Judgment :- The prime prayer in this writ petition is to quash the decision of the Cochin University of Science and Technology (hereinafter-referred to as 'the University') to entrust the conduct of the entrance test for admission to Master of Business Administration course (M.B.A.) to M/s. All India Management Association (for short A.I.M.A. ). The entrance test was conducted by A.I.M.A. on 11-9-1994. One thousand seven hundred candidates appeared for the test and the writ petitioner is one among them. The conundrum before this court is whether the entire test process crystallised in a 'Floppy Diskette' which was received by the School of Management Studies on 27-9-1994, can allow to be invalidated by striking down the decision of the University. What remains to be done in the selection process is to ascertain the respective score of the candidates by deciphering the 'Floppy Diskette' in a computer. 2. The first and foremost point advanced by the petitioner is that the action of the University entrusting the conduct of the entrance test to A.I.M. A. is arbitrary and unauthorised. It was even attacked on the ground of malafide. It was pointed out that A.I.M. A. is an external agency, a private association and conduct of entrance test ought not have been entrusted with it. 3. The case of respondents 1 to 3 is that the Cochin University is a full-fledged University of Science and Technology for the promotion of graduate and postgraduate studies and advanced research in applied science, technology, industry, commerce, management and social science. This University came into existence on the promulgation of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act). Section 2 of the Act, inter alia, reveals that the University has been set up with an object of promoting higher education and research particularly in science, technology and management, 4. Mr. Siby Mathew, learned counsel for the writ petitioner maintained that the first respondent has not obtained sanction from the University for entrusting the conduct of the entrance test to A.I.M. A. He pin points on Ext. P7 and argues mat the Syndicate which was met on 8-7-1994 had decided that admission to M.B.A. Programme shall be based on admission test conducted by the University. Particular emphasis was made on the following paragraph contained in Ext. P7. P7 and argues mat the Syndicate which was met on 8-7-1994 had decided that admission to M.B.A. Programme shall be based on admission test conducted by the University. Particular emphasis was made on the following paragraph contained in Ext. P7. "Resolved that admission to the M.B.A. programme conducted by the Cochin University be based on the Admission Test conducted by the University and the present practice of conducting the common test for admission to the M.B.A. programme of the Calicut and Cochin University be discontinued." The powers of the Syndicate are laid down in S.18 of the Act. The executive power of the University including general supervision and control over its institution are vested in the Syndicate. Under S.17, the Syndicate shall be the Chief Executive body of the University. The observation of the Syndicate in Ext. P7 that admission to M.B.A. programme shall be based 'on the admission test conducted by the University' would only mean that the admission test conducted by the Department concerned. The department in this case is 'the School of Management Studies'. The University is functioning through its different departments for the specific purpose of higher studies and research at the cost of Cochin University. "Department" is defined in the Cochin University First Statutes, 1981 as 'a Cochin University Department of Study and/or Research or a Department functioning for a specific purpose maintained at the cost of the Cochin University Fund". Each department of the University is functioning as an independent autonomous unit under its federal structure. 5. The first respondent is the Head of the Department of the School" of Management studies. He is the officer-in-charge of the department responsible for its administration including its day-to-day working, in view of C1.2(i) and (c) of the Cochin University First Statutes, 1981. Sri K. Divakaran Nair, learned counsel for the first respondent brings to my notice that the responsibility of conducting the entrance examination in consonance with the policy framework of the University is that of the Director. He has been ably assisted and advised in this task by an admission committee consisting of (i) the Dean, (ii) the Director and (iii) the Registrar of the University. The entrance test or examination for admission to M.B.A. course is not an 'examination' contemplated in S.18(xix) of the Act. He has been ably assisted and advised in this task by an admission committee consisting of (i) the Dean, (ii) the Director and (iii) the Registrar of the University. The entrance test or examination for admission to M.B.A. course is not an 'examination' contemplated in S.18(xix) of the Act. It is purely an internal entrance test prescribed by the Department of the University for selecting the candidates for a course of study. It is one of the processes of selection of candidates but not an examination to a course of study. 6. Before sifting the allegations against the conduct of the entrance test by A.I.M.A. it is apt to extrapolate the area where this court can stretch its power of interference. This is not a case where the violation of principles of natural justice is invoked, nor is it a case where the petitioner is denied admission to the entrance examination. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the entrance examination and he after having undergone the test with many others, without demur, now raised an objection that the conduct of examination should not have been entrusted with the fourth respondent. Basically the principle of waiver and estoppel is applicable where a person challenges the proceeding in which he participated. Attending and taking part in the proceedings with full knowledge of the relevant facts will no doubt amount to acquiescence. However, the petitioner has raised a plea that he was not aware of the entrustment of the entrance test with fourth respondent till Ext. PI advertisement was noticed by him. It is pertinent to note here that Ext. PI is an advertisement issued by the fourth respondent inviting applications for admission to the management potential aptitude test to be conducted on 13-11-1994. It does not relate to the entrance examination already held on 11-9-1994. 7. Now let us examine how far the entrustment of the conduct of the entrance examination with the A.I.M.A. by the first respondent is objectionable in the facts of the present case. The basis of the allegation in the writ petition rests on the report evidenced by Exts.P2 to P5. It is pointed out that the fourth respondent who had been entrusted with the task of conducting the entrance test is itself conducting various coaching classes for M.B.A. course. This has been emphatically denied by the fourth respondent in its counter affidavit. Ext. It is pointed out that the fourth respondent who had been entrusted with the task of conducting the entrance test is itself conducting various coaching classes for M.B.A. course. This has been emphatically denied by the fourth respondent in its counter affidavit. Ext. PI would evince that fourth respondent is conducting Management Potential Aptitude Test and not the entrance test for M.B.A. course. The allegation of the petitioner that the fourth respondent asked for names of candidates who appeared for entrance test from the University has been forcibly denied by the University, Shri G. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the University brings to my notice that the Vice Chancellor has appointed Dr.K. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Head of the Department of Electronics to enquire into all the issues concerning the conduct of entrance examination for admission to M.B.A. programme. This enquiry was necessitated because of the various reports appeared in the press (Exts.P2 to P5) on which' the petitioner also place reliance. The report of the enquiry officer was considered by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 20-10-1994 and resolved to accept the same. The following findings of the enquiry. officer as revealed from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent are sufficient enough to ablate all the controversies and vituperations raised by the petitioner in this case. 1. The Inquiry Authority Finds that the entrance test (written exam, part) by the. School of Management Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology, jointly with Calicut University for M.B.A. admission 1994, is with the knowledge and approval of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. 2. All allegations regarding the credibility of All India Management Association, which undertook the responsibility of conducting the written examination part of the entrance test are false. 3. The complaint that the members of the faculty of School of Management Studies are not involved in the entrance test is again baseless. For the Group Discussion, and viva-voce, they are very much involved. 4. University has not incurred heavy financial loss due to the new arrangement. In fact, the University has earned more money, compared to many previous years. 5. Any anomaly, procedural errors or mistakes could be checked by the admission committee which consists of the Director of the School, Dean of the concerned faculty and the Registrar." 8. 4. University has not incurred heavy financial loss due to the new arrangement. In fact, the University has earned more money, compared to many previous years. 5. Any anomaly, procedural errors or mistakes could be checked by the admission committee which consists of the Director of the School, Dean of the concerned faculty and the Registrar." 8. Mr.T.L. Ananthasivan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, fervently contradicts the campaign against the A.I.M.A. He points out that A.I.M.A. is an apex body operating with the active support of the Government of India. The allegation as against Ext. PI is found to be baseless inasmuch as it relates to Management Potential Aptitude Test which has nothing to do with the entrance test conducted for admission to M.B.A. course, as earlier said. In view of the finding of the enquiry officer all the doubts regarding the selection process have been particularly evaporated. 9. The Supreme Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow and others (AIR 1984 SC 186) observed: "It was a matter for decision of the academic body and since the academic body had applied the rules in a bona fide manner to all the students equally, there was no jurisdiction whatsoever on the part of the High Court to interfere with the internal working of an academic institution concerned with imparting higher education in the field of post-graduate course in medicine." In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. Medical College (1992) 2 SCC 220) the Supreme Court observed: "We have considered all the materials placed before us in the light of arguments advanced keeping in mind the well accepted principles that in deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities' should normally be left to their decision and the court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice." 10. While dealing with the