ORDER S.C. Mathur, J. - Failing to get admission to M.B.B.S. Course on the basis of the Combined Pre-Medical Test held by the Lucknow University in the year 1990, result of which was published in 11th and 12th November, 1990 the petitioner has approached this Court complaining that the norms of evaluation of answer books evolved subsequent to the holding of the examination is illegal. On facts there is no dispute between the parties and they may be stated. 2. On 24-4-1990 the State Government issued order under S. 28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, for short Act. In accordance with the directions contained in this order a committee was constituted which laid down detailed procedure for the examination. The procedure prescribed by this Committee is contained in Annexure R-2 to the petitioner's rejoinder affidavit. The Chairman of the Committee entrusted with holding the examination or test constituted a committee comprising four persons which evolved norms for evaluation of the answer books. The minutes of the meeting held on 14-10-1990 are contained in Annexure A-1 to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Lucknow University. One of the norms laid down by this Committee reads :- "Erasing and then writing of answers shall be negatively marked." The candidates had to take examination in four subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. It appears from the answer-sheet filed by the petitioner that the questions were of objective type and in each paper there were 100 questions. Alternative answers for each question were given and the candidate was required to mention the number of the answer which according to him was correct in a cage provided therefor on the answer-sheet itself. The petitioner had answered 36 questions in Zoology, 28 in Physics, 23 in Botany and 34 in Chemistry by erasing the earlier incorrect answers. The answers sub-sequently given after erasing the earlier answers were correct. However, in view of the norm contained in guidelines dated 14-10-1990 negative marking was done as a result whereof the petitioner instead of scoring 906 marks out of 1200 scored 597 marks. The petitioner's plea is that the norms evolved on 14-10-1990 have no legal sanctity and he cannot be denied admission by evaluating his answers with reference to the said norms. The petitioner's plea is that the norms evolved on 14-10-1990 have no legal sanctity and he cannot be denied admission by evaluating his answers with reference to the said norms. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the answer books will have to be evaluated on the basis of the advertised norms and not on the basis of the norms evolved after the examination was over. He points out that the norm of negative marking was not contained either in the Government Order dated 24-4-1990 or in the procedure prescribed by the Committee constituted under the Government order or even in the Admit Card issued to the petitioner. The submission is that if the petitioner had known the norms evolved on 14-10-1990 he would have avoided erasing of the answers and would have thus saved himself from losing marks by negative marking. 3. In support of the plea that norms cannot be changed subsequent to advertisement and examination the learned counsel has cited (1984) UPLBEC 137 : AIR 1983 SC 1199 (SC) Dr. Vinay Rampal v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir; (1991) 1 UPLBEC 440 (SC) U.P. Higher Education Services Commission v. Dr. Leena Khare; 1988 All LJ 660, Km. Bharati Maheshwari v. State of U.P. Interim order in Writ Petition No. 286 of 1991. Dr. Rajesh Arora v. State of U.P. Final judgment dated 21.10.1991 in Writ Petition No. 286 of 1991 (supra). Section 28(5) of the Act reads :- (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, admission to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education or Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of medicine (including the number of students to be admitted) shall be regulated by such orders (which if necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective prior to January 1, 1979) as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf : Provided .......................... In the earlier sub-sections of the same Section it has been provided that there shall be an Admission Committee of the University the constitution of which shall be such as may be provided for in the Ordinaces. In sub-sec.(2) it is provided that the Admissions Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub committee as it thinks fit. Under Sub-sec. In sub-sec.(2) it is provided that the Admissions Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub committee as it thinks fit. Under Sub-sec. (3), subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council, the Admissions Committee is competent to lay down the principles of norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University and also to nominate a person or a sub-committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an Institute or a constituent college maintained by the University. Under sub-sec. (4) the Committee is competent to issue directions as respects criteria or method of admission including the number of students to be admitted to constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and affiliated or associated colleges of course these directions cannot be in conflict with the Government Order issued under sub-sec. (5). 4. In view of sub-sec. (5) of S. 28 Pre-Medical Test has to be held in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government. The examination is to be held by the University nominated by the State Government. The University or the Committee constituted under the Government Order can adopt any fair procedure for holding the examination, but it cannot evolve a procedure which is in conflict with the Government Order issued under sub-sec. (5). If there is no conflict between an order issued by the Committee constituted under the Government Order and the Government order the order of the Committee will not be illegal. In the present case the norms dated 14-10-1990 were evolved by a Committee nominated by the Chairman of the Committee constituted under the Government order for combined Pre-Medical Test, 1990. In the rejoinder affidavit constitution of this Committee is assailed on the ground that it comprises officials of the Lucknow University. That in my opinion is no ground to assail the constitution of the Committee. The Government Order lays down the broad principles on which the test has to be held. Further norms have been laid down by the Committee constituted under the Government Order. The norms dated 14-10-1990 do not come in conflict with either Government Order or the norms adopted by the said Committee. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the norms dated 14-10-1990 are not illegal. 5. Further norms have been laid down by the Committee constituted under the Government Order. The norms dated 14-10-1990 do not come in conflict with either Government Order or the norms adopted by the said Committee. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the norms dated 14-10-1990 are not illegal. 5. The question now surviving for consideration is whether the said norms could be applied to an examination which had already been held. The authorities cited by the learned counsel do not afford much guidance as they relate to the alteration of eligibility qualifications. In respect of such qualifications the law laid down of course is that the selection will have to be held on the basis of advertised qualifications. In the present case the eligibility qualification has not been altered and the norms evolved on 14-10-1990 have been uniformly applied. It may be that if the norm relating to erasion had been evolved earlier to the examination and the examinees had been informed they would have been more careful in answering the questions. I am not inclined to interfere with the declaration of result as all the candidates have suffered from the same disability from which the petitioner has suffered and there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The fact remains that the earlier answer given by the petitioner was incorrect. The number of such incorrect answers is substantial. The petitioner has not suffered any prejudice which others have not suffered. It will therefore cause hardship at this stage to require the University authorities to revaluate the answer books ignoring the norms evolved on 14-10-1990. 6. The matter raised in the writ petition pertains exclusively to academic field and academicians are better equipped to evolve norms of the nature evolved on 14-10-1990. These norms do not come in conflict with any statutory norm. In the field of education the courts must allow the academicians full play and the courts may interfere only when there is violation of statutory provisions, constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. In the present case there is no violation of any of the three laws. 7. In view of -the above the petition is dismissed of without any order as to costs.