A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions the common prayer of the petitioners is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the 1st year m. B. B. S. examination scheduled to commence in April, 2002. ( 2 ) THE facts which are common in all these petitions, briefly stated, are as follows : the petitioners are all 1st year M. B. B. S. students who had been unsuccessful in clearing all the subjects of the 1st year M. B. B. S. despite availing of all the four attempts that are permitted under the statute. The position that Regulation 7 of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997 (the Regulations for short), only permits of four attempts, provided they are completed in three years from the date of enrolment, is also not disputed by the petitioner. It is also not disputed that Regulations are mandatory in nature. Despite this admitted position, the petitioners crave for permission to appear in the 1 year M. B. B. S. exam for the fifth time firstly, on the ground that students who were similarly placed were given the said privilege and secondly, on the ground that this Court had on a previous occasion given such a direction which had been acted upon by the University as well as the Medical Council of India. Basing their claim on these grounds the petitioners have sought the direction as aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2, Medical Council of India, has filed a detailed statement of objections inter alia stating that the Regulations do not provide for any discretion in the matter and therefore no direction can be issued contrary to law. It is stated that the right to equal treatment cannot be invoked in educational matters and it would be especially so in cases where in the earlier instance the directions were as a result of humane consideration of the issue or on account of concessions extended by the authorities concerned as a one time exception to the Rule. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. ( 5 ) THE question in all these petitions is, whether even in the face of the admitted position that regulation 7 mandatorily stipulates an outer limit of four attempts, within the period of 3 years time, to clear all the subjects in 1st year M. B. B. S. course, this Court could still direct the respondents to grant the relief as prayed for in these petitions. ( 6 ) THE relevant Regulation governing the number of attempts permitted to clear the I phase of the m. B. B. S. course is Regulation 7 (3) of the Regulations. It reads : "7 (3 ). The first 2 semester (approximately 240 teaching days) shall be occupied in the Phase I (Pre-clinical) subjects and introduction to a broader understanding of the perspectives of medical education leading to delivery of health care. No student shall be permitted to join the Phase II (Para-clinical/clinical) group of subjects until he has passed in all the Phase I (Pre-clinical) subjects for which he will be permitted not more than four chances (actual examination), provided four chances are completed in three years from the date of enrolment" (Underlining is mine) the words, he will be permitted not more than four chances (actual examination), provided four chances are completed in three years from the date of enrolment' leaves nothing to doubt that the maximum number of attempts permitted under the Regulations is four and all these attempts have to be completed within the three years period. The petitioners in these petitions have exhausted all the four attempts. In this fact situation having given my careful consideration to the entire gamut of the case as made out by the petitioners as also the submissions made at the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that such a relaxation cannot be made even in deference to the fact that this mandatory rule had been relaxed earlier on one or more occasion by the Medical council of India or that this Court on an earlier occasion had permitted such relaxation in respect of other students. It does not behave well of a Court of law to give directions in transgression of the rule of law. It does not behave well of a Court of law to give directions in transgression of the rule of law. The prerogative power available to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution cannot be expended to invest in somebody a right that does not vest in him in law. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the decision in W. P. Nos. 2725-27/2001. The relaxation in the said case was permitted as there was no opposition from any of the contesting parties which included the University and the Medical Council of India. In the light of such concession extended by the University and the Medical Council of India, this Court had no occasion to refer to and consider the legal implications arising therefrom. The order is more in the nature of a compromise order passed on the express understanding of the parties before Court and it cannot be made a precedent to seek the same relief in a subsequent proceedings in which the claim of the petitioners is hotly contested by the Medical Council of india and the University. The learned counsel for the Medical Council of India has also produced the resolution of the Executive Committee which considered the matter with regard to grant of additional attempt to the students who are not able to pass in all the phase-I (pre-clinical) subjects for which they are permitted not more than four chances (actual examination) provided four chances are completed in three years from the date of enrolment. The Executive Committee after intense deliberations decided that no change from the existing rules and regulations is called for in the matter of the number of chances (actual examination) provided for clearing the phase-I subjects. The relevant portion of the said resolution reads : "after intense deliberations it was decided that no change from the existing rules and regulations be accepted and the regulation with regard to not giving more than four chances (actual examination), provided four chances are completed in 3 years from the date of enrolment be followed. All pending cases will be disposed of accordingly. " Since the grant of relief being objected to by the Medical Council of India, the Court is bound to go by the rule of law in order to determine the rights of the petitioners who are before Court. All pending cases will be disposed of accordingly. " Since the grant of relief being objected to by the Medical Council of India, the Court is bound to go by the rule of law in order to determine the rights of the petitioners who are before Court. ( 7 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale AIR1992 SC 1926 , JT1992 (5 )SC 175 , 1992 (2 )SCALE163 , (1992 )4 SCC435 , [1992 ]3 SCR792 , 1992 (2 )UJ680 (SC ), (1993 )1 UPLBEC534 , the Apex court had laid down the outer limits within which the High Courts should function in issuing directions in the matter of education in the following terms : "slackening the standard and judicial flat to control the mode of education and examining the system are detrimental to the efficient management of education. The direction to the Appellant to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, as breeding ground of corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination. " ( 8 ) THE Apex Court expressed similar views in State of Tami Nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers training Institute JT1991 (2 )SC 343 , 1991 (1 )SCALE737 , (1991 )3 scc87 , [1991 ]2 SCR231 , 1991 (2 )UJ162 (SC ), (1991 )2 UPLBEC941 and came down heavily upon Courts issuing directions contrary to law in the following terms : The Court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the Regulations. The Court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party of humanitarian grounds contrary to law. The Court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party of humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the Government, the High Court acted in violation of taw in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. " examined from the point view of the Regulations holding the field and also the case laws governing the case, I find that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed by them as the relief claimed by them is not based on any legal right that vests in them in the absence of any such right and more so in the light of the prohibition contained in Regulation 7 of the regulations which is mandatory in nature, the only option left for this Court is to refrain from giving any direction which runs contrary to law and the statutory Regulations. Hence, the prayer of the petitioners in these petitions cannot be granted. ( 9 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.