Judgment :- K. Narayana Kurup, J. The petitioner obtained Post Graduation in Chemistry in 1978. He entered service as Lecturer on 18.6.1979 at S.N. College, Cherthala. At present, he is Senior Grade Lecturer working at S.N. College, Alathur. The petitioner being aggrieved by Clause 5 of Chapter II of Calicut University First Statute 1977 (for short 'the First Statute') which provides pre-qualifying examination for Ph.D. in Calicut University as a mandatory requirement, has approached this Court for a declaration that the aforesaid clause is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution and alternatively for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent (Controller of Examinations, Calicut University) to cause revaluation of the answer paper of the petitioner for Ph.D. qualifying examination in Chemistry under the supervision of Dr. E. Purushothaman and for other reliefs. 1. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a statement in which it is stated that in the, preliminary qualifying examination in terms of the First Statute consisting of a written test and viva voce the petitioner failed to score the minimum marks required for eligibility, ie, 50%, viz. 100 out of 200. Since only candidates who secured the minimum cut of mark are qualified for the viva voce, the petitioner could not be called for viva voce as he was declared failed in the written test. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioner its not entitled to succeed in this Original Petition. The statutory provision providing for qualifying examination is not liable to be declared as ultra vires and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The University is perfectly within its rights in framing its own rules and regulations in the matter of conducting eligibility test for candidates who intended to register their names for Ph.D. course. Since the University being an autonomous body, it is entitled to prescribe its own standards for attaining academic excellence and the statute in question framed with the avowed objective of attaining academic excellence is not liable to be questioned on the specious plea that other Universities do not provide for qualifying examination for admission to Ph.D. course. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in rejecting this contention as devoid of merit. 3. The next relief for revaluation of answer papers claimed by the petitioner is also not liable to be granted. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in rejecting this contention as devoid of merit. 3. The next relief for revaluation of answer papers claimed by the petitioner is also not liable to be granted. As per Clause 5 of the Statute, there is no provision for revaluation of answer scripts of preliminary Ph.D. qualifying examination. In terms of the aforesaid provision, when double valuation is provided, there is no provision for revaluation. Since the Statute itself has in-built provision against any arbitrariness or inadvertent mistake, I am satisfied that the prayer for revaluation is not liable to be granted. That apart, writ proceedings is not a proper forum for deciding weightage and value of marks to be given to a candidate who is an aspirant for entrance to the Ph.D. Neither this Court nor a person appointed by it can assume the role of an examiner and substitute its own opinion for that of the academic body. This Court is not expected to make a review of the candidates' answer scripts. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is devoid of merit which is accordingly dismissed.