Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these writ applications have been heard together, as they involve the common questions of law and facts, and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this order. 3. The petitioners of both these writ applications are aggrieved by the notification of the respondent L.N. Mithila University, issued vide memo no. 5026-401/2003 dated 12.9.2003, as contained in annexures 3 and 2, respectively, whereby and whereunder the students of the Final B.D.S. course, who have failed in more than one subject in the final examination, have been informed to fill up the fees and forms in all the subjects of the examination for the ensuing supplementary examination. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioners have failed in more than one subject in B.D.S. final examination and the respondent University has issued the notification impugned informing such students to fill up the fees and forms in all subjects of the examination. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the Patna University Regulation (hereinafter to be referred to as PU Regulation) for the Bachelor of Dental Surgery, which has been adopted by the respondent L.N. Mithila University, the petitioners, who have failed in more than one subject in the B.D.S. Final examination, are required to fill up fees and forms only for the subjects they have failed and the respondent University now cannot act contrary to the Regulations, as referred to above. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Clause IV (e) and (f) of the PU Regulation for the Bachelor of Dental Surgery, as contained in annexure 1 series, and submitted that in view of sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Clause IV of the Regulation aforesaid, the petitioners are required to appear in the subjects they have failed in the final B.D.S. examination. It is further submitted that the respondent L.N. Mithila University has also adopted the Regulation of the Patna University, as referred to above, and, therefore, the impugned notification should be held as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. Sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Clause IV of the Regulation read as follows: "(e) A candidate, who fails to pass the final B.D.S. examination, shall be exempted from further examination in the subject or subjects in which he has passed. 6. Sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Clause IV of the Regulation read as follows: "(e) A candidate, who fails to pass the final B.D.S. examination, shall be exempted from further examination in the subject or subjects in which he has passed. (f) A candidate whom the concession mentioned in sub-clause (e) has been granted for the Final B.D.S. examination, shall ordinarily be required to pass in all the subjects within a period of 25 months from the time he has been exempted from any one of these subjects and if he fails to do so, he will be required to appear again in all these subjects for the final examination." 7. From sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Clause IV of the Regulation, it appears that a candidate, who fails to pass the final examination, shall be exempted from further examination in the subject or subjects in which he has passed and a candidate, whom the concession mentioned in sub-clause (e) has been granted for the Final B.D.S. examination, shall ordinarily be required to pass in all the subjects within a period of 25 months from the time he has been exempted from any of these subjects and if he fails to do so, he will be required to appear again in all these subjects for the final examination. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent University. Paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- "15. That it may be respectfully stated here that the matter was again taken up by the University in the year 2000 and it was in the year 2000 for the first time that the University decided to adopt the Patna University regulations for B.D.S. course and examination and the same was to apply prospectively only. It was not intended to nor could it appear retrospectively to earlier batches. In view of various controversies that were being raised the Examination Board of University in its meeting dated 5.9.2003 by Agenda No. 6 unanimously resolved to clarify the matter and specifically decided that the adoption of Patna University regulations for B.D.S. examination by the Academic Council on 23.10.2000 would be applicable to the session 2001-2002 onwards and prior sessions examinations would be conducted as per Dental Council of India regulations. This was only clarificatory." 9. This was only clarificatory." 9. Learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that the PU Regulation could not apply to earlier batches because the syllabus, paper marking and marks of Patna University Regulation differ from those, as Provided in Dental Council of India Regulation, and, therefore, adoption of the PU Regulation in middle of the batch was not possible and now the students cannot demand to follow the PU Regulations and, as such, the notification of the University, which is under challenge, is in conformity with the Regulations of the Dental Council of India, which is the apex body in respect of Dental Education. 10. The petitioners, pursuant to the impugned notification of the respondent University, have already submitted their fees and forms in all subjects of the examination, and, therefore, the question to be decided is more academic. 11. From the counter affidavit, it is manifest that the respondent University nas decided to adopt the PU Regulation for B.D.S. course and examination and the same will apply prospectively and prior sessions examination would be conducted as per the Dental Council of India Regulations, and the petitioners now cannot ask the University to adopt the Regulations of the Patna University even for the old sessions. The University has its own prerogative to conduct the examination and in case, it takes a decision to conduct the examination in a particular manner in consonance with the statutory Regulation of the Dental Council of India, the action of the respondent University, in my opinion, should not be subjected to judicial scrutiny. 12. The petitioners, in this view of the matter, do not have any right to ask the respondent University to accept their fees and forms only for the subjects in which they have failed in the final examination. 13. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the impugned notification, issued by the respondent University is held to be valid and in consonance with the Regulations of the Dental Council of India. 14. In the result, these writ applications are dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.