Petitioners are the students of Mahant Bichitar Singh College of Science & Technology, Jammu, Model Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu and the Government College of Engineering & Technology, Canal Road, Jammu, and studying in different semesters of Engineering Courses. It is stated that the admissions were accorded to the petitioners in the year 1999 & 2000 respectively. It is further stated that the petitioners have been promoted/accorded admission to the different semesters, i.e., 7th/5th semesters. The case projected by the petitioners is that at the time of the admission in the respective colleges, they were permitted to appear in as many subjects in the given semesters as they desired and there was no restriction for any student to clear a fixed number of papers/examinations before promotion to the next semester(s). It is further submitted that this was the practice followed earlier in case of the students pursuing their studies in Engineering Courses. The petitioners, keeping in view the practice followed by the Colleges, maintained their own studying schedule and appeared in the subjects of their choice and were permitted admission to the next semesters in view of the then existing statute. That the petitioners were promoted by the Colleges and accorded admission to the next semesters as per past practice and permitted to attend the classes of the next semesters. The admission to 7th/5th semesters was granted to the petitioners way back in February 2003 and also filled up their examination forms. The petitioners claimed to be studying in semesters 7th/5th and were preparing to appear in the examinations of the said semesters scheduled to be held from 29-8-2003 and simultaneously made preparations to appear also in the back-log papers. The case of the petitioners is that when they have completed their studies and prepared for the examination, respondents-3 to 6 (Authorities of the University of Jammu) directed the Colleges to adhere to the revised/amended statute vide communication dated 30-06-2003. The amended statutes prescribe the eligibility to appear in examination of particular semester. It provides that the student should have to clear at least 50% of the theory course in the preceding semesters. This was done in pursuance of a decision taken in the meeting of the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, as is gatherable from the minutes dated 23-01-2003 and made public vide endorsement dated 13-03-2003 of Deputy Registrar (Acd.). It provides that the student should have to clear at least 50% of the theory course in the preceding semesters. This was done in pursuance of a decision taken in the meeting of the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, as is gatherable from the minutes dated 23-01-2003 and made public vide endorsement dated 13-03-2003 of Deputy Registrar (Acd.). The Colleges, in pursuance of the communication dated 30-06-2003, issued notices and cancelled the admissions of the petitioners and debarred them from appearing in the examinations on the ground of back-log exceeding 50% to be cleared by the petitioners. The petitioners, being aggrieved of communication dated 30-06-2003 and the decision of the University of Jammu taken in a meeting on 23rd January, 2003, sought their quashment by issuance of a writ of certiorari and a further direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to complete their respective sessions without applying the amended statutes in their case. 2. The stand of the respondents in their counter is that the decision taken by the University in regard to the academic matters, particularly in regard to the eligibility or otherwise of the students regarding their admission and appearing in examinations, cannot be questioned by the petitioners in a writ petition, as it does not violate any of their fundamental, legal or statutory right. It is stated that the decision taken by the respondents in their meeting of 23rd January, 2003 for the revision of the statutes is well within their jurisdiction and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. That since the Heads of the Colleges had participated in the deliberations during the process of revision of the statutes, the Colleges and the petitioners were