JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions are Post Graduate students in various disciplines of Medicine, who failed to qualify in the examinations conducted by the 2nd respondent-University during April-May, 2013. The petitioners are before this Court seeking revaluation of the Theory papers in which they failed to qualify and alternatively seeking moderation. Essentially they seek the intervention of this Court to arrive at the end result of prodding the 2nd respondent-University to qualify them in the examinations, in which, they obviously failed. 2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 18710/2013, 23554/2013 and 23559/2013 are Post Graduate students of General Medicine and the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 19281/2013, 19364/2013, 19365/2013 and 23807/2013 are Post Graduate students in respectively Paediatrics (Diploma), Gynaecology, Micro Biology and Physiology. The common ground urged by all the petitioners is that the valuation has not proceed with in accordance with Exhibits P1 and P2 guidelines and with respect to the students of General Medicine, they urged the additional ground of 2 questions being amended in the course of the examination. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.23807/2013 also urges an additional issue of there being one out-of-syllabus question in one of the Theory papers. 3. I have heard Sri. A. Mohamed Mustaque, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P. Sreekumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-University. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel would take me through the Regulations to contend that in all instances there shall be at least 4 Examiners in the Post Graduate examinations, 2 of whom shall be External Examiners and the same set of Examiners shall examine a student in the Theory and Practicals. This, according to the learned counsel, is to ensure that the Practicals are valued with reference to the Theory papers, which is further indicated by providing for valuation of the Theory papers before the start of the Clinical/Practical and Oral examinations of the candidates. The petitioners would contend that the valuation of their Theory papers and the evaluation of their Practicals were done by two set of Examiners, in violation of the Regulations. The petitioners would contend that the valuation of their Theory papers and the evaluation of their Practicals were done by two set of Examiners, in violation of the Regulations. To further urge their case, the petitioners would also contend that by the scheme of arrangement of Practical examination and valuation of Theory papers, it could be seen that the valuation of Theory papers were done by the Examiners on the very same days on which the Practical examination was conducted and this would indicate the callous indifference with which the valuation of Theory papers were carried on. This is the common ground raised to urge revaluation of the Theory papers, in which all the petitioners have failed by reason of having not obtained the qualifying marks. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University would point out the scheme of examination, as is revealed from Exhibit P2, which indicates 400 marks being awarded for Theory papers, 300 marks for Clinical/Practical examinations and 100 marks for the Viva Voce. To qualify in the examination, the candidate needs 40% minimum for each of the Theory papers and a separate aggregate of 50% in Theory, Clinical/Practical and Viva Voce examinations. The system of valuation is also placed on record by a statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. As per the statement, it is not incumbent upon the University to value the Theory papers and the Practicals by the same set of Examiners, since Exhibit P1 only says that 'ordinarily' such a system should be followed. In the 2nd respondent-University at all times a set of 4 Examiners values the Theory papers as also the Practicals and 2 out of the 4 would be External Examiners, viz., Examiners invited from recognised Universities outside the State. To ensure that there is absolutely no nepotism in valuation, the Theory papers at one centre is sent for valuation to the set of 4 Examiners in another centre and the system of 2 different set of Examiners valuing the Theory and Practicals is introduced only to make the procedure more transparent. The system so introduced by the University does not at all violate regulations of the Medical Council of India. It is also asserted that there is absolutely no stipulation that the valuation in the Practicals have to be with reference to the valuation of the Theory papers. The system so introduced by the University does not at all violate regulations of the Medical Council of India. It is also asserted that there is absolutely no stipulation that the valuation in the Practicals have to be with reference to the valuation of the Theory papers. The University also contends that valuation of Theory papers are undertaken by the Examiners at a centre on the days in which the practical tests are carried on. It is not as if the Examiners carry on the valuation of the Theory paper in the midst of the Practicals. In any event, the students participating for Practicals on a given day is only 6 as against 8 permissible as per the Medical Council of India guidelines. 