JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.~ Petitioner, Ganesh Dutt Dubey was a student of M. Sc. in Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry. In terms of the Academic Regulations framed by the University in exercise of powers under section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986, be was to appear at a comprehensive examination provided for by Regulation 91 of the Academic Regulations. The petitioner did so. He was found using unfair means in the examination at which he was appearing on October 28, 1989. His Answer sheet was taken away. He was given another set of Answer sheets. The petitioner attempted use of unfair means again. He was caught. 2. By a decision taken by the Academic Council in its meeting held on December 7, 1989, the petitioner was awarded punishment in accordance with the provisions contained in Academic Regulation 69(c). A notification dated January 8, 1990 was issued under the signatures of the Registrar of the University saying that the petitioner shall stand dropped from the rolls of the University. It is thereafter that the petitioner came to this court through the present writ petition seeking relief. 3. On being asked to do so, the respondent-University has filed a reply in the petition. It has also filed a supplementary affidavit of its Registrar under the directions of this court placing on record the text of Item No. 6 which was placed before the Academic Council in its meeting on December 7, 1989 as well as copies of the resolution of the Academic Council of that date. Appended to this affidavit as Annexure R-3 is a copy of item No. 13 of the agenda of the meeting of the Academic Council held on April 6, B90 proposing the amendment of Academic Regulation No. 9i governing comprehensive examination. Annexures R-4 and R-5 are the amendments brought about by the Academic Council in Regulation No. 69. Regulation No. 91 provides s— "91 (a) After having successfully completed 75% of the total prescribed courses (major, minor and supporting) with minimum OGPA. (6.50/10 00), a post-graduate student shall have to pass a comprehensive examination. (b) The comprehensive examination shall consist of both written and oral tests, the former preceding the latter. Regulation No. 91 provides s— "91 (a) After having successfully completed 75% of the total prescribed courses (major, minor and supporting) with minimum OGPA. (6.50/10 00), a post-graduate student shall have to pass a comprehensive examination. (b) The comprehensive examination shall consist of both written and oral tests, the former preceding the latter. (c) A candidate shall be given only to chances to appear in the comprehensive examination, written or oral." Regulation No. 69, deals with punishment for using unfair means. Before it was amended by the Academic Council in its meetings dated April 6,1990 and July 9, 1990 (evidenced by Annexures R-4 and R-5 referred to earlier), this Regulation said that \— "69. The Dean, after satisfying himself that the student has used •unfair means, shall impose penalty as indicated below: (a) A student found using unfair means9 during an hourly test shall be deemed to have failed in that course (b) A student found using unfair means during the Mid-Term Examination shall be deemed to have failed in all the courses during the semester. (c) A student found using unfair means during End-of-Term Examination shall be deemed to have failed in all the courses in that semester and also debarred from registration in the College/ University during the subsequent semester." 4. End-of-Term Examination mentioned in Regulation No. 69 (c) denotes an examination which a student has to take in respect of a course of study which he is undergoing in the University. Comprehensive examination mentioned in Regulation No. 91 is something different from the End-of-Term Examination and is to be taken by a post-graduate student after he has completed all his courses including the appearance at the End-of-Term Examination. Regulation No. 91 makes the position clear beyond doubt. Passing of a comprehensive examination, in terms of Regulation No. 91, is necessary before the candidate can be said to have passed his post graduate examination finally and entitled to a degree in respect thereof. 5. Regulation No, 91 (c) provides that "a candidate shall be given only two chances to appear in the comprehensive examination." What is implicit in this Regulation is that even if a candidate has successfully passed the prescribed courses, he would not be treated to have passed the post-graduate examination, so as to entitle him to a degree therefor, until he has passed the comprehensive examination provided for in Regulation No. 91. 6. 6. Prior to the amendment brought about through the resolutions of Academic Council noticed by us earlier, there was nothing in the Academic Regulations providing for the consequence of a student using unfair means in a comprehensive examination. It is on that account that when the petitioner was found to have resorted to use of unfair means in the comprehensive examination that the matter was placed before the Academic Council as Item No. 6 A copy of this item, as has been noticed earlier, has been placed on the record of this writ petition as Annexure R-l to the supplementary affidavit. It describes in detail the circumstances in which the petitioner was found using unfair means as well as the fact of absence of any specific regulation dealing with a situation of that nature. The attention of the Academic Council was drawn to every aspect of the problem through this item. It was, amongst other things, brought to the notice of the Academic Council that the comprehensive examination may, for purposes of use of unfair means be considered at par with the End-of- Term examination. Further, that punishment of identical nature may also be awarded therefor. The Academic Council considered the matter in its meeting of December 7, 1989 and took a decision, in the case of the petitioner, that he be awarded punishment in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation No. 69 (c). 7. In the circumstances of the present case, ^ where we are satisfied that all possible aspects of the matter were duly considered by the Academic Council, it cannot be said that the decision taken by it suffers from any error which merits interference by this court. It has been found established that the petitioner, while taking his second chance at the comprehensive examination, resorted to use of unfair means and, when caught, did the same thing again when he was given a new set of answer sheets in the same examination. This conduct of the petitioner entitled the Academic Council to take the decision which it has taken. This court will be loath to interfere, when a conduct of this nature is established against the petitioner, with the decision of the Academic Council in the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction. We decline to do so. 8. This conduct of the petitioner entitled the Academic Council to take the decision which it has taken. This court will be loath to interfere, when a conduct of this nature is established against the petitioner, with the decision of the Academic Council in the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction. We decline to do so. 8. Since the case of the petitioner brought to fore the fact that there was no specific regulation governing a case of use of unfair means by a post-graduate student in the comprehensive examination, the Academic Council rightly took a decision to bring about necessary amendments in Regulation No. 69 by adding the following :— "69 (d) A student found using unfair means in one of the two chances as envisaged in Regulation 91 (c) during the Comprehensive Examination shall be deemed to have automatically dropped from the University." 9. The Academic Council had the power to do so in view of section 15 of the Act. 10. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.