Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions have been filed for Writs of Declaration to declare Clause (6) of the Regulation passed by the 1st respondent - University in Rc.No.ACAD-I(3)/18100/10 and the consequent Scheme framed by the Expert Committee as highly illegal and unconstitutional. 2. Since both the writ petitions have been filed with a common prayer, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief and relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are stated herein below :- The petitioners in both the writ petitions are students pursuing their B.D.S. Degree Courses in the 3rd respondent colleges respectively affiliated to the 1st respondent – University. The petitioner in W.P. No.4592 of 2012 joined the B.D.S. Degree Course during the Academic Year 1996-1997 and the petitioner in W.P. No.4756 of 2012 joined the B.D.S. Degree Course during the Academic Year 1999-2000. It is stated that due to their personal and family problems, they could not complete their courses within the stipulated time viz., 4 years academics and 1 year compulsory internship. Their stand is that at the time of their admission into the course, there was no such regulation which stipulated discharge of students who have not completed their courses within double the duration of their course. Since they wanted to continue and complete their B.D.S. Degree Courses, they have filed the above writ petitions challenging Clause (6) of the impugned regulation and the consequent Scheme framed, which denies them the opportunity to continue and complete their B.D.S. Degree Courses. 4. The respondent-University in its counter stated that as per Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987 (Tamil Nadu Act 37 of 1987), the Standing Academic Board has framed the Regulations for Re-aAdmission after break of study in Medical, Dental, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy and Allied Health Science Courses offered by the University. The Regulation is subject to modification by the Standing Academic Board from time to time. It is stated that the Standing Academic Board of the University in its 40th Meeting held on 22.12.2010 resolved to discharge all the Under Graduate, Post Graduate and Super Speciality candidates who have not completed the course within double the duration of the respective courses. The Regulation is subject to modification by the Standing Academic Board from time to time. It is stated that the Standing Academic Board of the University in its 40th Meeting held on 22.12.2010 resolved to discharge all the Under Graduate, Post Graduate and Super Speciality candidates who have not completed the course within double the duration of the respective courses. In the said meeting, it was further resolved to permit, as a measure of amnesty to those who are in the final year of their respective courses, as a last chance, to appear for the Examination in February/August 2011 Examinations, and if any of them do not pass the course even in their last chance, they may be discharged from the course. After seeing the above resolution in the website of the University, out of 1940 candidates, only 83 candidates who are in the final year of study had applied for the University Examinations and they were permitted to write their examinations held in February, 2011. But the candidates who were in I, II and III years of the course of study have been discharged from the concerned course of study. Challenging the same, various writ petitions have been filed by the affected students. Hence, the matter was again placed before the 42nd Meeting of the Standing Academic Board held on 20.06.2011. In the said meeting, the members of the Committee expressed that since the subjects and the courses offered by the University through its affiliated institutions/departments of the University deal with human life, if the candidates even in the I year, II Year or III Year of their respective course of study, who have crossed double the duration of the courses are subsequently allowed to practice, it may result in damage to human life. Due to the gap in their study period, these students will not remember their subjects and they will be a threat to anxious human lives. Hence, permitting the candidates who have crossed double the duration of the course to continue the studies should not be entertained and human life should not be compromised on any account. Expressing so, the Committee resolved to discharge all the Undergraduate, Post Graduate and Super Speciality candidates who have not completed the course within double the duration of the respective courses of study. Expressing so, the Committee resolved to discharge all the Undergraduate, Post Graduate and Super Speciality candidates who have not completed the course within double the duration of the respective courses of study. Due to various representations received from student community, the University took a sympathetic view that the candidates those who have already crossed double the duration of the concerned courses of study may be given a last chance to appear for the examination to be held in February/April 2012 examination. It was made clear that this one time chance is applicable only for the students who are in the final year course of study. If the candidates do not pass even in that examination, they will be discharged from the concerned courses of study. 5. Thereafter, the students of II year and III year degree courses have made representations to the University requesting to permit them also to appear in the February/April 2012 examinations. The Meeting of the Expert Committee was again convened on 28.10.2011 to consider such representations. In the said meeting, the Expert Committee resolved to formulate a Scheme in this regard, which is impugned in these writ petitions. The said resolution of the Expert Committee was placed before the 43rd meeting of the Standing Academic Board held on 19.12.2011. The Standing Academic Board resolved that the candidates who are in II and III year and Final Year Course of study can be given the remaining duration of the course of study and a grace period of one year to complete their course of study. For example, the duration of the course for M.B.B.S. is 5 ½ years. If a candidate completed the II year and at the time of entering the III year, he/she had a break of study, then such candidate can continue the course for the remaining course period of 3½ years coupled with a grace period of one more year to complete the entire course. However, the period of study cannot be extended beyond such extended period. It is stated that the 43rd meeting of the Standing Academic Board held on 19.12.2011 has resolved to implement the impugned scheme for the benefit of the students who have not completed their degrees within a reasonable time, and it is a policy decision, and therefore, cannot be interfered with judicially. 