Judgment :- P. Shanmugham, J. Petitioner was a candidate for Pre-degree course. She had completed her 10th standard secondary school examination in the year 1995. She was admitted to the 2nd respondent college under the Mahatma Gandhi University. While so, prior to the first year Pre-degree Examination, petitioner was informed that she is not eligible for writing the examination since she had completed C.B.S.E. through compartmental system. Hence, she filed the above Original Petition seeking to quash Ext. P7 memo or in the alternative to issue of a writ of mandamus to the University to re-consider the memo. She has also prayed for an order to declare that she is eligible to pursue her higher studies in the University. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the University took notice of the matter on 11.4.1997 and has filed a counter affidavit. According to the Standing Counsel, the petitioner is not eligible to be admitted to the Pre-degree course at all. The University does not recognise the examination taken under the compartmental system and such a decision was taken by the Vice Chancellor in the place of the Academic Council in the year 1982. The said Circular dated 4.5.1992 had been communicated to all the Principals of the affiliated Colleges. According to him, if the petitioner had disclosed about compartmental examination and that she had a completed the course by compartmental system, she would not have been admitted to the course at all. By making wrong representation in her application, she got the admission. That means, she knows fully well that she is not eligible to be admitted if she had taken the course by compartmental system. Therefore, pleading ignorance ats this stage and claiming to write the examination, cannot be sustained. Learned Standing counsel also submits that in the absence of Academic Council, the Vice Chancellor was empowered to take a decision under S.10(7) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. Therefore, the University is empowered to recognise the examination and in this case they have not recognised the examination taken under compartmental system. He also submits that as far as Mahatma Gandhi University is concerned, no other Higher Secondary Course coming under the CBSE or any other pattern is recognised if itis taken by compartmental system. Therefore, the petitioner cannot alone be granted exemption. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also submits that as far as Mahatma Gandhi University is concerned, no other Higher Secondary Course coming under the CBSE or any other pattern is recognised if itis taken by compartmental system. Therefore, the petitioner cannot alone be granted exemption. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner's original application for admission was furnished before this Court and under column No. 15 petitioner was asked to state the number of appearances for the qualifying examination with register numbers for which the petitioner's answer was 'one'. This is not a correct statement since the petitioner had attended the whole examination in March, 1995 and after she failed in Mathematics, she wrote her second examination in Mathematics subject alone in August, 1995. Therefore, the number of appearances should have been No. 2 and not one. 4. S.24 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act provides for constitution of an Academic Council who will control and regulate and be responsible for maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination. The powers of the Academic Council is set out under S.25. Sub-Cl. (v) of S.25 states that the Academic Council is to prescribe the qualifications for admissions of students to the various course of studies and to the examinations and the conditions under which exemptions may be granted. Sub-cl. (xii) of S.25 enables the Academic Council to decide what examinations of other Universities can be accepted as equivalent to those of the University. 5. According to the learned counsel, the Academic Council was not functioning in this University from 29.11.1988 to 8.10.1995. In the absence of Academic Council, S.10(7) of the Act enables the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision in the academic matters. It is further stated that after the constitution of the Academic Council, the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor in the absence of Academic Council was ratified. One of the decisions that was taken by the Vice Chancellor in reference to academic matter was the recognition regarding the compartmental examination. The Vice Chancellor took the decision, after considering the matter in detail, not to permit the students who have passed All India Secondary Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi compartmentally, for higher studies in this University. 6. The Vice Chancellor took the decision, after considering the matter in detail, not to permit the students who have passed All India Secondary Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi compartmentally, for higher studies in this University. 6. This decision of the Vice Chancellor which had been ratified by the Academic Council, cannot be assailed by the petitioner before this Court.. This Court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly laid down that in academic matters, it is for the academicians and the University to take a decision. In Maharashtra S.B. O.S.& H.S. Education v. Paritosh (AIR 1984 SC 1542) the Supreme Court held that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. In Principal, Patna College v. K.S. Raman (AIR 1966 SC 707) the Supreme Court held that where the question involved is one of interpreting a Regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plan that the Regulation in question is capable of two constructions and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities. In this case, there is no scope for two interpretations. The University has clearly laid down that students with compartmentalized passing of examination cannot be permitted to be admitted to the University. According to them, the candidate should have passed the whole examination in a single sitting. This rule as laid down by the University cannot be interfered with by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 7. As a matter of fact, the University has not shown any discrimination in so far as the candidates who had written compartmental examination. According to the Standing Counsel, no student who had taken Secondary Examination or equivalent course through compartmental system, is admitted to Pre-degree. Therefore, the only ground on which that can be assailed is that should have been made in arbitrary and discriminatory manner. That being absent, the decision of the University on academic matters cannot be assailed in this Court. According to the Standing Counsel, no student who had taken Secondary Examination or equivalent course through compartmental system, is admitted to Pre-degree. Therefore, the only ground on which that can be assailed is that should have been made in arbitrary and discriminatory manner. That being absent, the decision of the University on academic matters cannot be assailed in this Court. Itis quite normal to see that upto 10th Standard, a student has to qualify for the whole course by passing the whole examination. This is the scheme in all the Boards upto 10th Standard level. In any event, it is for the University to decide whether any examination with a different pattern can be approved or not. In Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India (AIR 1974 SC 1631) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the right of the authorities to decide the equivalence. Their Lordships observed: "The question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant standards and practical attainments of such qualification and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possess the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government. It is only where the decision of the Government is shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated by mala fides or irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong that the court would reach out its lethal arm and strike down the decision of the Government". 8. Petitioner, though a regular student should have completed the whole course at one sitting. She cannot be permitted to pass the examination in separate sitting and to claim the right to be admitted in the Mahatma Gandhi University. The fact that the petitioner had completed the course through compartmental system, has been stated even in Ext. P5. In Ext. P6, it is stated that the Central Board has no objection in her joining in any college. But it is for the Mahatma Gandhi University to decide whether this certificate has to be recognised or not. I do not find any illegality in not approving a compartmental examination of CBSE. 9. P5. In Ext. P6, it is stated that the Central Board has no objection in her joining in any college. But it is for the Mahatma Gandhi University to decide whether this certificate has to be recognised or not. I do not find any illegality in not approving a compartmental examination of CBSE. 9. In the above circumstances, no grounds are made out to grant the relief sought for in the Original Petition. Based on the existing orders of the University, Ext. P7 memo cannot be objected to. Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.