fully aware of it. The petitioners cannot claim to have any say or entitled to have any opportunity of hearing in the matter of framing the statutes by the University. Further plea put across by the respondents is that since the petitioners incurred disqualification for having not cleared the papers/semesters, their promotion to the next 5th/7th semesters could not be permitted either under the pre-revised statutes or the revised statutes. That the respective Colleges, in which they sought initial admissions, have wrongly promoted the petitioners to the next semesters. But the University, in looking to their ineligibility under the statutes, did not allow them to appear in the examinations. That the respective Colleges, in which they sought initial admissions, have wrongly promoted the petitioners to the next semesters. But the University, in looking to their ineligibility under the statutes, did not allow them to appear in the examinations. The respondents further refuted the contention of the petitioners and stated that they never allowed any student to clear the papers contrary to the statutory rules of the University. Before appearing in the examination, the students are bound to follow the statutes. The respondents further stated that the promotions/admissions of the petitioners, in the instant cases, were neither under the pre-revised statutes nor in accordance with the revised statutes. No right is vested in the students to get promotion in the semesters 5th/7th unless the statutes permit them because of the disqualification incurred by them in not clearing the semesters/papers. In para 3 of the reply, the respondents have reproduced the pre-revised as well as the revised statutes pertaining to the promotion from one semester to another of the students prosecuting B.E. Courses in the respective Colleges, so as to demonstrate that the petitioners are ineligible to appear in 5th/7th semesters examinations of B.E. Courses. Lastly, the respondents submitted that the petitioners are ineligible, both in the pre-revised and the revised statutes, and are thus not entitled to seek admission and appear in the semesters in question. It is further denied that the University has ever permitted any such practice in the past, as claimed by the petitioners. Both the pre-revised and the revised statutes as well debar the petitioners to appear in the examinations because of the disqualification incurred by them for not clearing the papers/semesters in accordance with the statutes. According to the respondents, the statutes have been framed by the University to maintain the educational standards. It does not, in any manner, impinge upon any of the rights of the petitioners. The respondents have also annexed statements showing the status of the petitioners regarding clearance of papers in each semester of B.E. Course with each writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the record and the relevant statutes touching the matter in controversy, and considered their rival contentions, meticulously. 4. The respondents have also annexed statements showing the status of the petitioners regarding clearance of papers in each semester of B.E. Course with each writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the record and the relevant statutes touching the matter in controversy, and considered their rival contentions, meticulously. 4. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it expedient to reproduce the pre-revised as well as revised statutes of the University (12.1), applicable to the petitioners, pertaining to their promotions from one semester to another under B.E. Courses in the respective Colleges: "Promotion from one Semester to Another: Statute 12.1 (Pre-revised): 5. If a candidate has after attending the course of studies in the College, appeared in any semester examination and failed in one or more courses for that examination, he can appear for such course(s) at subsequent examination(s) without attending a fresh course of studies for that semester in the College. Such a candidate may, in the meantime, prosecute his studies for the next semester(s) and appear in the examination(s) for the same along with the examination of the lower semester(s). Provided that a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes and appear in the Semester Examination(s) mentioned in Column (a) unless he has passed in the Semester examinations mentioned in column (b) below: (a) (b) 5th semester onwards 1st semester 6th semester onwards 2nd semester 7th semester onwards 3rd semester 8th semester onwards 4th semester Provided further that a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes in the Semesters mentioned in column(c) below unless he has passed in sessions and has fulfilled the attendance requirements as per existing B.E. Statutes (3) and (4) of all the courses of the semesters mentioned in column (d) below and shall be required to repeat the studies of the course(s) in which he has failed to achieve the attendance requirements or sessional requirements whenever the courses are offered by the College: (c) (d) 3rd semester onwards 1st and 2nd semester 5th semester onwards 3rd and 4th semester 7th semester onwards 5th and 6th semester. Statute 12.1 (Revised): 6. Statute 12.1 (Revised): 6. If a candidate has after attending the course of studies in the College, appeared in any semester examination and failed in one or more courses for that examination, he can re-appear for such courses at subsequent examination(s) without attending a fresh course or studies for that semester in the College. Such a candidate may, in the meantime, prosecute his studies for the next semester(s) and appear in the examination(s) for the same along with the examination for the lower semester(s). Provided that a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes and appear in the Semester Examination(s) mentioned in Column (a) unless he/she has passed 50% of the theory courses in Semesters mentioned in column (b) below:- (a) (b) 5th semester onwards 1st to 3rd semester 6th semester onwards 1st to 4th semester 7th semester onwards 1st to 5th semester 8th semester onwards 1st to 6th semester Provided further that a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes in the next higher semester unless he has appeared in the examination of immediate preceding semester." 7. A plain reading of the pre-revised statutes clearly envisages that before a student is promoted to 5th semester, he has to clear the Ist semester examination. In the like manner, if the candidate is to be promoted to 7th semester, he is required to clear 3rd semester examination. Whereas the position demonstrated in the revised statutes enumerates that a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes and appear in the 5th semester examinations unless he or she has passed 50% of the theory courses in 1st to 3rd semesters. Similarly, a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes and appear in the 7th semester examination unless he or she has passed 50% of the theory courses in semesters 1st to 5th. Similarly, a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes and appear in the 7th semester examination unless he or she has passed 50% of the theory courses in semesters 1st to 5th. The petitioners have not placed on record any document to show that the University has ever allowed any student to clear the papers and promoted him to the next semester not permitted by the statutory rules of the University in order to support their contention that there has been a past practice that the candidates were allowed to get admission/to appear in the semester examinations to clear such number of papers as they wished and there was no requirement by any of the candidate to clear a fixed number of papers/examinations before he/she is promoted to the next semester. In order to demonstrate that the petitioners are ineligible for the examinations in the next semesters for not having cleared the papers in the lower semesters in accordance with the statute, the respondents have annexed with their reply to each writ petition the statements showing the status of the petitioners regarding clearance of the papers in each semester/course, which are reproduced hereunder. 