question of disciplinary proceedings against a school student, I observed on behalf of the Division Bench in Headmaster, Poilkavu H.S. v. Murali (1994) 2 KLT 518) thus: "Interference of this court under Art.226 in matters relating to internal discipline of academic bodies will normally be rigid But the court will be resilient when there is total absence of pre-decisional or show cause notice to the delinquent whatever may be the gravity of charges. When 'fairness' is visible in the action of the Headmaster or Principal, the court can even refuse to look into the complaints when the circumstances of the case so warrant. On the other hand, if there is any allegation of malice or ill-will against the authorities and is supported by prima facie evidence the court will be justified if interference is made." It cannot be said that the internal bodies of academic institutions are totally outside the purview of judicial review. Certain amount of internal freedom in academic matters will always be reserved. That does not mean such bodies can act arbitrarily or unreasonably or in total violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules. Every c&ie has to be adjudged on the particular facts involved therein. While doing so, the courts will normally be slow in upsetting the decision of internal bodies or Departments of the Universities functioning with autonomous powers. 11. Let us now examine the decision of the Court of Appeal in R. v. University of London Visitor ex pane Vijayatunga (1989) 2 All. E.R.843) which gives treasured guidance in gauging (he width of court's power of interference on decisions of expert bodies of Universities. Background of the case is this: A student for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at a University of London submitted a thesis at the end of her studies. The thesis was considered by two examiners appointed by the University's academic staff in accordance with the relevant statutes and regulations. Following consideration of the thesis and a re-examination the University refused to award the applicant a doctorate but offered her a lower degree, which she declined. The thesis was considered by two examiners appointed by the University's academic staff in accordance with the relevant statutes and regulations. Following consideration of the thesis and a re-examination the University refused to award the applicant a doctorate but offered her a lower degree, which she declined. The student petitioned to a committee of the Privy Council challenging the refusal to award her doctorate on the ground that the appointed examiners had not been properly qualified to assess her thesis because they did not specialize in her academic discipline, with the result that her thesis had been misjudged. The committee declined to intervene on the ground that it was no part of its duty to interfere in matters of scientific or technical judgment and that it would not be proper to express a view as to the choice of examiners or to criticize the University's decision on such a choice. The petition was accordingly dismissed. Then the student sought judicial review of the committee's decision contending that the selection of examiners did not involve a pure exercise of academic judgment and that the evident mismatch between the appointed examiners' fields of specialization and the subject of the applicant's thesis raised an obvious question for inquiry. The Divisional Court dismissed the application. On appeal the Court of Appeal ultimately held: "In the circumstances the committee had been entitled, if not bound, to conclude that the University's prescribed procedures for appointing examiners had been followed, and accordingly there had not been any manifest procedural impropriety. Furthermore, the committee had been entitled to conclude that the choice of examiners involved an exercise of expert or academic judgment into which it should not intrude, there being no reason to think mat that judgment had been improperly exercised. It followed that the applicant had not shown that the committee had made a decision which was wrong in law and the appeal would therefore be dismissed." (Italics supplied) The above observation of the Court of Appeal persuades me to comprehend the amplitude of interference this court can have in matters of University's internal administration in exercise of judicial review. 12. The entrustment of entrance examination with the A.I.M.A. by the first respondent is an internal decision of a Department of University. The entrance test had been entrusted with the A.M.I.A. to "enhance the credibility, reliability and confidentiality of the selection process". 12. The entrustment of entrance examination with the A.I.M.A. by the first respondent is an internal decision of a Department of University. The entrance test had been entrusted with the A.M.I.A. to "enhance the credibility, reliability and confidentiality of the selection process". Such entrustment was found to be proper and with the knowledge and approval of the University by the enquiry officer whose report was accepted by the Syndicate without reserve. The decision of the first respondent is a decision of an independent expert body relating to the internal administration of the University. No material has been placed before me to imprint the above decision as malafide or made in bad faith. It cannot be said to be arbitrary or unauthorised for the reasons already set out herein before. This court will not in this situation be justified in attempting to substitute its understanding and judgment for the decision of the first respondent. I do not see any merit in the contentions advanced by the petitioner in this writ petition. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.