6. We have heard Mr. J. Ashok, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mrs. 6. We have heard Mr. J. Ashok, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University. 7. Indisputably, the Regulations with regard to re-admission of candidates after a break of study in the Medical, Dental, Indian Medicine, Homoeopathy and Allied Health Science Courses offered by the University were framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987. The Standing Academic Board of the University, in its meeting dated 22.10.2010, took a decision to discharge such of those candidates who have not completed their respective courses even after double the duration of such courses. Clause (6) of the Resolution, which is impugned in these writ petitions, in quoted herein below :- “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 Homoeopathy and Allied Health Science course. 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.” It could be seen from the above that even while framing the impugned regulation, a relaxation was given to the final year students of the respective courses who appear for the examination in February/August, 2011 but in the event those candidates do not pass the course even in their last change, they may be discharged from the courses. 7. The aforesaid Regulations, as also the resolution, relating to the discharge of candidates who have crossed double the duration of the respective courses of study was challenged in writ petitions, and representations were also received from various candidates studying in the I Year, II Year and III Year and crossed double the duration of their respective courses. 7. The aforesaid Regulations, as also the resolution, relating to the discharge of candidates who have crossed double the duration of the respective courses of study was challenged in writ petitions, and representations were also received from various candidates studying in the I Year, II Year and III Year and crossed double the duration of their respective courses. Taking into account the stakes involved and also considering the careers of the students sympathetically, it was resolved to allow them also, as a last chance, to appear in the examinations to be held in February/April, 2012. Finally, the Expert Committee formulated a Scheme and a Resolution was passed in the 41st and 42nd Meeting of the Standing Academic Board held on 14.6.2011 and 20.9.2011. The scheme applicable to the Under Graduate Courses is as under :- 8. As noticed above, the petitioners already crossed double the duration of their respective courses, inasmuch as they joined in January, 1996. They only passed the II Year B.D.S. Course and as per the Scheme, they had to write their III B.D.S. Examination in February, 2011, but they did not appear in February, 2011 and August, 2011 Examinations due to lack of attendance. The petitioners did not even turn up to appear for the February, 2012 examinations due to lack of attendance. 9. We have considered the Resolution and the Scheme framed by the respondent-University, intended for the purpose of giving benefit to students who have not completed their degree courses from the University within a reasonable time. The said Scheme is based on the policy decision of the University to facilitate the candidates avail of the opportunity and appear in the examination, although they crossed double the duration of their respective course periods. We do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness either in the Regulations or in the Resolution and the Scheme framed by the respondent-University. 10. It is well settled that Courts should be very reluctant in interfering with the internal administration of the Universities in the matter of conduct of examinations unless the decision so taken by the University smacks of arbitrariness, capriciousness or is violative of the principles of natural justice. 10. It is well settled that Courts should be very reluctant in interfering with the internal administration of the Universities in the matter of conduct of examinations unless the decision so taken by the University smacks of arbitrariness, capriciousness or is violative of the principles of natural justice. In the case of National Board of Examinations vs. G. Anand Ramamurthy reported in (2006) 5 S.C.C. 515 , the Supreme Court reiterated the said principle and held that the High Court is not justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter like the one involved in that case. A similar view has been taken in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University vs. Krishnendu Halder reported in (2011) 4 S.C.C. 606 , where the Supreme Court observed that determination of standards of education being part of academic policy of the University are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless such standards are arbitrary or adversely affect the standards fixed under a Central enactment. 11. It is also pertinent to note that a couple of writ petitions challenging the very same regulation impugned in the present writ petitions came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Tanima Rituparna Barman Roy & Another vs. Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University & Others (W.P. Nos.15956 & 15957 of 2012) by order dated 25.6.2012. In the writ petitions on hand, no mala fide has been attributed by the petitioners, and the authorities of the respondent-University have framed the Scheme in the larger interest of the candidates who are studying in medical colleges. 12. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we do not find any reason to hold that the Regulation or the Resolution, as also the Scheme, framed by the respondent-University is unconstitutional and against the provisions of any statute. For the reasons aforesaid, there are no merits in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.