K. S. JHAVERI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has by of this petition prayed to declare the amendment in Ordinance 117 at annexure-C and further direct the respondent University to give equal treatment to the petitioner and other persons belonging to SC/st community by giving the benefit of four marks as grace so as to reach and attain 55% marks. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case as they emerge from the record of the petition are that the petitioner belongs to S. C. community. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was declared passed in the said LL. M. examination, the respondent University had issued combined marksheet on 27th June, 2002, for LL. M. Part I and II showing to have secured IInd class. The petitioner further submitted that being dissatisfied with the result, she on 2nd July, 2002 applied for reassessment in the subjects of General Principles of Law of Contract and Specific Torts in the prescribed form. The petitioner further submitted that after about a period of 9 months, she was issued new marksheet by adding two marks in the total marks. 2. 1. IT is case of the petitioner that due to shortfall of two marks, she was not able to fulfill her desire to become lecturer or professor. The petitioner submitted that the respondent University has amended Ordinance 117, whereby a candidate whose total falls short of the requisite total for 55% of marks by not more than 4 marks in the final year of the postgraduate examination shall be awarded as grace upto 4 marks in the aggregate of the principal subject to the extent of enabling him to just attain 55% marks. 2. 2. THE petitioner further submitted that now so far as the UGC criteria for appointment is concerned, provisions for relaxation of 5% is made in case of persons belonging to SC/st category, meaning thereby, for appointment in any institution or University, a relaxation of 5% was provided from 55% to 50% of the marks to the masters level for SC/st category. 2. 3. THE petitioner further submitted that a person who has short of 4 marks to make the total of 55% marks is not given the benefit of 4 marks as grace. 2. 3. THE petitioner further submitted that a person who has short of 4 marks to make the total of 55% marks is not given the benefit of 4 marks as grace. The petitioner contended that the respondent University by making amendment in Ordinance has acted arbitrarily by giving grace marks to only those persons belonging to general category and have excluded person belonging to SC/st category. Hence, this petition. ( 3 ) MR. Soni learned advocate for the petitioner contended that in view of the amendment in Ordinance, if grace marks is given to the general category to attain 55% marks, the same treatment should also be given to the persons belonging to S. C. /s. T. category. He further contended that due to short fall of 2 marks, the petitioner was not able to apply for appointment to the post of teacher. 3. 1. AS against that Mr. Shelat learned advocate for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the recommendation of the academic council, the said Ordinance has been cancelled by the Executive Council. Mr. Shelat further submitted that in view of the cancellation of the Ordinance, the respondent University cannot consider the case of the petitioner. 3. 2. IN view of that Mr. Shelat has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Amit and Anr. , reported in (2002) 6 S. C. C. p. 153, wherein the Court has held as under :- "however, a rule for the award of grace marks must be construed strictly so as to ensure that the minimum standards are not allowed to be diluted beyond the limit specifically laid down by the appropriate authority. It is only in a case where the language of the statute is absolutely clear that the claim for the award of grace marks can be sustained. Normally, the Court shall be slow to extend the concession of grace marks and grant a benefit where none is intended to be given by the appropriate authority. "3. 3. MR. Shelat has next relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Dineshkumar Mohanlal Gajjar v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , reported in 1996 (3) [xxxvii (3)] G. L. R. p. 130 and in the case of Goradia Kamlesh Haribhai v. The Union of India and Anr. "3. 3. MR. Shelat has next relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Dineshkumar Mohanlal Gajjar v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , reported in 1996 (3) [xxxvii (3)] G. L. R. p. 130 and in the case of Goradia Kamlesh Haribhai v. The Union of India and Anr. , reported in 1987 (I) G. L. H. p. 456. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned advocates of the respective parties and have perused the relevant record. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Amit and Anr. , (supra) and in view of the statutory provision more particularly, Ordinance 117, if there is no provision to give grace marks, this Court cannot exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent University to give relaxation in the academic standard. Moreover, as consistently held by this Court, the High Court shall not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding academic matters and the same should be left to the expert body. ( 5 ) IN the premises aforesaid, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .