TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) JUDICIAL review of Executive, Administrative and quasi-judicial orders, acknowledged as one of the most profound developments in the post Constitution era, is nevertheless subject to certain inherent limitations. Broadly speaking, the Courts have recognised that judicial review does not imply sitting in appeal over the decision under challenge. Lack of expertise with the Courts to correct decisions involving complex question requiring specialised knowledge of a given subject is yet another limitation which may defy a solution at the hands of the Court within judicially manageable dimensions. Authoritative judicial pronouncements from the Apex Court declare that the Court's examination of the impugned order must remain confined to finding out:- (a) Whether the decision making authority has exceeded its powers? (b) Committed an error of law. (c) Committed a breach of the principles of natural justice or (d) Arrived at a decision which no reasonable person would have done. ( 2 ) APART from correcting orders issued in excess of the powers of the Authority making the same judicial review remains confined to examining whether the order under challenge is vitiated by any illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularity. Stated differently the decision maker must correctly understand the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. The decision that he arrives at must not suffer from an irrationality of the kind which no prudent person, reasonably instructed in law would countenance. The decision must not be contrary to the procedure prescribed, and if no procedure is prescribed, the decision must be based on a procedure which is just and fair. These are the parameters within which Courts in this country have since the decision of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 : ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ) till the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 exercised the power of judicial review to ensure that repositories of power whatever be the nature of that power do not abuse the same. ( 3 ) THE petitioners were at the material time, MBBS students in their respective colleges at Mysore. Both of them appeared in Phase III, Part II examinations held in January, 1997. ( 3 ) THE petitioners were at the material time, MBBS students in their respective colleges at Mysore. Both of them appeared in Phase III, Part II examinations held in January, 1997. While in the case of petitioner in W. P. No. 11658/1997, the grievance is against the marks awarded to her in the clinical examination in medicine, the petitioner in the connected Writ Petition is aggrieved of the evaluation of her performance in the clinical paper of surgery. According to the scheme of the examination applicable to the petitioners, the clinical examination in the two subjects referred to above comprise one major case, and three minor cases. Out of a total of 120 marks set apart for all the three cases the major case carried 60 marks. In addition, the internal assessment carried 30 marks thereby the total to 150 marks. Petitioner in W. P. No. 11658/1997, appears to have been given a Cardio Vascular case for clinical examination, which as per the version given in the Writ Petition stretched over a period of one hour. She was asked certain questions orally by the examiners conducting the examination, which she claims to have answered satisfactorily. All the same, the examiners awarded her only 12 out of a total of 60 marks assigned for the major case. This award was, according to her, wholly unfair and arbitrary keeping in view her performance which included a write-up of 4 pages indicating her diagnosis. The award of only 12 marks out of 60 is attributed by the petitioner to the flaws in the Scheme of Examination that leave enough room for the examiners to be arbitrary. Having thus failed in the first attempt, she appears to have made a second in July, 1997 and passed. She has prayed for the award of six marks to her in the clinical paper of medicine or in the alternative for treating the result of her examination held in July, 1997 as a part of the Jan/feb. , 1997 examination. ( 4 ) IN W. P. No. 13817/1997, the petitioner has scored a total of 41 marks out of 120 set apart for one major and three minor cases. The major case given to her, it appears, was of a female patient complaining of abdominal pain and admitted to the hospital on 30th of January, 1997. , 1997 examination. ( 4 ) IN W. P. No. 13817/1997, the petitioner has scored a total of 41 marks out of 120 set apart for one major and three minor cases. The major case given to her, it appears, was of a female patient complaining of abdominal pain and admitted to the hospital on 30th of January, 1997. The Examiners conducting the examination appear to have asked the petitioner to find a mass in the abdominal region of the patient, which the petitioner failed to detect. According to the petitioner, there was no mass, which could be clinically noticed although according to the examiner, it was mildly palpable. The result was that out of a total of 60 marks fixed for the major case, the petitioner was given only 5 and declared fail in the subject. Aggrieved, she has also like the other petitioner, prayed for a direction against the University to award seven marks to her, so that she could be declared pass in her first attempt or in the alternative to direct that the examination taken by her in July, 1997 be treated as a part of the examination conducted in January, 1997. ( 5 ) MR. Patil, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, fairly conceded that both the petitioners having successfully completed their Courses and passed the examination, in which they had failed, the question whether there was any unfairness in the evaluation of their performance in the course of their first attempt, was relevant only for purposes of admission to a higher course of study and/or employment under the State. The number of attempts made by a candidate for passing the examination, it appears, is relevant for both. We are not concerned with the question whether the number of attempts made in an examination should constitute a relevant consideration either for higher studies or for employment. It may indeed be possible to say that the number of attempts, which a candidate makes is largely indicative of his academic merit and calibre as a Doctor. The question that we are concerned with is whether the evaluation of the performance of the petitioners by the examiners appointed for the purpose can be found fault with. According