M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. A. M. Panchal, AGP waives service of Rule for respondent No. 1. Mr. S. N. Shelat with Mr. N. V. Anjaria waives service of Rule for respondent No. 2. At the request of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THE petition is filed by a student who was admitted to the First Year of Bachelor of Physiotherapy Course but he failed to pass at the first year examination even after availing of three attempts, i. e. in September 1994, March 1995 and September 1995. The petitioner is now required to leave the course on account of three failures pursuant to the relevant rule which is impugned in the present petition. ( 3 ) THE relevant rules are at Annexure H to the memo of the petition. Rule 7 (pages 37-38 of the Paper Book) thereof reads as under:b. Physio 7. A candidate who obtains 50% of the total marks in any subject at the examination will be entitled at his option, to claim exemption therefrom at the subsequent examination. He will be declared to have passed the examination only if he/she passes in the remaining subjects at the subsequent examination. Candidate passing the examination in this manner in compartments will not be eligible for a class or for any prize or scholarship to be awarded at the examination. Note : If a First Year student fails can appear in the subsequent examinations he/ she will be allowed for two more attempts, in case if he/she fails in the third attempt he/she leave the course. " ( 4 ) IN view of the above rules, the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to appear at the First Year physiotherapy Examination at the fourth attempt. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court and has challenged the above quoted note below Rule. 7. ( 5 ) ON 30th January 1996 this Court issued notice to the respondents. In response to the notice, the Controller of examinations of the Gujarat University, has filed Affidavit-in-reply and has justified the validity of the rules. ( 6 ) AT the hearing of the petition, Mr. 7. ( 5 ) ON 30th January 1996 this Court issued notice to the respondents. In response to the notice, the Controller of examinations of the Gujarat University, has filed Affidavit-in-reply and has justified the validity of the rules. ( 6 ) AT the hearing of the petition, Mr. M. B. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the petitioner has challegned the note below rule 7 on the basis of the following contentions: (I) the said note is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner under the Constitution as the petitioner is deprived of his right to higher education by not being permitted to prosecute his studies merely on the ground that he has failed to pass the said examination in three attempts. (ii) the said Note is also discriminatory inasmuch as the students prosecuting their studies in MBBS and BDS Courses are not visited with a similar handicap although the admission process for three courses is common and the students of the First Year of MBBS, and Physiotherapy have to study some common subjects and attend common lectures for studying common subjects. ( 7 ) MR. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the delhi High Court reported in AIR 1979 (Delhi) 87 and the judgments of this Court reported in 1992 (2) GLR 1066 and 1987 (2) glr 748 . ( 8 ) ON the other hand Mr. S. N. Shelat with Mr. N. V. Anjaria appearing for respondent No. 2 have contended that the constitutional validity of a similar rule has been upheld by a Division Bench of this court in Special Civil Application No. 5518 of 1992 decided on September 28, 1992. The relevant rule in the said case provided as under:"a candidate will be permitted not more than four attempts (actual examination) at the First M. B. B. S. Examination, provided four attempts are completed in 3 years from his first attempt. Appearance at the whole or a part of the examination shall be counted as an attempt. "after considering the law laid down by he Honble Supreme Court in the case of mysore University v. Gopala Gowda, AIR 1965 SC 1932 , the Division Bench of this court upheld the constitutional validity of the said rule relying, inter alia, on the following observations of the Apex Court:". . . "after considering the law laid down by he Honble Supreme Court in the case of mysore University v. Gopala Gowda, AIR 1965 SC 1932 , the Division Bench of this court upheld the constitutional validity of the said rule relying, inter alia, on the following observations of the Apex Court:". . . THE (Academic) Council has for maintaining standards the power to prescribe schemes of examinations, and also to prescribe conditions on which students shall be admitted to the examinations Power to prescribe conditions in which a student may be admitting to the examinations, in our opinion, necessarily implies the power to refuse to admit a student in certain contingencies, for the power to admit to an examination implies the power to weed out students who have on the application of a reasonable test proved themselves to be unfit to continue the course or prosecute training in that course. If on account of general inaptitude for being trained in a course or on account of supervening disability to prosecute a course of study, a student admitted to that course is found by the Academic Council to be unfit to prosecute his training it would, in our judgment, be within the power of the academic Council, in exercise of its authority to control and maintain standards and also of its authority to prescribe conditions on which students may be admitted to examinations, to direct that the student shall discontinue training in that course. And failure by a student to qualify for promotion or degree in four examinations, is certainly a reasonable test of such inaptitude or supervening disability. If after securing admission to an institution imparting training for professional courses, a student may be held entitled to continue indefinitely to attend the institution without adequate application and to continue to offer himself for successive examinations, a lowering of academics standards would inevitably result. . . . " ( 9 ) MR. S. N. Shelat, after relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Division bench of this Court, also relied upon the judgment of another Division Bench of this court reported in 31 (2) GLR 1066, wherein this Court has held that in academic matters the Court exercising its powers under Art. 226 should not interfere with such policy decisions and should leave the same to the university even where two views are possible. Hence whether the student should be permitted to appear at maximum three attempts or four attempts or for any other number of attempts are all matters within the realm of the policy decision of the university. ( 10 ) NONE of the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner dealt with the controversy raised in the present petition. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and the above decisions of two Division benches of this Court the first contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. ( 11 ) AS far as the second contention is concerned the rule cannot be considered to be discriminatory merely because similar rule is not there for the students of 1st m. B. B. S. and 1st B. D. S. Courses. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is centralised scheme for admission to three courses for convenience of students aspiring to seek admission to the said courses so that they do not have to apply to different institutions and run from one college to another: but that does not make the students admitted to the three courses a common class. All the three courses are distinct and, therefore, absence of similar rule in the 1st MBBS or 1st B. D. S. course cannot invalidate the admission rules for the b. Physiotherapy course. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petition fails. ( 13 ) RULE is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. .