ORDER N.L. Ganguly, J. - The petitioner was admitted to the course of M.Sc. (Food Science and Technology) in January, 1987 in the semester of 1986-87 at G.B. Pant Agricultural University. The petitioner appeared in the second semester of the year 1987-88 and got D-grade in 88M-300 Micro Biology. The petitioner submitted an application before the Vice-Chancellor explaining that due to ill health, he could not appear to the course aforesaid and be permitted for withdrawal. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 22nd April, 1989, by the respondent No.2 that application for withdrawal from the course was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. The petitioner on 24th July, 1989, submitted an application before the respondent to admit him in the second samester 1988-89 as he was dropped from the University on account of poor academic performance. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the second samester of 1988-89 for the course aforesaid (88M-300 General Micro Biology). 3. The petitioner again failed and was awarded grade-D for poor performance. 4. The petitioner again submitted an application before the Vice-Chancellor for registration in the first samester 1989-90 on fresh ground. The respondent No. 3, Dean, Post-Graduate School by letter dated 18th April, 1990, informed that since the petitioner failed thrice in a subject, his application was considered by the Vice-Chancellor and was rejected. The petitioner again made a representation to the respondent that the course of Micro Biology in which he was awarded D-grade may be considered to have been dropped on the medical ground in the samester on 1988-89. 5. The petitioner pleaded to treat him as dropped, as was done in the case of Sushil Kumar who was permitted to drop in Micro Biology previously. The petitioners application was recommended by Shri V. K. Jha, Ad visor, who had recommended to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances flagged by letters `A' and `B'. 6. The advisor had flagged by letter `A' the following ground on the petitioner's application :- "I had been hospitalised and could not appear in the final examination. This made me to award of D-grade again although I had produced sufficient evidence in support of my illness but my request to drop this course was not expected too. It is to be noted that many such cases have been considered previously two as Mr. This made me to award of D-grade again although I had produced sufficient evidence in support of my illness but my request to drop this course was not expected too. It is to be noted that many such cases have been considered previously two as Mr. Sushil Kumar (I.D. 13830) Department of Bio-Chemistry." 7. The flagged `B' of the application is coated as under :- "I availed of only two opportunities to appear in the final examination and could not appear in one of the final samesters i.e. first semester 1988-89 on account of illness. Therefore, you were kindly requested to kindly recommend my allowing one more opportunity." 8. The Dean, Post-Graduate School, was pleased to call for specific comments from the "ADVISOR". The acting Head and the Advisor recommended the case of the petitioner as under :- "The student had been awarded D-grade in General Micro Biology (88M-300) 3 times. Therefore, does not appear to be adequate justification in your recommendation on the application of the above student. Please give your specific comments." The petitioner was finally informed by the Dean, Post-Graduate Students, by letter dated 5/9th July, 1990, that his application was examined and it was not found possible to review the justification taken in this case. 9. The petitioner approached this Court with the prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding respondent No. I to permit the petitioner to appear in the second samester of 1989-90 in the course of 88M-300 General Micro-Biology and also to issue it writ or direction quashing the order of dropping the petitioner from the University which was communicated by the mark-sheet dated 26th December, 1989. 10. The petitioner reproduced the provisions of Regulations 26, 27 and 28 of the Regulation in the writ petition which provide dropping for poor academic performance, petitioner re-admission and disposal of such petitions. The provisions of aforementioned regulations are quoted here as under:- "Dropping for Poor Academic Performance. 26. (1) If at the end of any samester during which a post-graduate student has been on Academic probation the overall Grade Point Average of that student in 300 and higher series courses fails below 4.000 out of 5.000 he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with a right to petition for re-admission. 26. (1) If at the end of any samester during which a post-graduate student has been on Academic probation the overall Grade Point Average of that student in 300 and higher series courses fails below 4.000 out of 5.000 he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with a right to petition for re-admission. (2) Any post-graduate student failing twice in the same course 'examination shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance. In exceptional circumstances the Vice-Chancellor may permit a third chance on the recommendations of the Advisor,' Head of the Deptt. Dean of the College concerned/Dean, P.G.C. (3) No post-graduate student shall register again in a course which he 'she has already cleared with a passing grade. If he/she registers again a course already passed the subsequent grade shall be ignored. Petition for readmission. 