( 1 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a Dental Institute and the second petitioner is a student of the said institute. They have sought for a direction, directing the respondent Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (University for short) to conduct re-examination in Human Physiology and Bio chemistry, Human Anatomy including Embryology and Histology. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent-University. ( 3 ) WHEN this matter had come up for preliminary hearing on 30th September 2003, this Court had ordered notice to respondent and no interim order as such was granted. It is significant to note here itself that the Examination had already commenced from 23rd September 2003 and the petitioners presented the instant writ petitions on 30th September 2003. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that, due to lapses on the part of the respondent-University in not approving the admission of the second petitioner and in not permitting the second petitioner to appear for the Examination, the petitioners should not be allowed to suffer. It is the case of the petitioners that, the second petitioner is entitled to seek for a relief to conduct re-examination in respect of the subjects referred to above. Since the second petitioner was not permitted by the University to appear for the Examination, she was constrained to approach this Court by presenting these writ petitions. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent University has made available the entire original records before the Court. After going through the original records, it is seen that the statement of admissions of the second petitioner has not been sent well in time by the first petitioner Dental Institute and the same has been sent only on 25th March 2003. Therefore, her admission could not be approved immediately after receipt of the said statement from the first petitioner College and the admission of the second petitioner has been approved only now. Therefore, her admission could not be approved immediately after receipt of the said statement from the first petitioner College and the admission of the second petitioner has been approved only now. ( 6 ) SO far as the prayer sought for conducting the special examination only in respect of the second petitioner is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that there is no provision under the existing regulations or any provision under the Universities Act to consider the case of the second petitioner for conducting the special Examination only in respect of the petitioner nor it is permissible in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments. Therefore, the prayers sought for by the petitioners in the instant writ petitions do not survive for consideration in view of the fact that the Examinations have already commenced and completed. Hence, conducting of re-examination only in respect of the second petitioner is not at all permissible nor there is any specific provision under the existing regulations, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the University. The learned counsel appearing for University specifically submitted that, there is no provision for conducting re-examination in respect of those students, whose admission has been approved subsequently. Hence, the question of considering the request of the petitioners, at this stage, does not arise. ( 7 ) FURTHER, in view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS. VS. PARITOSH BHUPESH KUMAR SHETH ETC. (AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 1543), the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought for by them. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads thus: the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. VS. PARITOSH BHUPESH KUMAR SHETH ETC. (AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 1543), the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought for by them. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads thus: the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement but any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. A careful reading of the above observation makes it amply clear that, when there is no provision under the Regulation to conduct re-examination, the question of considering the request of the petitioners at this belated stage does not arise and the same is not permissible. ( 8 ) YET another decision wherein this question is dealt with is, in the case of REGIONAL OFFICER, C. B. S. E. VS. KUMARI SHEENA PEETHABARAN reported in 2003 11 INDIAN LAW DECISIONS 95 (SUPREME COURT) wherein, it is observed that, condoning the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements in consideration of mere sympathy factor does not solve the problem rather breeds more violations in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and ultimately adversely affects the academic standards. It disturbs the discipline of the system and ultimately adversely affects the academic standards. In the said decision, the Apex Court has relied upon a three judge bench decision in the case of GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY V. PARMINDER KAUR BANSAL (1993) 4 SCC 401 , which was relied upon in the case of CBSE VS. P. SUNIL KUMAR (1998) 5 SCC 377 . A passage from the above noted decision which was quoted in P. Sunil Kumar (supra) reads as hereunder: we are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy can often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory and exclusive judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admission cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions. ( 9 ) FURTHER, the Apex Court in the case of A. P. CHRISTIANS MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (1986) 2 SCC 667 , has observed as follows: we cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot Imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Examinations of the First year BDS and BNYS course conducted by the respondent University have already commenced and completed. We cannot Imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Examinations of the First year BDS and BNYS course conducted by the respondent University have already commenced and completed. When there is no provision under the existing regulation of the University to consider the case of a student whose statement of admission has been sent belatedly by the College authorities, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no substance. These are purely academic matters which should be decided by the academicians and taking into consideration all these factors, the regulations have been introduced by the University and it is well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in series of matters that, the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in the academic matters in order to have uniform rules and regulations. The Court cannot go only on the basis of sympathy. In the present case, the persuasion of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to consider the case of the second petitioner sympathy stating that, the second petitioner should not suffer for the lapses on the part of the College authorities is contrary to the material on record. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, there is delay on the part of the college authorities in sending the statement of admissions for approval by the University which is clear from the original records made available before the Court. The University has received the statement of admission pertaining to the second petitioner only in the month of March 2003. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, interference in the academic discipline by directing conducting of special examination only in respect of the second petitioner is totally uncalled for. This Court should not embarrass the academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, I do not find any good grounds to consider the prayers sought for by the petitioners in the instant writ petitions. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, I do not find any good grounds to consider the prayers sought for by the petitioners in the instant writ petitions. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners stand dismissed. --- *** --- .