Judgment :- Aruna Jagadeesan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 27080/2007, directing the authorities concerned to consider the application, if given by the respondents 1 and 2 [petitioners in the Writ Petition], to extend financial assistance, for their participation in ICC Moot Competition held in the month of October 2007 in New York, USA. 2. According to the respondents 1 and 2, they were studying in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College for the academic year 2003-04 up to 2005-06 and thereafter, they were shifted to Dr. Ambedkar Law University. On previous occasions, while they were studying in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, they have participated in ICC Moot Competitions held outside India i.e. at Vienna and Hong Kong and were given financial assistance by the Government. After they were shifted to Dr. Ambedkar Law University, they were deprived of the said benefits and the privileges enjoyed by the students who studied in Government Law College, Chennai and thus they were treated differently. Pursuant to the circular issued by the School of Excellence in Law, inviting participants, the respondents 1 and 2 participated in the selection conducted on 18.06.2007. On 13.07.2007, a bona fide certificate, stating that the 1st respondent has studied IV year BABL Honors Degree and is about to join V year, was issued. But, however, the Director, School of Excellence in Law did not issue proper bona fide certificates to both the students which deprived them from getting financial assistance from the Government. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, it was submitted that a circular was issued by the School of Excellence in Law dated 14.06.2007 inviting willing students for participation in the ICC Moot Competition which was scheduled to be held at New York in the month of October, 2007. Selection was to be held at 2.00 p.m. on 18.06.2007 in School of Excellence in Law. Though the respondents 1 and 2 gave their names, they did not participate in the selection and hence, the Director, School of Excellence in Law could not suggest any names for the said Moot Court Competition. Selection was to be held at 2.00 p.m. on 18.06.2007 in School of Excellence in Law. Though the respondents 1 and 2 gave their names, they did not participate in the selection and hence, the Director, School of Excellence in Law could not suggest any names for the said Moot Court Competition. As the respondents 1 and 2 participated in the said competition on their own volition, not as representatives of School of Excellence in Law, financial assistance by the Government could not be extended to them. 4. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the reasons given by the respondent University considering the fact that those students have participated in earlier Moot Court Competition and therefore, presumed that they ought to have come for selection and the reasons assigned by the authorities do not appear to be proper. Further, the learned Judge held that the respondents 1 and 2 having applied for participation, visa had been granted and as there was response from the concerned Consulate General of United States of America, they cannot be deprived of their participation and therefore, passed an order, directing the students to approach the authorities concerned with a copy of the application, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and further directed the first Respondent [Law Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government] to consider the case of the respondents 1 and 2 taking cognizance of their earlier participation in Moot Court Competition for granting financial assistance to them. 5. The contention of the appellants is that the sanction of financial assistance by the Government is strictly by selection process with a selection committee comprising of three experienced lecturers and the respondents 1 and 2 having not participated in the selection process, the Government cannot extend financial assistance to those students who on their own accord, without any authority, have participated in the Moot Court Competition. 6. On the other hand, the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that they received invitation in e-mail from Pace International Criminal Court Moot Competition and by obtaining bona fide certificates, they have participated in the Moot Court Competition. 7. The learned Government Pleader submitted before this Court that a circular was issued informing the students that selection for participation was to be held on 18.06.2007 in School of Excellence in Law, thus inviting willing students to give their names. 7. The learned Government Pleader submitted before this Court that a circular was issued informing the students that selection for participation was to be held on 18.06.2007 in School of Excellence in Law, thus inviting willing students to give their names. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 had given their names for participation in the selection. But they have not taken part in selection process and further, no students had participated in the selection held on 18.06.2007 as well. It is further stated by the learned Government Pleader that though they were fully aware of the selection of participants they have not turned up for selection and therefore, School of Excellence in Law could not suggest any name for Moot Court Competition. It is further said that on their own accord, respondents 1 and 2 have participated and therefore, they are not entitled to get any financial assistance from the Government. 8. The learned Single Judge has held that since the respondents have participated in earlier Moot Court Competition, it has to be presumed that they ought to have attended the selection process. The said finding is without any basis. Probably, the keen interest shown by respondents 1 and 2 in attending Moot Court Competition earlier, has weighed with the Judge to form such opinion that there was a possibility for the students to have attended the selection. The learned Addl. Government Pleader Mr. Rajasekar submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have not attended the selection which was held on 18.06.2007 and further, as none of the students attended, no names were suggested for the said competition. The learned Single Judge has further observed that he was not inclined to know the exact reason for non participation of the students in the selection process. The relevant observation of the learned Single Judge is as follows :- "17. The decision of the respondent University may not be proper since the students have a thirst and anguish for participation in various Moot Court Competitions and since they have participated in earlier Moot Court Competitions, therefore, they ought to have come for selection. But the reasons now assigned by the respondent do not appear to be proper. The decision of the respondent University may not be proper since the students have a thirst and anguish for participation in various Moot Court Competitions and since they have participated in earlier Moot Court Competitions, therefore, they ought to have come for selection. But the reasons now assigned by the respondent do not appear to be proper. They should not be deprived of such participation and this Court is not inclined to ascertain what exactly is the reason for non-participation of the students in the selection process and why the University has not considered the selection of the petitioners and to sponsor them for Moot Court Competitions." 9. We are unable to subscribe to the said views expressed by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the respondents 1 and 2 have participated in Moot Court Competition at New York on their own volition without being sponsored by the authorities concerned. Therefore, their participation will not give them a right to get financial assistance from the Government, although the object of the University is to promote the students for better standard of excellence in law. The respondents 1 and 2 are unable to point out any statutory duty or legal obligation on the part of the University or the Government, which they failed to exercise that, was cast upon them. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondents 1 and 2 to extend financial assistance for their participation in Moot Court Competition. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. In the result, the Writ appeal is allowed. No costs. 11. It is submitted before us that the respondents 1 and 2 have already submitted an application to the Government to grant financial assistance for their participation. It is the discretion of the Government to pass orders, if it could consider the case of the students sympathetically.