JUDGMENT:- 1. Ms. Narmada Sampath, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents, Heard both sides. 2. The present two petitioners were the students of Dental course, having gone through the course from the third respondent college affiliated to the first respondent University. They could not complete the course within the time frame fixed by the University. They were writing supplementary examinations conducted by the University from time to time and even after 10 years from entry into the study, they could not complete the course. At that juncture, the respondent University brought a regulation known as 'double the duration of the respective courses' to pass the examination. 3. By the said regulation, the University granted time to the students, who have not completed the course within the original duration, to complete the course within the double duration of their respective courses. While making the regulation, the University also granted one more time, as a measure of amnesty, to the students, who were on the final year of the respective courses, as a last chance, to appear for the examination and specifically informed that if any of them do not complete the course even in their last chance, they may be discharged from the course. The petitioners availed the said opportunity, after giving a declaration to the effect that they will not get any more extension to complete the course beyond the time frame fixed under the Scheme by the University and that, if they do not complete the course, after availing the opportunity granted by the University as an one time measure, they will be discharged from the course. 4. However, the petitioners, along with several other similarly placed students, filed a batch of writ petitions before this Court. The petitioner in W.P.No.15956/2012 filed W.P.No.1962 0f 2011 and the petitioner in W.P.No.15957/2012 filed W.P.No.1960 of 2011. The said writ petitions were heard along with several other writ petitions and were disposed of, by a common order of this Court dated 14.12.2011. This Court found that the petitioners are bound to go by the regulations and the regulations have not been challenged in these writ petitions and hence, the petitioners cannot get any relief. Taking advantage of the observation made by this Court, the present two petitioners approached this court to challenge the clause 6 of the regulation framed by the University in these writ petitions dated 14.1.2011. 5. Taking advantage of the observation made by this Court, the present two petitioners approached this court to challenge the clause 6 of the regulation framed by the University in these writ petitions dated 14.1.2011. 5. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the clause 6 of the impugned regulation dated 14.1.2011 framed by the University. The regulations were issued by the University, after convening Expert Committee meeting and resolution passed in 40th and 42nd meeting of the Standing Academic Board and Clause 6 of the impugned regulation reads as follows: "(6) To discharge the candidates who have completed double the duration of their respective courses: To discharge all the Under Graduate, Post Graduate and Super Specialty candidates who have not completed the course within the double the duration of the respective courses in Medicine, Dental/Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Allied Health Science courses. Further that as a measure of amnesty, to those who are on the final year of the respective courses, as a last chance, to appear for the Examination in February/August 2011 Examinations, be given and if any of them do not pass the course even in their last chance they may be discharged from the course. After getting necessary undertaking from the students and only then the Examination wing has to permit the students to appear for the Examinations, The above resolution will come into effect from February/April 2011 Examination onwards." 6. It is not made clear by the petitioners, as to how a challenge to the said resolution is the subject matter of this writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the resolution is neither arbitrary nor making any discretion for exemption. Further, when the regulations were made to set up high standard in academic issues, as per the decision of Standing Academic Board, the power of this court to interfere with such standard is remote. Further, when the regulations were made to set up high standard in academic issues, as per the decision of Standing Academic Board, the power of this court to interfere with such standard is remote. In this context, it is but necessary to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006(5) SCC 515 (National Board of Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy and others), wherein, the Supreme Court, took up the issue of exercising the power of the High court in the academic matters and in para 7 held as follows: "In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to hold examinations against its policy in complete disregard to the mandate of this Court for not interfering in the academic matters particularly when the interference in the facts of the instant matter lead to perversity and promotion of illegality. The High Court was also not justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to merge a past practice with decision of the petitioner impugned before it to give relief to the respondents herein. Likewise, the High Court was not correct in applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation even when the respondents herein cannot be said to be aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner herein. The High Court was also not justified in granting a relief not sought for by the respondents in the writ petition. The prayer of the respondents in the writ petition was to seek a direction to the petitioner herein to hold the examinations as per the schedule mentioned in the Bulletin of 2003." 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 606 (Visveswaraiah Technological University and another v. Krishnendu Halder and others) observed that determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or ‘adversely affect’ the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment and in para 17, it is held as follows: "17.) No student or college, in the teeth of the existing and prevalent rules of the State and the University can say that such rules should be ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies in colleges. In fact the State/University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or ‘adversely affect’ the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. The order of the Division Bench is therefore unsustainable." 8. In the light of the above factual matrix and legal precedents, there is no case made out by the petitioners in the present two writ petitions. Hence, the impugned regulations are perfectly valid and are not liable to be challenged under Article 226 of the constitution of India for interference by this Court. 9. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.