to the petitioners, the evaluation was not fair having regard to their performance, which deserved award of higher marks. Two precise circumstances have been called in aid, of that argument. The question that we are concerned with is whether the evaluation of the performance of the petitioners by the examiners appointed for the purpose can be found fault with. According to the petitioners, the evaluation was not fair having regard to their performance, which deserved award of higher marks. Two precise circumstances have been called in aid, of that argument. The first and foremost being their performance in the examination conducted earlier. Both the petitioners claim that since they had done extremely well in the previous examinations, it was unlikely that they would fail so miserably in the clinical examination held in January, 1997. Secondly, the Scheme of the examination was, according to the petitioners, not effective enough to ensure a fair assessment of the merit and performance of the candidates. It left enough room for the examiners to arbitrarily award marks and thereby make even a meritorious student to suffer a failure. I regret my inability to accept either one of these submissions. The fact that the petitioners had done well in the previous examinations taken by them is, in my opinion, no guarantee for their performance being equally good in a subsequent examination. That apart, theoretical knowledge of a subject and performance in a written examination, may not be suggestive of the clinical skills of the candidates also having developed in an equal measure. The capacity to diagnose an ailment is not directly related to the bookish knowledge, which a medical student may possess. It is his ability to bring that knowledge to bear upon a given case, which alone would stand him in good stead. It is indeed not uncommon for students, who have done well in theory papers to fall short of the bare minimum in clinical examination. Just because the petitioners had done well in earlier examination is not therefore enough for this Court to declare that the assessment of their performance in the clinical examination was vitiated by any fatal mistake or irregularity. ( 6 ) EQUALLY untenable is the alternative ground touching upon the efficacy of the system in the matter of assessment of the calibre and the performance of a candidate. ( 6 ) EQUALLY untenable is the alternative ground touching upon the efficacy of the system in the matter of assessment of the calibre and the performance of a candidate. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have not identified the flaws, which the system suffers from except making an allegation that the system is not satisfactory, the only method by which the competence of a medical student to diagnose and treat a disease can be put to test is to ask him to diagnosis in the presence of a specialist in field a problem in real life. That precisely is the method applied in these cases also. A method which has been in vogue for decades in almost all the Universities in the Country. Assessing the clinical abilities of a candidate on the basis of cases given to him/her has thus stood the test of time and is far from being inherently irrational, impracticable or otherwise improper. A system is indeed as good as the people who run and manage it. If those asked to judge the performance of the candidates are themselves second grade Doctors, own the end result is bound to carry a stamp of their class. Similarly, if the experts get carried away by considerations that are extraneous, the system is bound to get corrupted on that account also. Conversely, if people distinguished and eminent in their respective fields, fair and objective in their approach are assigned the job of assessing the performance of candidates, the system would work and ensure that neither any unfairness nor injustice is caused to anyone. ( 7 ) IT is not the case of the petitioners in these Petitions that the examiners, who conducted the examination and assessed their performance were not themselves competent to correctly solve the problems assigned to them. It is also not their case that the performance of the petitioner was underrated on account of any extraneous considerations, animosity, ill will or malice towards them. It is therefore difficult to see how this Court can find fault with the assessment of expert in the field, pre-eminently qualified to do the job assigned to them specially when in academic matters, Courts show great deference to the opinion of the experts. It is therefore difficult to see how this Court can find fault with the assessment of expert in the field, pre-eminently qualified to do the job assigned to them specially when in academic matters, Courts show great deference to the opinion of the experts. Interference with a decision based on an expert opinion is justified only if the decision is so arbitrary and outrageously irrational that no reasonable person could have arrived at the same. The present is not, in my opinion, one such case. This Court is illequipped to determine whether the petitioners had performed well in the clinical examination and correctly diagnosed the problems presented to them. This is true even when petitioner in W. P. No. 13817/97 has obtained from Dr. K. G. Naik, Professor and HOD of Surgery, Government Medical College, Mysore and Dr. Girigowda, Professor and Unit Head Department of Surgery, recommendations in her favour. While Dr. Naik has described the petitioner as a victim of circumstances, Dr. Girigowda has described the case given to her as a difficult one. None of the two Doctors have suggested that the patient did not have a palpable mass in the abdomen, so that the examiners insistence that it was there could be said to be erroneous. The fact that the case sheet of the patient had on a preliminary examination by the concerned Doctor suggested that there was no mass does not, in my opinion, make any material difference. There is nothing on record to show that the absence of mass was confirmed by an expert comparable in claibre with the petitioners' examiners. The opinion of the house surgeon who appears to have drawn up the case sheet on the basis of his clinical examination cannot possibly discredit the opinion of a professor in Surgery, which must as between the two be given primacy. Even assuming that there was any difference of opinion among two experts equally competent, the same may not by itself be sufficient for this Court to accept one while rejecting the other. ( 8 ) IN the result, these Writ Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. --- *** --- .