M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the University. On behalf of the respondents, arequest has been conveyed that some further time be granted toplace on record a formal reply. Had there been any need, I wouldhave certainly granted the request of the learned Advocate. However, the petitions involve only one clear cut point of lawwhich to my mind does not require any factual reply. Thelearned Advocates have made their submissions with regard tothe merits of the matter. ( 2 ) THE issue in dispute is that the petitioners were students of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore doing their M. Sc. (Agrl.) Degree and they completed the same in the year1994-95. They have set out a detailed narration of theiracademic careers and their professional achievements and I findfrom this that these were all top of the grade students. Accordingto them, having regard to the grades obtained by them also theircareer record that they would have been qualified for the awardof gold medals because the existing regulations prescribe thatthey have to get an overall grade of 8. 5 out of 10 for this purpose. It is relevant for me to point out that it is not only theassessment of the final examination but that the examinationincludes practicals etc. , held in the earlier course of study whichalso contributes to the overall assessment. According to thepetitioners, the University in or about August, 1994 had changedthe criteria by increasing it to 9,50. It is their case that theywere unaware of the change and that only when the Convocationprogramme was announced that they were excluded from thelist of gold medal awardees. Hence they have moved this Court. This position is denied on behalf of the University and it hascontended that the students were well aware of the change. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS' learned Advocate has submitted that in comparison with the regulations framed by other Universitieswhich are still adopting the 8. 5 criteria, that the target of 9. 5 isunreasonably high and that therefore, the regulation should bestruck down. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of theuniversity submitted that the Academic Council of theuniversity is well within its authority to raise the qualifyingstandards for gold medals in appropriate subjects to the levelswhich it considers necessary and that therefore, the regulation isperfectly reasonable. 5 isunreasonably high and that therefore, the regulation should bestruck down. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of theuniversity submitted that the Academic Council of theuniversity is well within its authority to raise the qualifyingstandards for gold medals in appropriate subjects to the levelswhich it considers necessary and that therefore, the regulation isperfectly reasonable. To my mind, it would not be appropriate forthis Court to interfere with the decision of the University insofaras one has to take note of the fact that the Universityauthorities who take these decisions are highly qualified andexperienced educationists and it is presumed that they are fullyaware of the necessity of altering the qualifying standards insome subjects. To that extent therefore, I do not propose tointerfere with the change that has been effected. ( 4 ) THE issue that is required to be determined in this case isas to whether the change that was effected at the fag end of thecareer of this batch of students which materially alters thetargets set for them can be permitted, having regard to thetiming of the action. Even assuming that the students weremade aware of this change, it does not make much differencebecause it would be too late at that point of time for this batch ofstudents to qualify for the higher target having regard to thefact that their course was almost complete when the change wasmade. Under these circumstances, it is only fair that the earlierregulation which prescribes the target of 8. 5 out of 10 shouldapply as far as this batch of students are concerned. Therespondent's learned Advocate clarifies that there is somediffference between the earlier semester system and thesemesters that are now in force and that this change has been inview of the said alteration. That would not make any differencebecause the question is as to whether the students who qualifyfor this target had adequate notice and whether they have beeninformed about the altered position with regard to the changethat was made. Having regard to the fact that the decision wastaken at the fag end of the career of the petitioners it was wrongon the part of the University Authorities to have applied thealtered regulation to that particular batch of students. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Having regard to the fact that the decision wastaken at the fag end of the career of the petitioners it was wrongon the part of the University Authorities to have applied thealtered regulation to that particular batch of students. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The onlydirection that can now be issued is that since the Convocationhas taken place already, the University shall reconsider thematter in the light of the grades obtained by these petitionershaving regard to the earlier criteria and if they would have beenqualified for the award of the gold medals in question thatcorrective steps be taken in this case within a period of eightweeks from today. It has been pointed out by the petitioners'learned Advocate that it is not only the question of prize that theuniversity awards, but that it makes a substantial difference inthe future career of these petitioners. ( 5 ) RULE is accordingly made absolute to this extent. ( 6 ) NO order as to costs. --- *** --- .