Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The petitioner has submitted this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for and after examining the same if the Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper then the writ petition may kindly be allowed and a writ more particularly in the nature of mandamus may kindly be given to the respondents with the directions, order to quash and set aside the order dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure-9) and to allow the petitioner to appear in B.Com final year examination with supplementary examination. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition an interim order may kindly be passed allow the petitioner to appear in B.Com final year examination which is to be held on 23.03.2006 with supplementary examination. And any other writ, direction or orders, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice and the cost of this writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner”. 2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for present purpose are that the petitioner took admission in B.Com., Three Year Degree Course conducted by the respondent-University; appeared in Part-I Examination 2004 of the said course and after securing a pass, appeared in the Examination, 2005 for the second year of the same course. Unfortunately the petitioner was declared fail in B.Com. Part-II Examination 2005; the petitioner applied for re-evaluation and his revised result was declared on 02.09.2005 whereby he became eligible for supplementary examination. The petitioner was informed by the respondent University by the letter dated 02.09.2005 (Annexure-5) that his result has been changed from “Failed” to “Supplementary” and he was also informed that supplementary examination of B.Com. Part-II shall start from 17.09.2005 and the last date for submitting supplementary examination form was 14.09.2005. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.09.2005 (Annexure-6) with the submissions that he was left with little time to prepare himself for taking supplementary examination and requested the University to permit him to appear in supplementary examination for B.Com. Part-II alongwith the main Examination 2006 of B.Com. final year. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.09.2005 (Annexure-6) with the submissions that he was left with little time to prepare himself for taking supplementary examination and requested the University to permit him to appear in supplementary examination for B.Com. Part-II alongwith the main Examination 2006 of B.Com. final year. In later representations, the petitioner also contended that usually re-evaluation results are declared by the University after conducting of the supplementary examinations and, therefore, when a candidate is found eligible to appear in supplementary due to re-evaluation result, he is permitted to take supplementary examination with the next main examination and it was for the first time that the result of re-evaluation was declared before the date of supplementary examination. This apart, the petitioner also suggested in the later representations that he was not well in health and was not a position to take the examination. 3. The request made by the petitioner was turned down by the University specifically with reference to the requirements of the rules that when as a result of re-evaluation, a candidate is entitled to appear in supplementary examination, and the revised result is declared before conducting of such supplementary examination, the candidate is required to appear in the ensuing examination; and it is only when re-evluation result is declared after supplementary examination that he is permitted to appear in supplementary examination with the next main examination. 4. The petitioner has filed his writ petition with the submissions that actions and inactions on the part of the respondents are illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; that the University cannot discriminate in the matters related to education; that the request of the petitioner for permitting him to take supplementary examination with main examination has been denied in a wholly illegal manner; that the University has failed to timely inform his about the decision on his representation; that the condition relied upon by the University is having a great effect on the educatin and career prospects of the petitioner who has already completed one year of the course and not allowing him to pursue further regular studies would create career hindrance; that the University has not objectively considered the predicament of the petitioner and their insistence for appearance in the supplementary examination while denying him opportunity to take the same alongwith B.Com. Final Year Examination would operate to the prejudice of the petitioner. 5. In response to the notice issued in this writ petition, it has been conended by the respondent University that petitioner was informed of the re-evaluation result on 02.09.2005; the re-evaluation result was declared prior to supplementary examination on the demand of the students of B.Com. Part-II; in all 59 students were declared supplementary after re-evaluation and out of those 59 students, 51 did appear in the supplementary examination; and that the request made by the petitioner being squarely contrary to the requirements of Rules could not have been granted, although the same was duly considered and then rejected and the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor was duly communicated to the petitioner on 17.09.2005. 6. Learned Counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions in conformity with their stand as taken in the writ petition and the reply. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition is totally bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petitioner has taken admission in the University being quite aware of the rules and regulations of the University and so far the eventuality of the result changing to “supplementary” due to re-evaluation, and its consequences are concerned, the University has specifically taken care of providing thus :- “If a candidate as a result of re-evaluation becomes eligible for supplementary examination, he/she will be permitted to appear at the usual supplementary examination, if available or thereafter only at the time of next main examination.” 8. It is not in dispute that the revised result in the present case was declared on 02.09.2005 and admittedly the petitioner received the same on 06.09.2005. The petitioner was made aware of the fact that supplementary examination of B.Com. Part-II would start from 17.09.2005 (vide Annexure-5 ). The attempt thereafter as made by the petitioner to avoid taking of the supplementary examination on the pretext of paucity of time for making preparation; or the later suggestion of his so-called illness, all appear to be simply aimed at somehow gaining more time beyond and contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the University. The attempt thereafter as made by the petitioner to avoid taking of the supplementary examination on the pretext of paucity of time for making preparation; or the later suggestion of his so-called illness, all appear to be simply aimed at somehow gaining more time beyond and contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the University. It does appear from the note-sheet Annexure R-2 placed by the respondent-University on record that his representation was duly considered and thereafter rejected by the Vice-Chancellor of the University; and there does not appear to be any illegality in such rejection of representation by the University. Later repeat representations as made by the petitioner remain totally baseless and inconsequential. 9. The submissions sought to be made by the petitioner against the validity or correctness of such decision by the University, requiring a candidate to appear in the supplementary examination if the result of re-evaluation has been declared prior to the date of supplementary examination, in the first place do not appear to be well founded; and secondly, the same being essentially an academic matter, this Court would not sit in Judgment over prudence or otherwise of such a decision of the University. 10. Viewed from any angle, this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief . 11. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.