N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has sought for a direction, directing the first respondent-University to declare that, petitioner has passed in the 'mechanical Drawing' subject in the examination held on 1st february 2005 vide Annexure-A or in the alternative to direct the first respondent-University to conduct re-examination in 'machine Drawing' paper for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is studying in the III year of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) course in the 2nd respondent-College. 'machine Drawing' is one of the papers in the third semester of the said course. As the petitioner had failed in the said paper earlier, he appeared for the same in the examination held on 1st February 2005 and has been declared 'failed' in the said subject. It is the grievance of petitioner that, question No. 8 given in Part 'c' carrying 60 marks, which is compulsory, related to the topic "plummer Block" which was not included in the syllabus prescribed by the' first respondent-University for the students coming under old scheme. Therefore, petitioner was not in a position to answer the same. Immediately, after noticing that, there is a difference in the old syllabus and the new syllabus, petitioner has given a detailed representation to the second respondent-College and the second respondent-College has forwarded the same to the first respondent-University. Instead of considering the request of the petitioner, which was forwarded to first respondent-University, through the Principal of second respondent-College, the University has failed to consider the same and rectify the anomaly alleged to have crept in the question paper issued in respect of students appearing under 'old scheme'. Therefore, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as stated supra. ( 3 ) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Learned Counsel appearing for first respondent-University. The second respondent is served and un-represented. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by Learned Counsel for petitioner is that, the question paper relating to the topic "plummer Block" is not included in the syllabus for "machine Drawing" prescribed for students of the old scheme under which the petitioner was prosecuting his studies. Therefore, petitioner was not in a position to answer the said question, thus losing 60 marks out of 100 marks prescribed for the said paper. Therefore, petitioner was not in a position to answer the said question, thus losing 60 marks out of 100 marks prescribed for the said paper. Further, he submitted that, the questions carrying only 40 marks related to topics in the prescribed syllabus and the said question carrying 60 marks was out of syllabus, the maximum marks for the said paper ought to be taken as 40 instead of 100 for the purpose of evaluating the performance of students. The petitioner had been awarded 77 marks in the said paper Machine Drawing by adding 60 marks allotted to the said question and 17 marks secured by him. The minimum marks that one has to score for passing in the said paper is 35. In view of this, petitioner is entitled to be declared 'pass' in the said paper. Further, he submitted that, the first respondent-University has failed to appreciate that, the students prosecuting their students under the old syllabus have lost a chance to pass in the said paper and for no fault of the petitioner, he has been penalised. This aspect of the matter and the difficulty faced by petitioner has not been looked into by the University authorities. Hence, having no other alternative but to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court, petitioner has presented the instant writ petition seeking appropriate direction, as stated above. ( 5 ) PER contra, Learned Counsel appearing for first respondent-University has filed the statement of objections. In the said objections statement, it can be seen that, in pursuance of the representation/application filed by petitioner and forwarded through the Principal of the second respondent-College, the said matter has been referred to two professors of the Mechanical engineering courses and they in turn have furnished their reports vide Annexures R-1 and R-2 both dated 1st July 2005 stating that, question 8 of Part C of the question paper in the subject me 306 Machine Drawing is Plummer Block assembly. Both the experts have concurrently opined that, question. No. 8 for assembly drawing of the Plummer Block is justified as a part of internal Combustion Engine. One of the experts has stated that, in conventional stationery, internal Combustion Engines, Plummer Blocks are used to support the crank. Another expert has stated that, the contents of the question paper are within the syllabus and that; the said question appearing in the examination in question is appropriate. One of the experts has stated that, in conventional stationery, internal Combustion Engines, Plummer Blocks are used to support the crank. Another expert has stated that, the contents of the question paper are within the syllabus and that; the said question appearing in the examination in question is appropriate. Therefore, Learned Counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that, in view of the individual reports submitted by two experts in the field, produced by him vide Annexures R-1 and R-2 to the statement of objections filed by him, the prayer sought for by petitioner can neither be sustained nor is he entitled to seek for such a relief at the hands of this Court. Therefore, he submitted that, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner may be dismissed as misconceived. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record and the rival contentions urged by both the counsel, I do not find any legal infirmity much less material irregularity as such committed by first respondent- university nor any injustice as such done to petitioner. It is significant to note that, in pursuance of the application filed by petitioner and forwarded-through the Principal of the second respondent-College, the first respondent-University namely the Registrar (Evaluation) of the first respondent University has referred the matter to two neutral experts in the relevant field, viz. the department of Mechanical Engineering, K. L. E. Society's College of Engineering and technology, Udyambag, Belgaum and to the Mechanical Engineering Department, BIET, davangere. After careful perusal of the grievances of the petitioner forwarded through the principal of the second respondent College, both the experts have submitted their, individual reports and concurrently opined that, question No. 8 given in the examination conducted on 1st february 2005 for subject 'machine Drawing' to III semester of the said course comes well within the syllabus and the same has been elaborately explained. Hence, in view of the views expressed by the academicians in the respective field, having technical expertise in the field and taking into consideration, the subject matter involved, which is purely academic in nature, I am of the considered view that, interference by this Court is neither justifiable nor I find any good grounds or justification to entertain the writ petition filed by petitioner invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner stands dismissed as devoid of any merits. --- *** --- .