8. Statement showing the status of the petitioners in OWP No. 772/2003, "AmarpreetSingh and Ors. v. Mahant Bichitar Singh College of Science and Technology & Anr.", regarding clearance of papers in each semester of of B.E Course. OWP No. 772/20023: Name, parentage & Roll No. Papers Passed/failed 1st   semester Papers Passed/failed 2nd semester Papers Passed/failed 3rd  semester Papers Passed/failed 4th   semester Papers Passed/failed 5th   semester Total papers passed Total papers in which failed Amarpreet Singh Preetam Singh Roll No. 256/99 all pass 3/3 4/2 1/5 0/6 14 16 Amanjit Singh/Gurcharan Singh Roll No. 188/99 4/2 2/4 4/2 0/6 0/6 10 20 Marvinder Singh/ Joginder Singh Roll No. 312/99 all pass 3/3 3/3 0/6 1/5 13 17 Dharm veer Singh/ Basant Singh Roll No. 322/99 4/2 1/5 0/6 0/6 0/6 05 25 Kawalbir Singh/ Ajit Singh Roll. No. 40/99 5/1 2/4 3/3 2/4 0/6 12 18 Rashvinder Singh/ Kiesar Singh Roll No. 503/99 2/4 0/6 0/6 0/6 0/6 02 28 Rohika Sharma/ R.P. Sharma Roll No. 512/99 all pass 3/3 1/5 1/5 2/4 13 17 Hadi Hussain Khan/ Ghulam Hussain Khan Roll No. 271/99 5/1 2/4 1/5 2/4 2/4 12 18 Navdeep Singh/ Sawinder Singh Roll No. 508/99 2/4 1/5 3/3 0/6 0/6 06 24 Rajinder Singh/ Sujan Singh Roll No. 320 4/2 0/6 3/3 0/6 1/5 08 22 Jagjit Singh/ Balbir Singh Roll No. 320 4/2 2/4 0/6 0/6 0/6 06 24 Iqbal Singh/ Filal Singh Roll No. 507/99 5/1 4/2 2/4 0/6 0/6 11 19 Khawar Bhatt/ Farooq Ahmed Bhatt Roll No. 269/99 5/1 3/3 2/4 1/5 1/5 12 18 Iftikhar Hussain/ Ghulam Rasool Roll No. 478/99 all pass 2/4 0/6 2/4 0/6 10 20 Prithpal Singh/ Jai Singh Roll No. 252/99 5/1 2/4 4/2 0/6 2/4 13 17 OWP No. 793/2003 "12%" align="center"> Tejali Javid/ Javid Iqbal Roll No. 427/99 all pass 2/4 3/3 1/5 1/5 13 17 Shahnaz Quyoom/ Abdul Quyoom Khnndy Roll No. 457/99 4/2 1/5 0/6 0/6 4/2 09 21 Gurpt Singh/ Sh. Hardev Singh Roll No. 2/4 0/6 3/3 - - 5 13 OWP No. 810/2003 Name, Parentage & Roll No. Papers Passed/ failed 1st semester Papers passed/ failed 2nd semester Papers passed/ failed 3rd semester - - Total papers passed Total papers in which failed Amit Raina S/o Ishar Dass Raina Roll No. 216/2k 3/3 2/4 0/6 5 13 Madhukar Singh Verma S/O Rattan Lal Verma Roll No. 321/2k all pass 0/6 0/6 - - 6 12 OWP No. 811/2003 Bhupinder Singh S/O S. Mohinder Singh Roll No. 533/2k 1/5 1/5 1/5 - - 3 15 OWP No. 812/2003 Name, parentage & Roll No. Papers passed/ failed 1st semester Papers passed/ failed 2nd semester Papers passed/ failed 3rd semester Papers passed/ failed 4th semester Papers passed/ failed 5th semester Total papers passed Total papers in which failed Deeraj Bhatt/Sh. Avtar Krishen Bhatt Roll No. 107/99 all pass 4/2 1/5 0/6 2/4 13 17 OWP No. 816/2003 Fahmida Akhter Wani/Mohd. Amin Wani Roll No. 459/99 4/2 0/6 1/5 0/6 0/6 5 25 Rakshna Koul/ Sh. R.L. Koul Roll No. 455/99 all pass 4/2 2/4 0/6 0/6 12 18 Ravi Kumar Sh. Roll No. 397/99 all pass 4/2 0/6 2/4 0/6 12 18 Vikram Mehra/ Sh. Amin Wani Roll No. 459/99 4/2 0/6 1/5 0/6 0/6 5 25 Rakshna Koul/ Sh. R.L. Koul Roll No. 455/99 all pass 4/2 2/4 0/6 0/6 12 18 Ravi Kumar Sh. Roll No. 397/99 all pass 4/2 0/6 2/4 0/6 12 18 Vikram Mehra/ Sh. Throu Ram Mehra Roll No. 632/2k 2/4 0/6 0/6 - - 02 16 Rishi Dutta/ S/O Rajesh Dutta Roll No. 608/2k 1/5 0/6 0/6 - - 01 17 Asid Malik/ M.T. Malik Roll No. 483/99 2/4 0/6 0/6 - - 02 16 OWP No. 832/03 Name, parentage & Rol No. Papers Passed/ failed 1st semester Papers passed/ failed 2nd semester Papers passed/ failed 3rd semester Papers passed/ failed 4th semester Papers passed/ failed 5th semester Total papers passed Total papers in which failed Takider Kour/ S. Balwant Singh Roll No. 538/2k 3/3 0/6 2/4 5 13 OWP No. 830/03 Name, parentage & Roll No. Papers Passed/ failed 1st semester Papers passed/ failed 2nd semester Papers passed/ failed 3rd semester Papers passed/ failed 4th semester Papers passed/ failed 5th semester Total papers passed Total papers in which failed Rajeev Gupta/Sh. Shiv Charan Gupta Roll No. 366/99 4/2 0/6 3/3 - - 7 11 OWP No. 831/2003 Sanjeet Singh Sh. Poshakar Singh Roll No. 261/99 1/5 0/6 1/5 0/6 0/6 02 28 OWP No. 785/2003 Jasbir SIngh S/O Preetam Singh Roll No. 584/2k 2/4 1/5 06 - - 3 15 Harpreet Singh S/O Inderjeet Singh Arora Roll No. 628/2k 3/3 1/5 1/5 - - 5 13 Rajeet Kumar S/O Sh. Poshakar Singh Roll No. 261/99 1/5 0/6 1/5 0/6 0/6 02 28 OWP No. 785/2003 Jasbir SIngh S/O Preetam Singh Roll No. 584/2k 2/4 1/5 06 - - 3 15 Harpreet Singh S/O Inderjeet Singh Arora Roll No. 628/2k 3/3 1/5 1/5 - - 5 13 Rajeet Kumar S/O Sh. Avtar Krishen Roll No. 18/2k 2/4 1/5 1/5 - - 4 14 Khalid Ahmed Khan S/O Mehboob Ali Khan Roll No. 104/2k 3/3 3/3 