Order 1. The petitioners herein, who joined a 5 year Integrated B.A., B.L. Degree Course in the respondent-University, which is a deemed University in terms of Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, have come up with the above writ petitions seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent-University to permit them to attend the 4th year of the Integrated Law Course and allow them to complete the course, without enforcing the Break System prescribed by the Regulations of the University at the third year. 2. I have heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the respondent-University, Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr. S.Y. Masood, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 3. It appears that all the petitioners herein joined the Saveetha School of Law, which is a constituent of the Saveetha University, in the academic year 2011-12 for a 5 year Integrated B.A., B.L. (Honours) Degree Course. Saveetha University is a deemed University in terms of Section 3 of the UGC Act and hence, it has its own Regulations and academic standards. 4. Since the Course is a 5 year Integrated Course, conferring two Degrees, one in Arts/Science/Commerce and another in Law, the first three years are divided into trimesters. The first, second and third year of study, each would have 3 trimesters, totalling to 9. Since a student, who completes the 9 trimesters successfully, is entitled to a Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce, the University had a Break System barring students from moving from the third year to the fourth year, unless they clear all the subjects. 5. Unfortunately, the petitioners herein appear to have failed in one or more subjects in one or more of the first 9 trimesters. Therefore, they were not permitted to move over to the 4th year of the Course. Hence, they have come up with the above writ petitions seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent-University to permit them to attend the 4th year Integrated B.A., B.L. (Honours) Degree Course and allow them to complete the 5 year Course without imposing the Break System. 6. Hence, they have come up with the above writ petitions seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent-University to permit them to attend the 4th year Integrated B.A., B.L. (Honours) Degree Course and allow them to complete the 5 year Course without imposing the Break System. 6. But, unfortunately for the petitioners, the Break System prescribed by the respondent-University was already upheld by me in two other writ petitions, one in W.P.No.31718 of 2013 dated 10.9.2014 [J. Prajoy v. Bar Council of India] and another in W.P.No.3444 of 2014 dated 19.9.2014 [V.G. Arun v. Bar Council of India]. The purpose of the Break System is to ensure that it is only those who become qualified to acquire a basic Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce, can be permitted to move over to the 4th year of the Course. 7. As stated earlier, Saveetha University is a deemed University and it is entitled to frame its own Regulations and fix academic standards. In Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder [ AIR 2011 SC 1429 ], the Supreme Court held that every individual university is entitled to fix higher academic standards, over and above the minimum standards fixed by Regulatory Bodies, such as AICTE or the Medical Council of India. All that is forbidden is that the standards fixed by the Regulatory Bodies cannot be diluted by the Universities, by fixing lower academic standards. Hence, the fact that the respondent-University has provided a Break System, not contemplated by the Rules of Legal Education framed by the Bar Council of India, cannot be a ground to hold that the Break System was unlawful. 8. As a matter of fact, clause 2 of Schedule II of the Bar Council of India Rules,, issued in 2008, vide resolution no.110, reads as follows:- "A University is free to design its academic program under LL.B and LL.B Honours course as well as the program under the integrated degree program in Bachelor Degree component as well as the LL.B component with or without Honours course." Therefore, there is no bar for the respondent university even under the rules of the Bar council of India to have a break system. The system is intended to improve standards and hence cannot be found fault with. 9. The system is intended to improve standards and hence cannot be found fault with. 9. I cannot resist the temptation to point out that India is the only country and our Courts are the only Courts having the unique distinction of finding fault with institutions of higher education for fixing higher academic standards. It is seen that even in the School of Excellence in Law of Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, the Break System was in vogue earlier. But, since it is a State owned institution, the students of the institution managed to organise a series of protests and strikes and break the Break System. But, fortunately, it appears that the students of the respondent university did not take recourse to protests and strikes, but have come up with the above writ petitions. 10. As I have pointed out in my previous decision, the Regulations of the University prescribes a Break System. Regulation 12 of the Regulations reads as follows: "12. Carryover of failed papers No candidate shall be admitted in the fourth year without clearing all the examinations of the previous three years. However students will be allowed to carry over the papers in which they have failed in the previous examinations till the end of the third year. No student shall be allowed to appear for any trimester examination of the Course after the expiry of seven years from the commencement of the academic year in which the student was admitted for the course of study." 11. All the petitioners herein got admitted to the 5 year Integrated Law Course, only when the above Regulation was in force. At the time of admission, the students also filed a declaration that they would conform strictly to all the Rules and Regulations. A declaration is also signed by the parents of the students to the same effect. Therefore, apart from the fact that the Regulation is actually for enhancing the academic standards and that the students have no right to question the fixation of higher academic standards, the petitioners and their parents are also estopped from seeking to destroy the Break System. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners to set at naught the Break System cannot be granted, both in the interest of the students and in the interest of the University. 12. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners advanced an alternative submission. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners to set at naught the Break System cannot be granted, both in the interest of the students and in the interest of the University. 12. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners advanced an alternative submission. He contended that the students were not even put on notice of the requirement to score a minimum pass percentage each in the theory and internal assessment and also in the aggregate and that some of the petitioners, despite having passed separately in the theory and the internal assessment, are now declared to have failed in the aggregate. This, according to the learned senior counsel, was completely arbitrary. 13. But, Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-University produced a copy of the Regulations. Regulation 16 reads as follows: "16. Passing minimum: (i) 50% marks in the aggregate in the internal continuous assessment consisting of written, oral and practical Examinations. Only those students who secure the minimum marks (25 out of 50) in the internal assessment shall be allowed to appear for the University written examination. And (ii) 50% marks in the University Written examination Amended -Amendment approved in the Academic council meeting on 17-07-2009 i) 35% marks in the aggregate in the internal continuous assessment consisting of written, oral and practical Examinations. Only those students who secure the minimum 35% (18 out of 50) marks in the Internal Assessment shall be allowed to appear for the University written examination. And ii) 50% marks (25 out of 50) in the University written examination. iii) The overall passing minimum shall be 50% in aggregate of written examination and internal assessment marks taken together. The above amendments shall deemed to have been taken effect from the academic year 2011-2012, i.e. from the examination held in May 2011." 14. The petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the above Regulation. The above Regulation was brought in pursuance of a resolution of the Academic Council and it has taken effect from the academic year 2011-12. Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that the respondent-University should not demand overall minimum of 50% in the aggregate of the written examination and internal assessment taken together, apart from demanding a pass percentage in the theory and the internal assessment separately. 15. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that at least the University should have a fair system for re-valuation. 15. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that at least the University should have a fair system for re-valuation. The current system of re-valuation that the University has, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is not only prohibitively costly, but also arbitrary. 16. It appears that whenever a student seeks re-valuation, he must first apply for viewing the written answer book, after paying a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The candidate will be permitted to view the written answer book in the presence of the faculty. If the faculty is of the opinion that the answer book needs re-valuation, he may make a recommendation. Thereafter, the candidate should pay Rs.10,000/- per subject for re-valuation. This appears to be the procedure prescribed by the respondent-University. 17. The above procedure appears to be very obnoxious and seems to serve as a deterrent for students seeking re-valuation. While I do not find fault with the prescription of two steps, one for viewing the answer book in the presence of the faculty member and another for re-valuation, I am unable to appreciate the cost involved. There is no fair deal in prescribing Rs.5,000/-for viewing and Rs.10,000/- for re-valuation. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [ (2011) 8 SCC 497 ], the candidates are entitled even to seek a xerox copy of their answer books under the Right to Information Act. Therefore, to prescribe that the candidate should pay Rs.5,000/-for viewing and thereafter, pay Rs.10,000/- for re-valuation, is nothing but commercial exploitation. 18. Having said that, I should point out that the above observations are confined only to the monetary aspects. I cannot find fault with the two tier mechanism provided for re-valuation, since it does not appear to be arbitrary. There is one more reason for my coming to the above conclusion. It is stated by Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the respondent-University that the papers are valued by external examiners and that therefore, the chances for any arbitrary exercise of power was reduced to the minimum. 19. In the case on hand, all the petitioners herein were permitted to view the answer papers. It is stated by Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the respondent-University that the papers are valued by external examiners and that therefore, the chances for any arbitrary exercise of power was reduced to the minimum. 19. In the case on hand, all the petitioners herein were permitted to view the answer papers. According to the learned senior counsel for the respondent-University, the answer books were viewed by the candidates in the presence of a faculty member and that the faculty members found that even the marks already awarded are on the higher side. Therefore, they did not recommend for re-valuation. However, it is contended by Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the faculty members were not present when the candidates viewed the answer books. In view of this contention, I directed the respondent-University to produce the answer books. The sheets attached to the answer books contain the signatures of the faculty members. There is no proof to show that the candidates viewed the answer books in the absence of the faculty members and that only subsequently, the faculty members put their signatures. Such an extreme finding I cannot give, without holding a roving enquiry. In these matters, it is not possible for the Court to conduct roving enquiries. 20. The respondent-University have filed a counter affidavit indicating the subjects and the trimesters in which the petitioners have failed. The tabular column presented in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit requires re-production. Hence, it is re-produced as follows: Sl. No. Name of the student Subject/s filed Trimester Marks obtained in theory I.A. Mark obtained 1 Nivetha K BL9C-Law of Evidence IX 14 31 2 Abdul Khaliq O.S. BL6D-Constitutional Law-III VI 15 23 3 Joseph Stalin J BL6D-Constitutional Law-III BL9A-Law of Property-II VIIX 2216 1831 4 Abishek A.S. BL6D-Constitutional Law-III BL6h-Spacial Contracts VIVI 2625 1818 5 Rohit Surya M.P. BL9C-Law of Evidence IX 16 27 21. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioners can make out any grievance even with regard to re-valuation. Some of the petitioners have arrears in more than one trimester. Therefore, they should be actually encouraged by their parents to study well and do well in the next examination. 22. In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 in all the writ petitions are also dismissed.