27. Any post-graduate student dropped from the University for poor academic performance shall have the privilege of the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor for readmission. Disposal of petitions. 28. Petition for readmission after dropping on academic grounds must be filed within one week from the date of registration for the semester immediately following the semester in which the student has been finally dropped. No petition may be entertained after this date. All petitions made by the dropped students for readmission shall be examined by a petition. Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitions committee shall advise the Vice-Chancellor in respect of each petition whether it may be rejected or accepted subject to such conditions as the committee may deem fit. In case any student has to take make up examination his performance for the purpose of dropping be judged on the basis of results already available without waiting for make up examinations results. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor in such cases shall be final. Once a petition has been rejected by the Vice-Chancellor no further petition shall be entertained." 11. A counter-affidavit of Sri S. D. Visth, Assistant Registrar (Legal) of Govind Vallabh Pant University was filed and it was stated that a post-graduate student, who failed in particular course twice is to be dropped for poor academic performance. In exceptional circumstances, a third chance is permissible by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner, in the present case has availed the third chance and failed again. In exceptional circumstances, a third chance is permissible by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner, in the present case has availed the third chance and failed again. The respondents quoted the marks obtained by the petitioner in Micro-Biology course of the first semester 1988-89, quoted as under:- Result of Gen. Microbiology of II Semester 1988-89 I Pre-Final II Pre-Final III Pre-Final Lab. Fin. Total Gr. Remarks Maximum Marks 15 15 15 15 40 100 Marks obtained 2.6 6.9 1.5 Absent Abs. 11 D IR The marks of the second semester of the aforesaid course are quoted as under: I Pre-Final II Pre-Final III Pre-Final Lab. Fin. Total Gr. Remarks 16 15 14 15 40 100 8.50 7.50 7.05 12.25 Abs. 35.30 D IR 12. The respondents categorically stated that in the first semester of 1988-89, the petitioner wanted to withdraw from the course intentionally and deliberately as out of 45 marks in 3 pre final examination, he only obtained 11 marks and he was also irregular in attending the course. He appeared in the class and examination and only in the particular subjects of his choice in which he felt comfortable. The respondents stated in the counter-affidavit that a post-graduate student has to maintain minimum "OGPA of 4,000 out of 5,000 in each semester". The petitioner never made this requirement and was allowed to continue on the submission of the petitioner for readmission on the recommendation of the Admission Committee and the approval of the Vice-Chancellor thereon, as is evident from the table quoted as under:- 13. The petitioner's guardian was informed twice by the Dean of Post-Graduate School about the poor academic performance and was advised to get the petitioner with-drawn from the University because of his poor performance. The petitioner had admitedly availed three opportunities in the course and examination and was dropped by the University for poor-performance. According to Regulation 26(2), any post-graduate student failing twice in the same course/examination shall be dropped, from the University for the poor academic performance. The petitioner after being allowed to appear thrice and after having failed in all the three attempts cannot seek further remission for appearing in the fourth attempt. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit and denied the allegations of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner after being allowed to appear thrice and after having failed in all the three attempts cannot seek further remission for appearing in the fourth attempt. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit and denied the allegations of the counter-affidavit. He further stated that the chart shown in the counter-affidavit was also not correct but the marks of the petitioner reproduced in the counter-affidavit were not denied as the same were based on record. It was stated that the petitioner although had applied for appearance in the third attempt, but that would not mean that he actually earlier availed two opportunities. In the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it was stated that one student, Suresh Kumar, had been admitted on an application for withdrawal from the course in similar circumstances. The respondents in reply to the same by way of a supplementary counter-affidavit submitted that the application of Sri Suresh Kumar was endorsed by the University Medical Officer and he was permitted to withdraw from the course. A reply to the said supplementary counter-affidavit was given by the petitioner in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. It was stated that in view of the fact that the Medical Officer of the University himself had supported the case and recommended for such withdrawal. Similarly, in case of the petitioner also it was directed by the Medical Officer of the University that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw for getting him treated out of the hospital of the University. Since there was no facility of treatment of petitioner's ailments in the University Hospital. On the direction of the Medical Officer of the University, the petitioner was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Rudrapur and later on he was treated by a Doctor of Haldwani. These allegations are made in the rejoinder affidavit to indicate that the student similarly circumstanced, who was ailing by some decease was granted leave to appear in the third attempt whereas the petitioner, who was also recommended to get his ailments treated outside the University Hospital was not meted out the similar treatment from the University authorities. Sl. No. Course No. Course Title Credits Last Gr. No. of Attempt Core Courses 1. AFS-411 Food Microbiology 2 - - 2. AFS-350 Principles of Food Processing 3 C I 3. AFS-401 Food Chemistry 2 8 II 4. Sl. No. Course No. Course Title Credits Last Gr. No. of Attempt Core Courses 1. AFS-411 Food Microbiology 2 - - 2. AFS-350 Principles of Food Processing 3 C I 3. AFS-401 Food Chemistry 2 8 II 4. AFS-405 Enymes in Food Processing 2 8 I 5. AFS-421 Tech. of Cereals Pulses & Oilseeds 3 8 I 6. AFS-435 Food Evaluation 3 8 I 7. AFS-441 Tech. of Milk & Milk Products 3 - - 8. AFS-422 Tech. of Fruit and Vegetables 3 8 I 9. AFS-520 Seminar 1 - - 10. AFS-530 Thesis Research 15 Basic Supporting Courses 1. AFS-510 Special Problem 3 A I 2. TPF-319 Elem. of Food Engg. 3 B I 3. BPC-360 General Biochemistry 4 C II 4. BBM-300 Gen. Microbiology 4 Failed thrice Open Elective Courses 1. BPM-309 Introduction to Computers programming. 2 C I Non-Credit Courses 1. AFS-232 Human Food and Nutrition 3 C I 2. AFS-230 Dairy Science 3 B II 3. BBM-200 Introductory Microbiology 3 Failed The petitioner's Semester wise GPA/OGPA was as under:- Semester GPA DGPA Remarks II Semester 1986-87 2,857 - Placed on academic probation. I Semester 1987-88 3,000 2,937 Dropped and readmitted on bond on the recommendation of the Petitions Committee. II Semester 1987-88 2,666 3,000 -do- I Semester 1988-89 3,272 3,166 -do II Semester 1988-89 3,500 3,250 -do- 14. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit stated that one, Sri Mrigesh Chaudhary, was also drop ped from the role of the University on account of had performance as he also fell ill. He filed a Writ Petitioner No. 8835 of 1990 before this Court. The petition was finally allowed by this Court by the judgment dated 23-2-1992 directing the University authorities to permit the petitioner to appear in the make up examination in the paper of aninal Management (sic) and after the marks obtained by the petitioner in the said make up examination fresh grading be awarded to him in the first semester had than the second semester afresh. 15. No doubt that in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit the petitioner came with certain more new facts which were not stated by him in the writ petition, or even in the first rejoinder affidavit, which was filed by him. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sri. 15. No doubt that in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit the petitioner came with certain more new facts which were not stated by him in the writ petition, or even in the first rejoinder affidavit, which was filed by him. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sri. D. Kackar for the University, who was served a copy of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit on 5-3- 1992. It was stated by Sri Kackar that new facts have been stated in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit but the respondents were not given any opportunity. He submitted that such new facts which are stated in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit cannot be entertained and considered while deciding the petition. 17. It has become.a very prevalent practice that the learned counsel for the petitioner without seeking permission of the Court file a number of supplementary affidavits as and when they desire and consider it to file. They do not consider it proper to seek such permission and then file fresh supplementary and additional supplementary rejoinder affidavits without necessary papers. It is not the sweet-will of the parties that they may file any number of affidavits or evidence as and when they may desire. For doing this, learned counsel for the parties are supposed to seek permission from the Court. In the present case, the Court did not feel the necessity of such supplementary affidavit as have been filed by the petitioner giving new facts piecemeal. Such a practice is neither reasonable nor can he encouraged. However, I considered the submissions and examined the entire record and the supplementary rejoinder affidavit and I am of the view that all the facts stated have not been controverted by the respondents, still I considered the same and I am of the view that such additional facts is firstly cannot be allowed to be raised without permission or leave of the Court and, secondly, even if such facts are correct that would also not vitiate the findings of the University. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent University, Sri D. Kackar, cited AIR 1980 SC 1666 Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. B.S. Narval. The petitioner has not raised any plea of mala fide or bias against any of the opposite parties in the writ petition. Nor has he levelled any such allegation against any of the authorities of the University. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent University, Sri D. Kackar, cited AIR 1980 SC 1666 Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. B.S. Narval. The petitioner has not raised any plea of mala fide or bias against any of the opposite parties in the writ petition. Nor has he levelled any such allegation against any of the authorities of the University. The Supreme Court observed that when duly qualified and competent academic authority examine and assess the work of the student over it period of time and declare his work to be unsatisfactory, we are unable to see how any question of right to be heard can arise. This duty of an academic body in such a case is to form an unbiased assessment of the student's standard of work based on entirity of his record and potential. Herring v. Templeman, (1973) 3 All ER 569 at page 584. "That is their function. The very nature of the function of the academic adjudication (if the use of word adjudication is permissible in the context) appears to us to negative any right to an opportunity to be heard. If the assessment by the academic body permit the consideration of non-academic circumstances also a right to be heard may be employed, but if the assessment confined to the academic performance, a right to be heard may not-be so implied. Of course, if there are allegations of bias or mala fides, different considerations might prevail, but in the absence of allegations of bias or mala fides, we do not think that the declaration by an academic body that a students academic performance is unsatisfactory, is liable to be questioned in Court on the ground that the student was not given an opportunity of being heard." 19. On the lines of the Supreme Court decision if we examine the present case, there is no allegation of mala fide or bias in the petition. Thus, the respondents, who are academic experts, were duly entitled to adjudge the petitioner's performance and while doing so they were of the opinion the performance of the petitioner was so poor that further opportunity after the third attempt may not be given. The petitioner has a matter of right or according to the regulation of 26, quoted above, was entitled for only a third opportunity which he had availed. The petitioner has a matter of right or according to the regulation of 26, quoted above, was entitled for only a third opportunity which he had availed. After availing the third opportunity, it was not open for him to claim that he may be permitted to drop out after appearing in other subjects. Learned counsel for the respondents supplied a photostat copy of the certificate of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 646 of 1991, Pankaj Singh v. Director and Senate Chairman, Indian Institution of Technology, and others dated 18.1.1991. And another judgment of this Court in C.M. Writ Petn. No. 2317 of 1992; Rajesh Kumar v. Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and others decided on 25-8-1992. The learned counsel also cited 1992 All WC 421 to substantiate that the decision of Academic Body of such technical institute ho judged the performance of the petitioner is final and cannot be open to challenge for a writ petition. The perusal of the photostat copies of the aforesaid two judgments of the writ petition shows that the Court was examining the case of the petitioners, who were students and who dropped on account of poor performance. In the petition of Rajesh Kumar (supra) there was an allegation that the petitioners of the said case were discriminated on their being of Scheduled Caste and were dropped on the basis of caste. These allegations were denied by the respondents of the said case. The cases of the individual students were examined by the committee individually. As such the performance of each students was judged separately. In view of the said facts and circumstances, it was observed by the lerned single Judge, relying on AIR 1980 SC 1666 (supra) that the judgment of the experts of the educational department dealing with such matters is not open to screening by the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and examining the record of the case, I am of the clear view that this is a case where no interference can be made by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has not made any allegation of bias or mala fide against the respondents. His case was for grant of permission by the respondent University for taking further attempt for the course. The petitioner has not made any allegation of bias or mala fide against the respondents. His case was for grant of permission by the respondent University for taking further attempt for the course. The respondents considered it from all aspects and were of the view that the petitioner's performance was so poor that he cannot be considered for any additional opportunity. The petitioner had availed already one more opportunity out of which he wants permission to withdraw which was rightly refused by the respondents. The case of petitioner is that he was ailing and on account of illness, he could not properly perform in the subject of Microbiology appears to be an after thought. The petitioner did appear in other subjects and also appeared in the Micro-Biology. Had he not appeared in any of the papers subjects, this plea might have been of some assistance to the petitioner. Since the petitioner appeared in the papers, and at the later stage sought permission-to withdraw, it was not bona fide. In these circumstances, the academic experts of the respondents University declined to grant permission to the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no case for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Parties to bear cost.