0/6 - - 6 12 Chanderjeet Singh S/O Karnail Singh Roll No. 04/2k 4/2 3/3 0/6 - - 7 11 Danish Wani S/O Nazim-Ud-Din Wani Roll No. 636 4/2 2/4 1/5 - - 7 11 Belal Mir S/O Mohd Yousssouf Mir Roll No. 620/2k 4/2 1/5 0/6 - - 5 13 Rohit Bharti Sharma S/O Bharat Bhushan Sharma Roll No. 452/2k 5/1 3/3 2/4 - - 10 08 Parmeet Singh S/O Daljeet Singh Roll No. 564/2k 4/2 1/5 1/5 - - 6 12 Varun Gupta S/O Baldev Kumar Roll No. 629/2k 4/2 3/3 0/6 - - 7 11 Navneet Sharma S/O Deepak Sharma Roll No. 622/2k 4/2 2/4 1/5 - - 7 11 Amit Bakshi S/O Naresh Kumar Bakshi Roll No. 597/2k 4/2 2/4 0/6 - - 6 12 Shahid Rashid S/O Mohd Rashid Roll No. 298/2k 1/5 2/4 0/6 - - 7 11 Rameshwar Kant Singh S/O Sh. Raman Kant Singh Roll No. 557/2k 5/1 2/4 0/6 - - 7 11 Gurnam Singh S/O Surjeet Singh Roll No. 557/2k 1/5 3/3 0/6 - - 4 14 Varinder Jit Singh S/O Sar. Gurbir Singh Roll No. 565/2k 2/4 0/6 0/6 - - 2 16 Rajiv Gondhi S/O Sh. Rattan Lal Gondhi Roll No. 612/2k 5/1 0/6 0/6 - - 5 13 Touseef S/O Syeed Fida Hussain Roll No. 552/2k 2/4 0/6 0/6 - - 2 16 Nasir Choudhary S/O Ch. Mohd Azam Roll No. 79/2k 2/4 2/4 2/4 - - 8 10 Rahul Sharma S/O Bharat Bhushan Sharma Roll No. 603/2k 4/2 0/6 1/5 - - 5 13 Jagtar Singh S/O Daljeet Singh Roll No. 500/2k 2/4 1/5 2/4 - - 5 13 Johny Khajuria S/O S.S. Khajuria Roll No. 581/2k 4/2 1/5 1/5 - - 6 12 Amit Puri S/O Chander Mohan Puri Roll No. 596/2k 5/1 0/6 0/6 - - 5 13 Subreen Wani D/O Dr. N.D. Wani Roll No. 463/2k 4/2 1/5 0/6 - - 5 13 Harvinder Singh S/O Gurcharan Singh Roll No. 471/2k3 2/4 2/4 - - 7 11 Paropkar Singh S/O S. Mohan Singh Roll No. 447/2k 1/5 3/3 0/6 - - 8 10 Atul Abrol S/O Vinod Abrol Roll No. 630/2k 3/3 3/3 1/5 - - 7 11 Farooq Ahmed S/o Sh. Ghulam Hussain Roll No. 100/99 all pass 3/3 0/6 3/3 0/6 12 18 Gh. Mehdi S/O Ali Ghulam Roll No. 64/99 3/3 4/2 0/6 2/4 0/6 09 21 Vishal Chowdhary S/O Bansi Lal Roll No. 621/2k 2/4 0/6 1/5 - - 3 15 9. Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents-University of Jammu, submitted that there are six papers in each semester and as per the statement showing number of papers in each semester they have failed with break up of each semester. The petitioners are ineligible both as per the pre-revised as well as the revised statutes to appear in the 5th/7th semesters examination of the B.E. Course. 10. The status of the petitioners, depicted in the respective statements regarding clearance of the papers in each semester of B.E. Course in each writ petition, has not been disputed even by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, submitted that there is a question of career of the students and in case they are not permitted to appear in the next semesters examination for which they have made all the preparations under the impression that notwithstanding the fact that they have not cleared the papers in the lower semesters and they would be allowed in the next semester examination, they would have to loose a year or so. It is further vouched strenuously that the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the purview of compassionate grounds and the case of the petitioners be considered as one time exception and not to be treated as precedent in future, and be allowed to undertake the examination. I am afraid, this contention of the petitioners does not merit acceptance in view of the decision of the apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1205. I am afraid, this contention of the petitioners does not merit acceptance in view of the decision of the apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1205. On going through the graph of the statements showing the status of the students annexed with each writ petition by the respondents-University, it is clearly enumerated that the petitioners are neither eligible under the pre-revised statutes nor the revised statutes to be allowed to undertake the examination in 5th/7th semesters. 