ORDER A.K. Banerji, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing the order of the Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agricultural Technology, Pant Nagar, Nainital dated 21- 11-1991 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) rejecting the representation made by them and have also prayed for a writ of mandamus declaring the provisions of Regulation 43(a) as null and void in-operative and unconstitutional and have further sought a direction to admit the petitioners provisionally in the fourth Semester of B.Tech. Course in accordance with rules and Regulations. On 21-1-1992, the writ petition was entertained by this Court and the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were granted time to file a counter-affidavit. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have since been exchanged by the parties and by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally heard at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner's case is that they qualified in the centralised Entrance Test of 1990 for admission in B.Tech. Course in the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agricultural Technology, Pant Nagar, Distt. Nainital. The said course comprises of four years and there are two Semesters in every academic year. The Academic Sessions commenced very late and the course was covered up in a condensed manner. The petitioners did not fare very well in the First Semester and were put on academic probation during the next Semesters. The Second Semester was also completed in a condensed way on account of which the petitioners were at a disadvantage. In the Report Cards in respect of the Second Semester dated 11-12- 1991 there was a remark of the Registrar that they were dropped from the University on account of poor academic performance. The petitioners made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor which was recommended and forwarded by the Dean of the concerned Faculty but nothing was done and hence a representation was also made to the Chancellor of the University. Since, no action was taken the petitioners along with several others filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court on 19-11-1991. This Court by a detailed order directed the respondent No. 1 to consider the representations made by the petitioners within one month from the date of the filing of the certified copy of the order. Since, no action was taken the petitioners along with several others filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court on 19-11-1991. This Court by a detailed order directed the respondent No. 1 to consider the representations made by the petitioners within one month from the date of the filing of the certified copy of the order. The said representations have been decided by the respondent No. 1 vide the order dated 21-11-1991 and the same has been rejected. The petitioners have come up against the said impugned order by means of the present writ petition as already stated above. 3. The petitioners in the writ petition have raised several grounds on which they have challenged the impugned order. Their case is that they were handicapped on account of the late commencement of the academic session and the First Year Course was burriedly completed by adopting a condensed course. It was further stated that the system of dropping out as adopted by the said University is illegal and only adopted by the said University and by no other institution. They have challenge the Regulation 43(a) of the Regulations framed under Section 30 of the U.P. Krishi and Prodyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging the same to be illegal, void and arbitrary. They have also alleged that they have been discriminated with as certain students who were in a similar position like the petitioners have been allowed to continue whereas the petitioners who belong to the Scheduled Caste, have been dropped instead of being treated sympathetically. They also alleged that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the copy of the materials supplied to the Chancellor by the respondent University were not supplied to the petitioners and the same is also illegal as the question of unfair discrimination has not even been considered by respondent No. 1. 4. Two counter-affidavits have been filed one on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and the other on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Both these counter-affidavits have been filed by the Assistant Registrar, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agricultural Technology, Pant Nagar. 4. Two counter-affidavits have been filed one on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and the other on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Both these counter-affidavits have been filed by the Assistant Registrar, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agricultural Technology, Pant Nagar. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 it has been stated that the petitioners have failed to attain Cumulative Grade Point Average (C.G.P.A. in short) of 2,500 at the end of the first academic year. So under Regulation 43(a) of the Regulations of the University they were finally dropped with no right to petition. It has been stated that the University has been following these Regulations strictly so as to maintain its educational standard and the action taken against the petitioners are within the four corners of the regulations. In paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit it has been denied that there has been any discrimination between the petitioners and other students mentioned in paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition. It has been stated that the students who have been named in paragraph 14 have attained cumulative C.G.P.A. of 2,500 or more than that and consequently they were a separate category and had a right to make petition as envisaged under Regulation 43(a) but the petitioners having received less than 2,500 C.G.P.A. have no right even to make a petition under the said provision. It is denied that the Regulation 43(a) is either arbitrary, unjust, illegal or unconstitutional. On the contrary it has been asserted that the order passed by the Chancellor calls for no interference. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 it has been stated that the session was delayed but subsequently the University regularised the same by imparting instructions of a minimum of 100 days in a Semester and the entire syllabus was completed. It was pointed out that only a handful of students have been dropped on account of poor academic performance. The session was completed as per the regulation and the petitioners having failed to improve their performance in a Second Semester and having got a C.G.P.A. far below 3,000, they were accordingly dropped. It was pointed out that only a handful of students have been dropped on account of poor academic performance. The session was completed as per the regulation and the petitioners having failed to improve their performance in a Second Semester and having got a C.G.P.A. far below 3,000, they were accordingly dropped. Those provisions in the Regulation was defended in the counter-affidavit on the ground that if the students in their very First Year perform so poorly that the University feels that they will not be able to cope up with the academic load and will not be in a position to complete the degree programme as per the requirements, it is justified in dropping them. It was stated that this was not something unique in the said University but this provision was there in some other Universities including the Roorkee University and the I.I.Ts. It was further stated that there was no provision for any preferential treatment for the Scheduled Caste after they have secured admission and all the students are treated alike. It was also averred that the University had submitted its comments and there was no occasion to furnish copies of these comments to the petitioners as no opportunity is envisaged in these proceedings where the matter involved is purely of academic assessment. 6. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the . respondent No. 1, and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which they have reiterated the stand taken by them in the writ petition. 7. I have heard Dr. R.G. Padia on behalf of the petitioners, Shri S.N. Upadhyaya on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Shri Dinesh Kackar on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no other Engineering College/Institute has similar kind of Regulation as 43(a) and the same is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair as dropping out means ruining the academic career of the students. However, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no other Engineering College/Institute has similar kind of Regulation as 43(a) and the same is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair as dropping out means ruining the academic career of the students. However, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 it has been stated that similar provision of dropping exists in almost all the Institutions/Universities, particularly, those imparting technical education, it has been further stated that apart from the petitioners other 20 students have also been similarly dropped as in the opinion of the academic council and the University their performance is such that they cannot cope up with the academic programme. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the academic body after assessing the performance of the petitioners have taken a decision that the C.G.P.A. of the petitioners are less than the prescribed minimum. The University was entitled to prescribe its own method of instructions to maintain the academic standards. The Court ought not to interfere with the decision of the academic body in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the respondents have cited two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1666 , Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal and J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2141 . He has also relied on two unreported decisions of this Hon'ble Court given in writ petition No. 646 of 1991, Pankai Sinha v. Director and Sanete Chairman Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and also of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17433 of 1991. Hitendra Kumar Singh v. The Vice-Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agricultural and Technology, Pant Nagar. In all these cases, the view taken was that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with the decision of the academic body. In the unreported decision Hitendra Kumar Singh v. Vice-Chancellor (supra) which pertains to the same University and in which similar regulations like the present had been challenged, the facts were that the petitioner who had been admitted in the M.Sc. Agriculture in the same University and had obtained 2,363 point was dropped from the rolls on the ground that he was below standard. Agriculture in the same University and had obtained 2,363 point was dropped from the rolls on the ground that he was below standard. By means of the said writ petition he had challenged the said orders on the ground that dropping him from the rolls was arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and bad in law. The decision of the academic council was also challenged on the ground that the said decision was illegal and against the principle of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 29-11-1991 by this Hon'ble Court while placing reliance on the two decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 646 of 1991 referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was admitted in two year M.Sc. Course in I.I.T., Kanpur. His name was removed from the roll of the Institute as he failed to fulfil the academic probation requirement. This Court also placing reliance upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above had dismissed the writ petition by holding that this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with the decision of the academic body. This decision was challenged by the petitioner of that case by filing a Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 1852 of 1991 and the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide the order dated 11-3-1991. In view of the aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. I am of the view that the first submission of the petitioners has no force. The regulations framed by the University devising its own methods of its instructions for the purpose of following an academic standard cannot be held to be arbitrary, unjust or illegal. Besides, it would also not be prudent for this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to go into the merits of the decision taken by the academic body or the rules framed for that purpose. 9. It has then been contended on behaif of the petitioners that they have been discriminated against as candidates similarly placed who had been dropped earlier, had been readmitted as they belonged to upper caste but the petitioners who belong to scheduled caste have not been similarly treated. 9. It has then been contended on behaif of the petitioners that they have been discriminated against as candidates similarly placed who had been dropped earlier, had been readmitted as they belonged to upper caste but the petitioners who belong to scheduled caste have not been similarly treated. In the counter-affidavit, the allegation with regards to discrimination has been denied. It has been averred that the decision to drop the petitioners and some other students like the petitioners were strictly based on the Regulation 43(a) of the Regulations which prescribes that if a student in the First Academic Year fails to get a C.G.P.A. of 2,500, he shall be dropped from the rolls of the University, even without a right to make a petition. It appears that Regulation 43(a) envisages two situations. The first in which students secured C. G. P. A. between 2,500 and 3,000 point. Such category will have a right to make a petition to the Petitions Committee comprising of the Deans of the Colleges of the University. The petitions Committee deliberate over each individual case and thereafter arrives at its decision. However, the students like the petitioners who have secured a C. G.P.A. of less than 2,500 belong to a different category and they do not enjoy even the benefit of making a petition and are, straightway dropped. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 by the Assistant Registrar of the University it has been averred in paragraph No. 8 that the students named in paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition with whom the petitioners have alleged to have been discriminated with, have secured C.G.P.A. of over 2,500 and consequently they had a right to make a petition and they belong to a different category, therefore, there was no question of any discrimination between them and the petitioners. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner No. 1, no specific reply has been given except to state that in the absence of any relevant paper, annexed along with the counter-affidavit the average point given in respect of the candidate cannot be believed. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner No. 1, no specific reply has been given except to state that in the absence of any relevant paper, annexed along with the counter-affidavit the average point given in respect of the candidate cannot be believed. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the explanation given in paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit cannot be taken notice of as the validity must be judged by the reasons given by the Chancellor and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. For this proposition reliance has been placed on the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in, AIR 1978 SC 851 . In my opinion, however, the facts of the said case are totally different and the proposition laid down in that decision by the Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the comments sent by the University to the Chancellor, it appears that it had been stated that the petitioners were dropped from the rolls strictly in accordance with the Regulation 43(a) of the Regulations framed under the Act and there has been no discrimination made with regards to the petitioners. 10. It has also been specifically stated that the 23 students who have been dropped belong to all castes and communities and it is incorrect to state that the petitioners have been dropped as they belonged to the Scheduled Castes. In the impugned order, the Regulation 43(a) has been quoted in extenso and it has been noticed therein that the petitioners and the others whose name have been specifically mentioned in the impugned order have got a C.G.P.A. of less than 2,500 and hence they were being dropped. The respondent No. 1 was satisfied from the facts of the case that there was no discrimination made with regards to the petitioners as from the C.G.P.A. noted against their names it was evident that they had got less than 2,500 point. In this case, therefore, no improvement has been made in the stand of the University by supplementing the reasons by means of any additional affidavit as in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill supra. In this case, therefore, no improvement has been made in the stand of the University by supplementing the reasons by means of any additional affidavit as in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill supra. The University is placing reliance on the Regulations and have asserted before the Chancellor as well as before this Court that the decision with regards to the dropping of the petitioners have been taken in accordance with the regulations and so far as the other students who have been mentioned belong to a different category as they had got C.G.P. A. of more than 2,500 point. Consequently, I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish that they have been discriminated by the respondents. Besides the Chancellor was satisfied from the facts placed before him that there was no discrimination between the petitioners and the other students, the said finding cannot be said to be vitiated in the facts of the present case. 11. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 is illegal and arbitrary as the Chancellor did not apply his mind to the representation made by the petitioners with regards to the discrimination. They had specifically mentioned about the six students in their representation which have been overlooked by the respondent No. 1. Before adverting to this argument it will be pertinent to note that in the first representation which is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition where the names of the two petitioners figure no allegation of discrimination has been made. However, a representation made by one Brijesh Chaudhary in Nov. 1991 has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 in which allegation about discrimination has been made in para 14 thereof. Brijesh Chaudhary is not a petitioner before me in this writ petition. Be that as it may so far as this submission is concerned, I am of the view that the same is not borne out from the impugned order of the respondent No. 1. As already stated above, the respondent No. 1 had in the impugned order referred to the