Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are all students of the 3rd respondent Sri Balaji Dental College and Hospital. In this Writ Petition, they have sought for declaration of the regulation framed by the 1st respondent University in prescribing conditions for those candidates who have not passed but crossed double the duration of course of study in medical, dental, ayush and allied health science courses as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear and continue the entire course as per clause 5 of the prospectus of the year 2001. 2. Mrs.Narmada Sampath, Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University takes notice for the 1st and 2nd respondents. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayana, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the 5th respondent. 3. The Regulation itself came to be upheld by this Court vide judgment in W.P.No.15957 of 2012 in Tanimal Rituparna Barman Roy vs. Abraham Mathew dated 25.6.2012, wherein this Court held as follows: "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. 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. 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. 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." 4. In identical matter, a Division Bench of this Court presided by Mr.M.Y.Eqbal, Chief Justice in W.P.Nos.4592 and 4756 of 2012 dated 26.6.2012 had upheld the said Regulation and in paragraphs 9 and 12, the Division Bench observed as follows: "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. 12. 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. 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." 5. In the light of the same, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.