Examination. These are all matters coming within the autonomy of the University and I do not think that there is any breach of statutory violation complained of in this case. The counsel for the petitioners only submitted that allowing respondents 5 to 18 may amount to violation of certain statutory provisions prescribing the minimum period of clinical postings. Admittedly, if the petitioners are allowed to sit for the Final Year M.B B.S. Part II Examination, even according to the petitioners, it will amount to violation of the statutory provision. In this context, T cannot grant any relief to the petitioners in this Original Petition. 8. I should also remember the principle that courts have to be circumspect and diligent in seeing that they do not overstep the limits of their powers, because to them is assigned the function of being the guardian of the Constitution. It is a faith and trust reposed by the framers of the Constitution in the courts and their position in this respect is akin to that of a trustee. When the other agencies or wings of the State overstep their limits, the aggrieved parties can always approach the courts and seek redress against such transgression. When, however, the courts themselves are guilty of such transgression, to which forum would the aggrieve parties appeal?" I may quote here what H.R. Khanna, J. has said: "If mankind, while passing through the successive stages of political consciousness. has done away with despotism of Icings and dictators, it would be puerile to expect it to put up with despotism of the judicial wing of the state. Of the different types of despotism, judicial despotism is not only inexcusable, it is also most irrational". I do not think that using my reviewing power under Art.226 of the Constitution over executive action, I can direct the postponement of the Final Year M.B B.S. Part II Examination or a direction to overlook the statutory provision regarding the requirement of clinical postings and to allow the petitioners even provisionally to sit for the Final Year M.B B.S. Part II Examination. In the result, the Original Petition is only to be dismissed. I do so.