6. The contention of the petitioner is based on Clause-5 of Appendix-I of Exhibit P1, which reads as under: "5. The same set of examiners shall ordinarily be responsible for the written, practical or part of examination" and the stipulation contained in Regulation 14(4)(b) of the Regulations, which also is as under: "14(4)(b) Theory (i) There shall be four theory papers. (ii) Out of these one shall be of Basic Medical Sciences and one shall be of recent advances. (iii) The theory examinations shall be held well in advance before the Clinical and Practical examination, so that the answer books can be assessed and evaluated before the commencement of the Clinical/Practical and Oral examination". (as amended on 20.10.2008 and revealed from Pages 5 and 12 of the Regulations, furnished by the counsel across the Bar) Looking at the above provisions, this Court is not convinced that the contention of the petitioners with respect to violation of the Regulations can be sustained as far as the common ground is concerned. As has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, the Regulations only stipulate that 'ordinarily' the Theory papers and the Practical shall be evaluated by the same set of Examiners. The University has explained the system adopted by it, which, in the circumstances, cannot be held to be violative of the Regulations. It also cannot be assumed that the Clinical/Practicals are to be assessed on a reference to the Theory papers. The University has explained the system adopted by it, which, in the circumstances, cannot be held to be violative of the Regulations. It also cannot be assumed that the Clinical/Practicals are to be assessed on a reference to the Theory papers. The mere fact that the Regulations prescribe the conduct of Theory papers well in advance before the Clinical and Practical examinations does not postulate an assumption that the Clinical/Practical assessment has to be with reference to the Theory papers. It is also common knowledge that while the candidates are required to answer the very same question paper in the Theory examinations, they may be examined in different areas and different situations in so far as Clinical/Practical examinations are concerned. It cannot at all be said that the Clinical/Practical examinations are to be assessed with reference to the Theory papers. There can also be no impediment in carrying on the valuation of Theory papers and Practicals on the same day. 7. The stipulation for earlier conduct of Theory examinations can only be, for the purpose of permitting only the candidates who have passed in the Theory examinations (40% stipulation), to appear for the Practical examinations. If the University devises a system, which, according to it, is reasonable and practicable for conducting the valuation of Theory papers along with the Practicals, it is not for this Court to import a reasoning contrary to that arrived at by the academic body. The University necessarily has arrived at such a decision on the basis of the practical experience of having conducted the examinations and with a view to check any allegation of malpractice in the examinations. Permitting all candidates to appear for the Clinical/Practical examinations even without verifying whether they have qualified in the Theory papers, does not at all visit the candidates with any prejudice. The result of the Clinical Practical examinations would necessarily depend on the candidate qualifying in the Theory papers too. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the decisions of the University formulating and devising a system of examination and valuation, which does not at all violate the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. There is no procedural irregularity nor is there any illegality or irrationality vitiating the procedure. The common ground raised by the petitioners regarding the system of valuation, hence, cannot be sustained. 8. There is no procedural irregularity nor is there any illegality or irrationality vitiating the procedure. The common ground raised by the petitioners regarding the system of valuation, hence, cannot be sustained. 8. As was noticed, the students of General Medicine and Physiology have two alternate contentions. The student of Physiology claims that one question in one of the Theory papers was out-of-syllabus. The students of General Medicine claimed that some amendments were made to the questions during the course of the examination. Here also, the system of the conduct of the examination assumes significance. The learned Standing Counsel for the University explains the system as follows:- Though the examinations commence only at 9.30 a.m., all the students are required to be present in the examination hall at 9.00 a.m. The question papers of the examination are released online, only at 9.20 a.m. and the Invigilators at each centre, download the same in the Personal Computer available at each of the centres, and takes printouts to be given to each of the students. The students are allowed 10 minutes time to go through the questions and raise any objection to the Invigilator, which, if raised, would immediately be notified to the Subject Expert appointed by the University. The subject expert would examine the objections and if found to be sustainable, advise necessary modifications to be made. In both the instances, i.e., in Physiology and General Medicine, none of the petitioners raised any objection within the given time. 9. However, what the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge is that at least in the case of General Medicine, the questions were modified after the commencement of the examination and the candidates were not given additional time to answer, according to the amendments. Hence, the petitioners had immediately thereafter filed a representation before the Vice-Chancellor, evidenced by Exhibit P8 in W.P.(C).No.18710 of 2013, and for the aforesaid reason they were entitled to moderation. The claim with respect to moderation having been declined by the Pass Board, this Court had, by Exhibit P6 judgment dated 24.07.2013 produced in W.P.(C). No. 23559 of 2013, directed reconsideration of the same. Even thereafter the Pass Board declined moderation and this, according to the petitioners, was not proper. The Pass Board decision not to award moderation is devoid of any reasoning and offends the doctrine of proportionality, is the contention. No. 23559 of 2013, directed reconsideration of the same. Even thereafter the Pass Board declined moderation and this, according to the petitioners, was not proper. The Pass Board decision not to award moderation is devoid of any reasoning and offends the doctrine of proportionality, is the contention. The learned counsel would also place reliance on Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission ( (2007) 3 SCC 720 ). to contend that moderation is inherent in the evaluation process in any large scale examination. The doctrine of proportionality is advanced placing reliance on Om Kumar v. Union of India ( (2001) 2 SCC 386 ). 