JUDGMENT 1. - Both the petitioners have a common grievance against the alleged irregularities committed by the respondent-University of Rajasthan in the first paper of Anatomy (Sharir Rachna Vigyan) of IInd Year B.A.M.S. Examination held in March, 1990. Both these petitions contain an identical prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondent-University to conduct re-examination of the First Paper of Anatomy (Sharir Rachna Vigpan) of IInd Year B.A.M.S. examination or in the alternative, to do revaluation of the Answer Book and to allow the petitioners to take examination of IIIrd Year B.A.M.S. commencing from 5.12.1990. On account of similar facts and common question of law, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners had passed Pre-Ayurved Examination in 1987. Both of them pas ed 1st Year of B.A.M.S. examination in II-88. Both these petitioners appeared in IInd Year B.A.M.S. examination held in August, 1989 in six papers. Both of them cleared four papers, but failed in two subjects including that of Anatomy. In the subsequent examination held for the second year, the petitioners appeared in due papers of Anatomy. They passed in second paper and practical, but failed in the first paper. According to the petitioners External Examiner for the subject of Anatomy was Shri K.K. Pandey of Tibbia College, New Delhi. The practicals were held some times before the written examination. At the said practicals, about 30 candidates out of total of 60 were declared failed in the practicals. Subsequently, on the intervention of the Internal Examiner Shri Jitendra Bhargava 13 more candidates were given pass marks. This caused annoyance to Shri K.K. Pandey. This resulted in failure of 71 candidates out of total of 112 in the first paper of Anatomy of IInd Year B.A.M.S. According to the petitioners, Shri K.K. Pandey had examined the answer books The grievance of the students against arbitrary marking in the first paper of Anatomy in the written examination of IInd Year B.A.M.S. was taken up by the students' union. A representation was submitted by the Union on 20.8.90. A representation was submitted by the Union on 20.8.90. The representation of the Students' union contains details of the grievance of the candidates and a request was made to the Vice Chancellor for conducting re-examination in the said attempt or for undertaking revaluation with the further request that the candidates may be allowed to appear provisionally in IIIrd Year B.A.M.S. The Dean of the faculty of Ayurved, Prof. Laxmi Narain Sharma vide his letter dated 31.8.1990 wrote to the Vice Chancellor that marking in the first paper of Anatomy of IInd Year B.A.M.S. was quite hard resulting in very low marks to the candidates. It was also recommended that the examination of the said paper may be held again and the failed candidates be allowed to appear in the IIIrd Year B.A.M S. examination. According to the petitioners, on this recommendation of Prof Laxmi Narain Sharma the Vice Chancellor had put up a note directing the Deputy Registrar (Academic) to look into the matter as per Rules in the Faculty of Ayurved. The Secretary of the National Institute of Ayurveda Students Union also submitted a representation dated 1-9-1990 for re-conducting examination of the first paper of Anatomy of IInd Year B.A.M.S. and also to allow candidates to appear in IIIrd Year of B.A.M.S., which was going to be held in October, 1990. The examinations were however, not held in the month of October, 1990 on account of disturbances in the city of Jaipur and the same were fixed to commence from 5-12-1990. Yet another representation was submitted by the students' union on 25-9-1990. The petitioners had submitted that even though there may not be any rule, the Vice Chancellor has considered the case of Shri Abdul Salam, a student of B.H.M.S. IVth Year and given him one more chance as mercy attempt to clear the paper. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the letter written by the University on 19-2-1990 to the Principal, Dr. Madan Pratap Khuteta Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Station Road, Jaipur. 3. The petitioners have claimed that under Ordinance 157-B, the University ought to have under-taken revaluation of the answer books of the candidates, who had failed in 1st Paper of Anatomy B.A M.S. Part-II. Madan Pratap Khuteta Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Station Road, Jaipur. 3. The petitioners have claimed that under Ordinance 157-B, the University ought to have under-taken revaluation of the answer books of the candidates, who had failed in 1st Paper of Anatomy B.A M.S. Part-II. The submission of the petitioners is that the University has acted arbitrarily has discriminated the petitioners by ignoring their candidatures for revaluation of the answer books and for permission to appear in the IIIrd Year B.A.M.S. 4. In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, a reply has been filed. In the said reply, the respondent-University has submitted that the petitioners are not eligible to appear in the IIIrd Year B.A.M.S. examination, which commenced from 5.12.1990 because they have failed to pass the Second paper of B.A.M.S. examination. Reference has been made to Ordinance 329 N-11(c) which says that a candidate can be allowed to appear in the IIIrd B.A.M.S. examination in case he has passed the Second B.A.M.S. examination, in which he had appeared earlier. According to the respondent-University the allegations made against Shri K.K. Pandey cannot be gone into because he is not a party to the petition. With respect to the various grievances of the petitioners and the representations of the students union, the respondent-University has submitted that complaint of the students was considered by the Grievance Committee in its meeting held on 29-8-90. In the said meeting. Prof C.S. Barla was present as Chairman of Grievance Committee. Five other members of Grievance Committee as well as Prof. Laxmi Narain Sharma, Dean. Faculty of Ayurved were also present. After consideration of the grievances of the students, the Committee came to the conclusion that the grievance of the students was unfounded. The Committee took note of the fact that in paper 1st out of 133 candidates, 54 had failed and the percentage of failure in paper second was 25. Thus, in all 42% of candidates had failed. After considering the facts and also the opinion of the Dean of Factually of Ayurved, the Grievance Committee decided that no action was needed to be taken. Thus, in all 42% of candidates had failed. After considering the facts and also the opinion of the Dean of Factually of Ayurved, the Grievance Committee decided that no action was needed to be taken. The Grievance Committee again met on 5-9-90 on the basis of the letter dated 31-8-1990 of the Dean, Faculty of Ayurved and after taking note of the fact that earlier recommendations of the Committee had been approved by the Vice Chancellor, the Committee expressed its view that no further consideration is required to be given. 