Per Massodi, J.— 1. Appellants are undergoing MBBS Course at Government Medical College, Jammu. They as ill luck would have it, failed to pass Clinical Examination in Obstetrics and Gynecology as they secured 24 marks as against the requirement of 25 marks out of 50 marks necessary for clearing the examination. The appellants would have sailed through, had the respondent-University given them 01 grace mark. The appellants request for award of 01 grace mark was rejected by respondent-University on the ground that in terms of Statute 6.2 of the University Statutes introduced vide University Council Resolutions dated 25.02.2008, whereunder though upto 05 grace marks could be awarded in theory component of a subject, no grace mark were permissible in Clinical (Practical) Examination. 2. Appellants aggrieved with the decision taken by the University, questioned it in OWP No. 421/2012. The grounds urged in the Writ Petition were three fold. (i). That the Statute 6.2 introduced vide University Council Resolution dated 25.02.2008 was in conflict with Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations and thus liable to be set aside. (ii). That the appellants having been enrolled in MBBS Course in the year 2001, Statute 6.2 having being introduced in the University Statute after their admission, it was not applicable to the appellants' case. (iii). That respondent-University granted benefit of grace marks in Clinical Examination notwithstanding Statute 6.2 to S/Sh. Sourabh Katoch and Kewal Krishan, who appeared in MBBS Final Professional Part-II Examination and MBBS Final Professional Part-11 Examination in 2009 and 2010 respectively and there was no reason to deny such benefit to the appellants. 3. The Writ Court did not find any merit in the grounds set out in the Writ Petition and accordingly dismissed it on 07.05.2012. 4. The appellants aggrieved with writ Court judgment, have come up with present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The appellants' grievance is that the writ Court has not appreciated the case projected, in right prospective. It is urged that while appellants projected their case inter alia on the ground of legitimate expectation, the writ Court treated it as one of "retrospectivity" and proceeded to reject their case. The writ Court is also said to have not dealt with the ground urged in the petition that as the benefit of grace marks in Clinical Examination was extended to some of the MBBS final students, it was arbitrarily denied to the appellants. 6. The writ Court is also said to have not dealt with the ground urged in the petition that as the benefit of grace marks in Clinical Examination was extended to some of the MBBS final students, it was arbitrarily denied to the appellants. 6. We have gone through the Appeal as also the writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The object of Regulations made by the Medical Council of India to regulate Graduate and Post Graduate Education in the Country is to maintain highest standards in Medical Education so that the knowledge and efficiency of medical graduates and post graduates, who pass out from our Medical Colleges/Universities is upto the mark and comparable with medical graduates from top most Universities of the World. Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations makes room for award of upto 05 grace marks to a medical student. It reads as under; "The grace marks upto a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a student who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all other subjects". 8. The University of Jammu has, by introducing Statute 6.2, restricted concession of grace marks to theory component of a subject and decided not to allow any grace marks in Clinical Examination. The Medical Council of India Regulation forms baseline and it does not restrict the University from prescribing grace marks less than prescribed under Regulation/Clause, 35 or restrict it to either of the components (theory and practical) of a subject. The University has acted well within its powers to restrict grace marks to the theory component of a subject, without leaving any scope of grace marks in the Clinical or Practical examination. The University is competent to decide that while it would ignore a candidate's failure in the theory component of a subject by less than 05 marks, but would not accept a medical candidate, expected to have good clinical sense, to fail in Clinical or Practical Examination. Statute 6.2 of University Statutes, therefore, cannot be held to be in conflict with Clause 35 of Medical Council of India Regulations. Statute 6.2 of University Statutes, therefore, cannot be held to be in conflict with Clause 35 of Medical Council of India Regulations. Had University of Jammu made room for award of more than 05 marks (say seven or ten marks), the Statute would have been in conflict with Regulation/Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations, because the Medical Council of India Regulations provide the bottom line and leave it to the University to prescribe more strict Examination regime, to promote efficiency at the level of Graduate and Post Graduate Courses in Medical Education. 9. There is no substance in the stand taken by the appellants that as they were admitted in MBBS Course in the year 2001, Statute 6.2 incorporated by University Council Regulations dated 25.02.2008 was not applicable to them on the ground that the Statute could not be retrospective in its application or on the ground that they had legitimate expectation that they would be bound by the Statute, as it stood on the date of their admission. A student when admitted in Graduate or Post Graduate Course regulated by the University Statute, is expected to accept that the Course in which he has been admitted would be regulated by the University Statute as amended from time to time, till he successfully completes the Course. The University Statute under go changes from time to time depending upon new developments in the field of academic, science and technology and to respond to the new challenges. It is a continuing process. A student enrolled in Graduate or Post Graduate programme striking over a period of 3 to 5 years cannot insist that the changes made in the University Statute should not be made applicable to him. An agreement with such a proposition would make exercise of making University Statute responsive to the challenges around, meaningless. 10. The appellants cannot seek the benefit that is not permissible under the University Statute (Statute 6.2 in the present case) only because of such benefit has been extended in isolated cases, either due to clerical error or any inadvertence on part of the officials of University at lowest rung of the administrative machinery. The appellants cannot claim award of grace mark as a matter of right unmindful of Statute 6.2 because two of the students at some point of time have been awarded such benefit. 11. The appellants cannot claim award of grace mark as a matter of right unmindful of Statute 6.2 because two of the students at some point of time have been awarded such benefit. 11. For the reasons discussed, there is no scope of disagreement with the view taken by learned Writ Court that the appellants claim to grant of one grace mark in Clinical/Practical Paper-III-Obstetrics and Gynecology and challenge to Statute 6.2 of the Statutes governing the Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS), is without substance. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as merit-less.