VINEET SARAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was granted admission in the B. Tech course of the Aligarh Muslim University for the Sessions 2002-03. He appeared in the first and second semester examinations of the first year. By an order dated 10. 10. 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Dean, Faculty of engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, the petitioner and other 28 students of the first year who were provisionally permitted to attend classes of second year of b. Tech/b. Arch, were found not eligible for promotion and as such their names were removed from the roll of the faculty on the ground that they had not earned the requisite number of credits as was required as per Clause 14. 2 of the Ordinances (Academic) - XXXIV (E ). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10. 10. 2003, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: i)a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10. 10. 2003 passed by respondent No. 2 in so far as it concerns the petitioner (Annexure-5 to writ petition); ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to restore the name of the petitioner to the B. Tech (Civil Engg.) Programme, 2002-2003 and permit the petitioner to pursue studies in such year and semester as may confer to the rules; iii) any other writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and iv) award costs in favour of the petitioner. ( 2 ) FOR proper appraisal of this case, it would be necessary to examine the relevant Clause 14. 2 of the Ordinance, which reads as under:a student who earns less than 15 credits (with a minimum passing grade d or above) at the end of the first semesters examination will be warned by DCAC for his/her poor performance and if he is unable to earn at least 30 credits at the end of the second semester his/her admission from b. Tech. Degree Programme shall be terminated. ( 3 ) THE said provision of the Ordinance has not been challenged in this writ petition. Degree Programme shall be terminated. ( 3 ) THE said provision of the Ordinance has not been challenged in this writ petition. The only contention of the petitioner is that the said clause itself provides for that a student who has earned less than 15 credits in a semester would be informed and warned of his/her poor performance at the end of the first semester. Undisputedly, the petitioner had earned less than 15 credits in both the Semesters. The result of the first semester was declared after much delay and as such there was no question of the petitioner having been given any warning of having earned less credits in the first semester. The petitioner thus submits that, as required under the Statute, since he was not duly warned, he could not improve upon his performance and accordingly the said provision of the Ordinance requiring a student to earn a particular number of earned credits would not be applicable in the present case. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit it is not disputed that the results of the first semester of B. Tech Course for the Session 2002-03 were declared with some delay. However, in paragraph 9 it has been stated that in the first semester, the petitioner had earned 10. 5 credits as against the minimum requirement of 15 credits and in the second semester he had earned 14. 5 credits as against the minimum requirement of 15 credits i. e. in the first year He had earned 25 credits as against the minimum requirement of 30 credits. This position is not disputed by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. ( 5 ) AS noticed earlier, the said Clause 14. 2 of the Ordinance requiring a student to earn minimum 30 credits in a year and 15 credits in each semester, has not been challenged in this writ petition. It is true that the respondent-University could not warn its students who had earned less credits in the first semester because of their being delay in declaration of the results. However, in the present case, the petitioner has earned less than the minimum required credits (i. e. 15 credits) in each of the semesters. Admittedly, he has earned 10. 5 and 14. 5 credits in the first and second semesters respectively. However, in the present case, the petitioner has earned less than the minimum required credits (i. e. 15 credits) in each of the semesters. Admittedly, he has earned 10. 5 and 14. 5 credits in the first and second semesters respectively. It would have been a different case if he had earned a minimum of 15 credits in the second semester, in which case the question of the petitioner not having been warned to make good the deficiency in the credits of the first semester would have been relevant as then the argument could have been that he was otherwise a good student but for some extraordinary reasons he could not earn the requisite credits in the first semester. The educational institutions are required to maintain good academic standard. The Aligarh Muslim University is a prestigious Central University of the country and through their Ordinance, they have set a particular standard for its students, which is expected to be maintained. Only a technical argument has been raised by the petitioner that as per the relevant clause of the Ordinance he ought to have been warned of having earned less credits in the first semester so that he could have made good the deficiency in the credits of the first semester. The petitioner here has not even earned the minimum credits in the second semester and thus the question of making good the deficiency is not of much relevance. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court in its extraordinary equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the present case, since the petitioner has been found below the prescribed standard in both semesters of the first year, equity is totally against him. By not having earned the requisite credits in either of the semesters, it is established that the petitioner was not upto the standard as had been fixed by the respondent-University. The rule for fixation of the standard of earning the requisite credits is not in dispute and has not been challenged. Thus since the equity is not in favour of the petitioner, then even if there may be some technical shortcomings, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief, as in this extraordinary jurisdiction, it is necessary for the petitioner to prove that not only is the law in his favour, but the equity is also with him. Thus since the equity is not in favour of the petitioner, then even if there may be some technical shortcomings, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief, as in this extraordinary jurisdiction, it is necessary for the petitioner to prove that not only is the law in his favour, but the equity is also with him. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts, I find no cogent reason for interference with the order dated 10. 10. 2003 passed by respondent No. 2. ( 7 ) THIS writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. . .