Judgment ( 1. ) IN these writ petitions the question involved is of allowing the petitioners further opportunity to appear in the part time diploma course examination. Petitioners in W. P. No. 2137/2002 are 7 out of them three petitioners have filed W. P. No. 2848/2003. ( 2. ) IN W. P. No. 2137/2002 petitioner No. 1 Nirmal Raikwar took admission in part time diploma course in the year 1989, petitioner No. 2 Manoj Upadhyay in the year 1991, petitioner No. 3 Manoj Patel in the year 1991, petitioner No. 4 Shankar Patel in the year 1989, petitioner No. 5 Manas Sur in the year 1991, petitioner No. 6 Murari Lal Patel in the year 1991, petitioner No. 7 in the year 1991. They have been given large number of opportunities but they have not been able to clear the part time diploma course so far. ( 3. ) IN W. P. No. 3003/2003 petitioner No. 1 Ashok Kumar Tiwari was admitted in the year 1989 and petitioner No. 2 Shrikant Mishra in the year 1991. ( 4. ) IN W. P. No. 3237/2003 petitioner No. 1 T. N. Dubey was admitted in the year 1989 and petitioner No. 2 Surmanas Kumar in the year 1991. ( 5. ) A decision was taken by the Board of Technical Education, M. P. following the recommendation of All India Council of Technical Education. The decision with respect to allowing the maximum number of chances was implemented in the Polytechnic Institutions of M. P. Circular was issued on 12- 9-96. These recommendations were made effective with effect from 1996-97. It was decided that for duration of diploma programme of 2 years the maximum course of duration shall be 4 years, for 3 years diploma course, maximum course of duration shall be 5 years and for 4 years including TDC the maximum course duration shall be 6 years. If student is not able to clear the same within the prescribed course of duration, has to go out of the course out of the stream. With respect to the post diploma and advance diploma course also maximum time fixed for 1 -1/2 years course is 2 -1/2 years and for 2 years course is 3 years. If student is not able to clear the same within the prescribed course of duration, has to go out of the course out of the stream. With respect to the post diploma and advance diploma course also maximum time fixed for 1 -1/2 years course is 2 -1/2 years and for 2 years course is 3 years. Time to time special compassionate and extra compassionate opportunities were granted to the students who were unable to clear it within time fixed and were admitted earlier in point of time to the course before implementation of the maximum number of opportunities w. e. f. 1996. ( 6. ) IT is clear that petitioners have been granted larger number of opportunities. Nirmal Raikwar was granted 37 opportunities, Manoj Patel was given 24 opportunities, Shankar Patel was given 28 opportunities, Manoj Upadhyay was given 22 opportunities, Murari Patel was granted 24 opportunities by the end of the year 2001 but, they were not able to clear the course. Large number of opportunities have also been allowed to the other petitioners but they have not been able to clear the course. ( 7. ) THE decision was taken on 19-9-2002 to give further opportunities only to the students of the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Thus, the decision is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners have tried to rely upon the statement made in Annexure R-l, in W. P. No. 2137/2002 in which it was mentioned that the circular dated 11-1-2002 was not issued by the University, hence, letter referred to in the notice of the Principal is not applicable in the case of the students. Reliance has also been placed upon the statement made in Para 2. Notice (P-l) was issued on 18-3-2002. Same was based on circular dated 11-1-2002. University has clarified that the University has not issued any circular on 11-1-2002. Certificate (Rule-l) has been filed. It has been stated that the said circular is applicable only to the students who had taken admission w. e. f. 1996. Counsel for petitioners submits that restriction on number of chances/attempts is not applicable in the case of the students who had obtained admission prior to 1996. The submission is not tenable. Reply which has been relied on by petitioner has been given by the University in the context of notice (P-l ). Counsel for petitioners submits that restriction on number of chances/attempts is not applicable in the case of the students who had obtained admission prior to 1996. The submission is not tenable. Reply which has been relied on by petitioner has been given by the University in the context of notice (P-l ). Perusal of notice (P-l) dated 18-3-2002 shows that it was informed by the Principal of the Polytechnic College that the students who have completed 6 years of part time diploma course and regular students who have completed 5 years and Pharmacy students who have completed 4 years, are not entitled to sit in the ensuing examination; the students be informed accordingly. There is reference to the circular dated 11-1-2002 of University which has not been issued by the University and the decision was pertaining to the students admitted after 1996, has been clarified by the University; from the certificate (Rule-l) it can not be inferred that the decision of giving maximum number of opportunities, is not applicable to the students who were admitted prior to 1996. ( 9. ) THE University itself has taken the stand in the return in Paras 5, 6 and 7 to the following effect:- " 5. That the petitioners namely Nirmal Raikwar, Manoj Patel, Shankar Patel, Manoj Upadhyay and Murari Patel availed maximum opportunities to pass the diploma but these students could not clear all the semesters despite following opportunities:- Name of the student Period Number of opportunities Nirmal Raikwar 1983 to May-June 2001 37 Manoj Patel May-June 1990 to Nov-Dec 24 2001 Shankar Patel May-June 1988 to Nov-Dec 28 2001 Manoj Upadhyay May-June 1991 to Nov-Dec 22 2001 Murari Patel May-June 1990 to Nov-Dec 24 2001 The detail information is being provided by Annexure R-3. 