stand taken by the University with regards to the allegations of discrimination and has noted the allegations that six students who were similarly placed had been readmitted as they belonged to the upper caste. As already stated above, the respondent No. 1 had in the impugned order referred to the stand taken by the University with regards to the allegations of discrimination and has noted the allegations that six students who were similarly placed had been readmitted as they belonged to the upper caste. The respondent No. 1 was satisfied from the comments made by the University that there was no discrimination and the order for dropping petitioners was in accordance with the Regulation 43(a) of the Regulations. The respondent No.1 felt satisfied that the petitioners were dropped because they got less than 2,500 points and there was no discrimination made. It cannot therefore, be stated that the respondent No. 1 did not apply his mind with regards to the question about discrimination. 12. The counsel for the petitioners then argued that under Regulation 43(c) the petitioners are entitled to continue since they did not fail thrice in the course in question. This aspect has been examined by the respondent No. I in some details and it has been found that Regulation 43(c) does not apply to the petitioners and they are governed by the provisions of Regulation 43(a). I do not find any error in the findings of the respondent No. 1 which is based upon a correct interpretation of the provisions of the Regulations. This submission is, therefore, without force. 13. It was then urged that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is also bad on the ground that principles of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the copy of material supplied by the University to the Chancellor has not been supplied to the petitioners to contract the stand taken by the University. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Misra v. Chancellor Gorakhpur University reported in, 1988(2) UPLBEC 1019 (sic). In the said case the services of the petitioner were terminated on certain charges found to be proved. The petitioners had at the stage of the enquiry demanded several documents and had specifically informed the concerned authority that till the documents are made available, it was not possible for him to meet the charges as no effective reply can be prepared in the absence of such documents. The petitioners had at the stage of the enquiry demanded several documents and had specifically informed the concerned authority that till the documents are made available, it was not possible for him to meet the charges as no effective reply can be prepared in the absence of such documents. The said documents were not supplied to the petitioners on the ground that the documents sought had no relevance with the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. The petitioners had also made a grievance that on the representation made by him certain comments were sought from the respondents copies of such comments were not furnished to the petitioners though the same were considered. On the facts of the said case this Court had held that there was violation of the principles of natural justice rendering the order of Chancellor null and void. In the instant case the facts are totally different. It is not a case of termination of the services of a teacher on the charge of misconduct but here the question before the Chancellor was with regards to the adjudication of an academic function and as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, AIR 1980 SC 1666 the considerations in such cases are not the same. 14. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of the Kesava Mills Co. v. Union of India reported in, AIR 1973 SC 389 , "the concept of natural justice cannot be put into it straight jacket. The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably, where administrative officers are concerned the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly." In the facts of the present case it cannot be held that the respondent has not acted fairly. 15. Besides even before the Chancellor it appears from the order that the University was replying on the Regulations provision of which was known to the Petitioners. They were not taken by surprise. As a matter of fact in the report card of the First Semester Photo copies of which have been annexed by the petitioners as Annexures Nos. 15. Besides even before the Chancellor it appears from the order that the University was replying on the Regulations provision of which was known to the Petitioners. They were not taken by surprise. As a matter of fact in the report card of the First Semester Photo copies of which have been annexed by the petitioners as Annexures Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition, it is clearly mentioned that the continuation in the University as under graduate student shall maintain a minimum C.G.P.A. of 3.000 to 5.000. Regulation 43(a) has also been quoted therein and it clearly mentions that if a under graduate student fails to get a C.G.P. A. of 3.000 at the end of the academic year he shall be dropped from the University and if the C.G.P.A. is less than 2.500, he shall have no right even to make a petition seeking readmission. In my opinion, therefore, in the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the petitioners did not get a reasonable opportunity of presenting their case and non-supply of copy of the comments to the petitioners has not caused any prejudice to them. 16. Lastly, it had been contended that the petitioners being members of Scheduled Castes are entitled for preferential and special treatment but this aspect has been overlooked by the respondents in spite of the observations of this Court to consider the cases of the petitioners sympathetically. This submission cannot be accepted either as the Regulations do not envisage any special privilege to students of Scheduled Castes after they are admitted to the University. The respondent No. 1 has, however, considered the matter and felt bound by the Regulations which were being followed by the University. The respondent No. 1 was satisfied that no discrimination has been made on the ground of castes and out of 23 students who have been dropped they belonged to different castes. The order of the respondent No. 1 cannot, therefore, be challenged on this ground. 17. In view of what has been stated above, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to b, their own costs.