5. The request made by the candidates to appear in the 1st paper of Second B A.M.S. alongwith IIIrd Year examination was also considered by the Dean, Faculty of Medicine Prof. V. M. Bhandari, but the same was not found tenable. Thus according to the respondents, the grievance of the students had been carefully examined by the University and then it was felt that there was no warrant for either holding the examination afresh or for revaluation of the answer books. The University has also placed on record a representation submitted by a number of students, who had passed in Paper 1st and Paper II of Anatomy (B.A.M.S. Second) and who have opposed the holding of re-examination in the 1st Paper at the behest of the candidates who had failed. The University had submitted that the decision taken by the Expert Academic Body in these matters should not be lightly interfered by this court in a situation where the court may hold a different opinion. The University has also stated that the petitioners had earlier managed to pass the second paper of Anatomy. The case of Abdul Salam has been sought to be distinguished by the University of the Rajasthan on the ground that the candidate had exhausted all its four attempts, whereas, the petitioners have only completed two attempts. Original minutes of the meetings of the Grievance Committee held on 29-8-90 and 5-9-90 were placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the University and after going through the minutes of the meetings of the Grievance Committee, it has been found that Prof. Laxmi Narain Sharma was present in the meetings of the Grievance Committee. If is also noted that the Vice Chancellor had approved the recommendations of the Grievance Committee. 6. Laxmi Narain Sharma was present in the meetings of the Grievance Committee. If is also noted that the Vice Chancellor had approved the recommendations of the Grievance Committee. 6. Shri R.K. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the Vice Chancellor ought to have exercised his discretion under Ordinance 157-B and ought to have ordered revaluation looking to the fact that large number of candidates had been declared failed in the first paper of Anatomy in B.A.M.S. Part-II examination held in April, 1990. He also submitted that there is no reason to discriminate the petitioners and similar mercy should be shown to the petitioner as was done in the case of Abdul Salam. 7. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that the case of the petitioners and other failed candidates had been examined by the Grievance Committee, which was entrusted with the task of looking into such matters. The Dean, Faculty of Ayurved was present in the two meetings of the said Committee. After careful consideration of the matters, the Committee had decided not to take any action in the matter. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Vice Chancellor. Thus, the Vice Chancellor felt satisfied that the circumstances of the case did not warrant general revaluation. On the question of re-examination, Shri Sharma submitted that there is no such provision in the University Act or the Ordinance and in any case majority of the students who had passed cannot be subjected to re-examination. Shri Sharma further submitted that the mercy shown to Shri Abdul Salam could not be a ground for ordering general revaluation or for holding of re-examination. 8. In my view, the language of Ordinance 157-B does not permit a general revaluation as a matter of course. Only after the Vice Chancellor feels satisfied in respect of a grievance made by the student regarding arbitrary marking or irregularities that he can exercise his discretion to order revaluation of the answer books. The Vice Chancellor can in appropriate case act on the recommendation of the Committee of the Experts as has been done in the present case. These are academic matters and the court cannot ordinarily substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Expert Body. As is clear, more than 75 students had cleared Paper 1st of Anatomy in B.A.M.S. Part-II. The Vice Chancellor can in appropriate case act on the recommendation of the Committee of the Experts as has been done in the present case. These are academic matters and the court cannot ordinarily substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Expert Body. As is clear, more than 75 students had cleared Paper 1st of Anatomy in B.A.M.S. Part-II. Only 53 candidates could not clear it. The Committee had taken note of this fact. The Dean, Faculty of Ayurved was also present in the meeting of the Committee held on 28-9-90. The recommendation had been made by the Committee after considering the relevant facts. The Vice Chancellor had approved the recommendation of the Committee In my view, this decision of the University cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. No direction can be given by this court for exercising discretion by the University in a particular manner. Thus the claim of the petitioner for general revaluation under O. 157-B is not sustainable. 9. Equally, unsustainable is the plea of the petitioners on the anvil of the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Ordinance 329-N-11-(c), which has been referred to by the respondent-University, says that the petitioners cannot be allowed to appear in IIIrd Year of B.A.M.S. examination. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the University also could not point out as to under what law Shri Abdul Salam has been permitted to appear after exhausting 4 attempts. The mercy attempt which has been given by the Vice Chancellor is totally mis-placed. These mis-placed sympathies create unnecessary complications and give rise to litigations. The University, which is a public body must bear in mind that it has to act within the four corners of the statutory provisions contained in the Act and the Ordinances. Be that as it may the mercy attempt allowed to Shri Abdul Salam does not give rise to any legal right to the petitioners to claim mercy. Any direction to permit the petitioners to appear in IIIrd Year B.A.M.S. would be contrary to Ordinance 323 N-11(c). The High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction, which would result in violation of a provision of law. 10. The result of the above discussion is that I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. The High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction, which would result in violation of a provision of law. 10. The result of the above discussion is that I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. *******