6. That the petitioners fail to pass the examination within stipulated period of diploma, i. e. , four years. Two years more time was given to them. Thus they could not pass the diploma within six years. Thereafter two special opportunities were provided to these students to pass the examination in year of 1999. Thereafter two last and special opportunities were provided to complete the diploma in May-June, 2001 and December, 2001. In this connection the certificate issued by the Coordinator, dated 4-5-2002 is being enclosed and marked as Annexure R-4. Thereafter two special opportunities were provided to these students to pass the examination in year of 1999. Thereafter two last and special opportunities were provided to complete the diploma in May-June, 2001 and December, 2001. In this connection the certificate issued by the Coordinator, dated 4-5-2002 is being enclosed and marked as Annexure R-4. Thus these petitioners fail to pass the examination within stipulated period, extended period, during the period of special chances. Thus they are not at all entitled to appear in the examination because of the reasons best known to them. However, this petition is filed on the bases of notice dated 18-3-2002, issued by respondent No. 2 (The Principal - Kalaniketan Polytechnic, Jabalpur ). This notice is not applicable to these petitioners because these petitioners are admitted prior to 1996. In this connection Annexure R-l has already been submitted. The petitioners have misconceived them self and filed the instant petition which is not maintainable in the eye of law because of above reasons. 7. That the principle of estoppel is operating against the petition because as per recommendations of the A. I. C. T. E. , the petitioners were directed to complete their diploma course up to 1998 because the syllabus was changed w. e. f. 1992-93. These students/petitioners fail to pass their diploma within time. Presently the ages of the petitioners is 41, 35, 31, 36, 36 etc. These are the most senior students. Because of presence of these students all sort of ragging and indiscipline is being observed in the institution. Accordingly, the University has taken step to maintain discipline and upgrade the knowledge of the student. This is a matter touching to internal discipline and academic character of the University. These matters should be left to be decided by the University and the Court should not interfere in the academic affairs. This is held by Honourable D. B. , comprising Honourable Mr. Chief Justice Bhawani Singh and Honourable Justice A. K. Mishra in the matter of Yashwant Birla and Ors. v. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University and Ors. , Writ Petition No. 4138/2002, decided on 24-7-2000. " ( 10. ) ALL India Council of Technical Education can make recommendation as provided under Section 10 of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987. v. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University and Ors. , Writ Petition No. 4138/2002, decided on 24-7-2000. " ( 10. ) ALL India Council of Technical Education can make recommendation as provided under Section 10 of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987. Thus decision which has been taken prescribing the maximum opportunity of attempt can not be said to be illegal or bad in law. Prescribing the maximum period for clearing the Course is permissible. Functions of the All India Council of Technical Education have been defined under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 is quoted below:- 10. Prescribing the maximum period for clearing the Course is permissible. Functions of the All India Council of Technical Education have been defined under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 is quoted below:- 10. Functions of the Council.-- It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under the Act, the Council may (a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, collect data on all related mattes and make forecast of the needed growth and development in technical education; (b) co-ordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels; (c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council such grant on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to-- (i) technical institutions, and (ii) Universities imparting technical education in coordination with the Commission; (d) promote innovations, research and development in established and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet developmental requirements and for overall improvement of educational processes; (e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society; (f) promote an effective link between technical education system and other relevant systems including research and development organisations, industry and the community; (g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability; (h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of teachers and identity institutions or centres and set up new centres for offering staff development programmes including continuing education of teachers; (i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations; (j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees; (k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned; (1) advice the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for the promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of examination and awarding of membership certificates; (m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions; (n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization of technical education; (o) provided guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education; (p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution; (q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses, programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council; (r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations and to set up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Councils responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical and supporting staff based on requirements; (s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering courses in technical education fit to receive grants; (t) advice the Commission for declaring any institution imparting technical education as a deemed University; (u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to the Council or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or derecognition of the institution or the programme; (v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed. ( 11. ) CONSIDERING the functions of the All India Council for Technical Education constituted under the Act of 1987, it can not be said that directions issued by the All India Council for Technical Education are not binding. All India Council for Technical Education can issue directions for maintenance of standard and for integrated development of technical education and has to coordinate the development of Technical Education at all levels. It can evolve suitable performance appraisal systems under Section 10 (g) of the Act. Under Section 10 (i), Council can lay down norms and standards for courses, curricular, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions etc. Under Section 10 (o), it can provide guide lines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education. Thus the decision taken in 1996 is in accordance with the directives issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, which have been issued under Section 10 of the Act of 1987. ( 12. ) IT is clear that the petitioners have been afforded more number of chances than permissible under the decision of the AICTE implemented in M. P. Two special opportunities were provided as petitioners could not pass the diploma in prescribed period 6 years. The petitioners were given opportunity to pass the examination in 1999 and thereafter 2 last and special opportunities were provided to complete the diploma in May-June, 2001 and December, 2001. As apparent from the certificate (R-4), dated 4-5-2002 but petitioners have failed to pass even in the extended period when given extra special chances; thus, they are not entitled for any further relief. Because of the reasons best known to petitioners, they could not clear it for last more than a decade or two decades. The notice (P-l) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner; petitioners were admitted prior to 1996. Notice was issued in relation to the students admitted after 1996. The recommendations of the AICTE have been implemented, they are to be given effect and as apparent petitioners were admitted way back in the years 1984, 1989 and 1991 and they have not been able to clear the course so far in spite of the opportunities availed as special and last opportunity was also afforded as mentioned in the return in Para 6 quoted above. Thus, I find no case for making interference. ( 13. Thus, I find no case for making interference. ( 13. ) THE instructions have been issued by AICTE to ensure efficacy and standard in the system and if students are not able to clear particular course in such large number of years, it can not be said that petitioners have been deprived of opportunity in unreasonable manner. The decision is in the interest of education system, the decision of 1996 is applicable to all the students continuing in the course from date of decision and have not been able to clear it; petitioners have been granted adequate opportunities by the University. ( 14. ) LASTLY, Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that since petitioners have completed the course of instructions, one more compassionate opportunity ought to have been granted by the University, in my opinion, petitioner have to approach the University for such an opportunity. No interference is called for in the academic matter. In case petitioner approaches the University, it is open to the University to take decision. ( 15. ) I find no merit in these writ petitions. Writ petitions are dismissed. C. C. as per rules.