11. It is pertinent to point out that in case of admission into any Professional Institutions, merit must play a vital role. To seek admission to a Professional Institution and become a competent professional, it is necessary that merit should be given preference at all levels, so as to ensure the students coming out of the Colleges as competent professionals. Excellence in the professional education would require that the greatest emphasis should be laid on the merit of the students seeking admission/promotion. Appropriate regulations for this purpose may be made. The University can provide regulations that will ensure excellence in education while forbidding any compromise on merit. It is well within the province of the University to frame statutory rules and regulations, and revise them from time to time in order to maintain the standard of education. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the Courts should not, in exercise of its discretion, grant permission to ineligible students to appear in the examination unless there are justifiable reasons. It is significant to point out that the Court does not ordinarily interfere or interpret the rules in the matter of academic standards. It should be left to the experts in the field. The requirement that unless the candidate has passed 50% of the theory courses in semesters 1st to 3rd for next promotion to 5th semester, he cannot be allowed to attend classes and appear in the semesters examination and, similarly, he has to clear 50% of the theory courses in 1st to 5th semesters before he is allowed to attend the classes and appear in the examination of 7th semester, under the statute is appropriately insisted upon. Therefore, to give a strained meaning to the statute in the guise of compassionate grounds and allowing ineligible candidates to appear in the next semesters examination without clearing papers in the lower semesters as per statute, would mean to change the language and amount to violence to the statute, which is not permissible. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners for permitting them to appear in the 5th/7th semesters examinations in contravention of the statute of the University as one time exception, as such a casual discretion by the Court would be nothing but an abuse of the process. 12. The Kashmir & Jammu Universities Act, 1969 (hereinafter for short referred to as "The Act, 1969") had been enacted by the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature in the Twentieth Year of the Republic of India, received the assent of the Governor on 30th October, 1969 and published in Government Gazette dated 10th November, 1969 (Ext.). The matters provided by the statutes and regulations are enumerated in Section 40 (j) of The Act, 1969. This Section pertains to the conditions under which students shall be admitted to the examinations conducted by the university, and be eligible for degrees, diplomas or certificates. Section 41 of The Act, 1969 provides how the statutes are made. It further provides that subject to the provisions of Sections 48 and 51 of The Act, 1969, statutes may be amended or repealed or added to by statutes made by the University Council in the manner provided therein. This makes it abundantly clear that statutes are made and amended under the powers flowing from The Act, 1969 enacted by the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature. The principles of natural justice cannot be imported in the matter of such actions, viz., framing of the statutes/amendment of the statutes in exercise of the plenary power under The Act, 1969. The affected persons cannot raise grievance that before a statute is made or amended, they should be given an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, principles of natural justice including the right of hearing, as pleaded by the petitioners, cannot be invoked in the matter. Contention raised by the petitioners advocate is, therefore, devoid of substance and, thus, cannot be accepted. The affected persons cannot raise grievance that before a statute is made or amended, they should be given an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, principles of natural justice including the right of hearing, as pleaded by the petitioners, cannot be invoked in the matter. Contention raised by the petitioners advocate is, therefore, devoid of substance and, thus, cannot be accepted. In the totality of the facts and circumstances discussed above when taken in its cumulative, the conclusion deducible is that there is no merit in these writ petitioners and are, accordingly, dismissed along with all connected CMPs, at the preliminary stage of admission.