10. Sanjay Singh (supra) challenged the system, adopted by the Public Service Commission in filling up posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), by which the final results were based on the aggregate of 'scaled marks' in the written examination and the marks awarded at the interview. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dilated on the system of "moderation" and "scaling" adopted in general at examinations. The former was found to be employed to avoid the "hawk-dove" effect of examiner variability depending on the relative inclination to carry on evaluation in strict or liberal manner. The latter was adopted in cases of examinations in different subjects, like language and maths, brining forth results which cannot be made comparable on mere percentages. The subject dealt with was 'scaling' and the exercise was found to be improper on facts. The decision cannot be said to be laying down a dictum that moderation is mandatory in examinations or that the candidates can claim it as a matter of right. 11. Om Kumar (supra) examined the distinctive application of the 'Wednesbury principles" and the "doctrine of proportionality". The principle laid down in Wednesbury case defined the limited scope of judicial review of administrative action abstracted as; based on either "illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularity". The doctrine of proportionality is the ultimate balancing test of the adverse effects a legislation or an administrative order may have on the rights, interest or liberties of individuals; on an overview of the purpose sought to be achieved. Wednesbury rule is a secondary review limited in its scope and application, while proportionality is a rule of stricter scrutiny warranting primary review on merits with reference to competing interests of the citizen and the justification for State restriction. Wednesbury rule is a secondary review limited in its scope and application, while proportionality is a rule of stricter scrutiny warranting primary review on merits with reference to competing interests of the citizen and the justification for State restriction. It was held so by the learned Judges: "Thus, the principle of primary review and proportionality on the one hand and the principle of secondary review and Wednesbury reasonableness on the other hand gave a new dimension to administrative law, the former applying in the case of fundamental freedoms and the latter, in other cases. xxx xxx xxx 42. While the courts' level of scrutiny will be more in case of restrictions on fundamental freedoms, the courts give a large amount of discretion to the administrator in matters of high-level economic and social policy and may be reluctant to interfere (R. v. Secy, of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire County Council (1986 AC 240), R. v. Secy. of State for Environment, ex P. Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (1991) 1 AC 527 (AC at p.597)". 12. As in economic and social policy so in academic matters too. The petitioners claim moderation as a matter of right for an alleged defect of procedure of amending the question paper during the course of the examination. The University asserts no such defect has occurred and maintains that the amendments were made in time and the same was certified by two students in the examination hall; which certificate is a part of the records of the University. The petitioners too never complained of the alleged defect in procedure either during the examination or thereafter at any time before the publication of results. For the first time objection was raised as per a representation dated 22.07.2013, as a precursor to approaching this Court with W.P.(C).No.18436 of 2013, evident by Exhibit P6 produced in W.P.(C).No.23559 of 2013. This was obviously after the publication of results on 12.07.2013. 13. This Court is not convinced that the doctrine of proportionality can be applied in testing the decision of the University in declining moderation even going by the principles enunciated in Om Kumar (supra) in paragraph 68: "Thus, when administrative action is attacked as discriminatory under Article 14, the principle of primary review is for the courts by applying proportionality. 13. This Court is not convinced that the doctrine of proportionality can be applied in testing the decision of the University in declining moderation even going by the principles enunciated in Om Kumar (supra) in paragraph 68: "Thus, when administrative action is attacked as discriminatory under Article 14, the principle of primary review is for the courts by applying proportionality. However, where administrative action is questioned as "arbitrary" under Article 14, the principle of secondary review based on Wednesbury principles applies". In any event, an undue intense focus on the alleged unfair treatment of the candidates is not what is warranted in applying the balancing test of proportionality. The petitioners are all Post Graduate students in Medicine and the University swears by its commitment to uphold the standards of medical education; which definitely cannot be tested on any reasonable criteria evolved by this Court. It would be unrealistic not to have due regard to maintenance of academic standards, especially in the field of Medicine, and pursue a judicial exercise of balancing based only on the assumed rights of a student and the purported unfairness in procedure adopted by an academic body. 14. As is noticed above, there is no valid claim of discrimination even raised by the petitioners and, hence, the doctrine of proportionality cannot be applied. In deciding the question of arbitrariness, one has to necessarily look at Wednesbury principles and this Court does not find any ground for judicial review of the decision taken by the University, specifically in the matter of declining moderation. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and the same are dismissed, without costs.