JUDGMENT By the Court.—Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and order as also the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it. 3. It appears that all the petitioners-appellants had appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the Aligarh Muslim University for admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma Course, 2009. Under the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) framed by the Medical Council of India, the candidates who have obtained less than 50% marks in the entrance examination are not eligible for being considered for admission in the P.G. courses. Admittedly all the petitioners-appellants had obtained less than 50% marks. It has been stated that in the year 2009 total number of 22 seats could not be filled up for want of eligible candidates. The contention of the petitioners-appellants is that as 22 seats are lying vacant the petitioners-appellants, though they have obtained less than 50% marks in the entrance examination, be directed to be admitted in such course. 4. We are afraid that we cannot issue any such direction as the University is bound by the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, in so far as the admission to P.G. Courses is concerned. If the University admits the candidates who have obtained less than 50% marks in the entrance examination it may lead to de-recognition of this degree by the Medical Council of India. The Court, in these circumstances cannot issue any such direction to the University to do so by means of a judicial order which may result in the degree being dereognised. 5. Sri Viqar Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that during the previous years, i.e. 2007 and 2008 the University has itself permitted the students who have obtained less than 50% marks in the aforementioned entrance examination, therefore, there is no justification by the University Authorities in not permitting/admitting the petitioners-appellants during the year 2009. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that two wrongs do not make one right. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that two wrongs do not make one right. However, we find no illegality in not admitting the students,who have obtained less than 50% marks in the aforementioned entrance examination, as alleged by the petitioners-appellants and the Court cannot issue any direction by which the University authorities have to perpetuate the wrongs. 6. Sri Ansari further submitted that if sub-clause (iv) of Clause (2) of Clause 9 of the Regulations, had been adopted by the University, all the petitioners-appellants would have been admitted. We find from the admission rules that the University authorities can adopt any one of the clauses for making admission. It is not in dispute that the University can adopt any one of the sub-clauses for admission and if the University has not adopted sub-clause (iv) for making the admission without there being any allegations of mala fide intention against the petitioners-appellant, adopting another sub-clause for the purposes of making admission to P.G. courses by the University cannot be faulted. 7. That being the situation, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The special appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ————