JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. Petitioner, an association of parallel colleges, who are imparting training to students admitted to the Distance Education Programme of the respondent University, has filed the above writ petition, claiming that, the curriculum for the Distance Education Programme, should be similar to that of the regular course. The specific contention raised by the University is that, regular courses carried on by the students under the University or in its affiliated colleges, is different from the distance education stream. Regular classes are conducted by teachers, whose appointments are made under the supervision of the University and the affiliated colleges too, are to follow the norms prescribed by the University, in imparting such training. The students, in the regular course, are also subjected to an internal assessment. 2. The students admitted to the Distance Education Programme under the University are not imparted such training by the University or the affiliated colleges. In fact, there is not even a prescription that, they should be imparted any training and the parallel colleges, on their own, admits students, who have enrolled under the Distance Education Stream and impart training to the students, over which, the respondent University has absolutely no control. The mere fact that the parallel colleges facilitates admission to the Distance Education Programme and impart training to the students to appear for the examinations, cannot be a reason for the University to follow the same syllabus with respect to the regular course and private study/distance education. 3. Essentially, it is to be noticed that, the private colleges are continuing an arrangement with the students and they are not, in any manner, connected with the University. The Association of parallel colleges would have no locus standi to file such a writ petition. 4. Further, in academic matters, the University has to prescribe its own standards and when distance education is proposed, the academic body of the University would be entitled to prescribe a different syllabus for the distance education programme, as distinguished from a regular course, taking into account the fact that the regular course students are subjected to a definite programme of study, as regulated by the University, while the Distance Education Programme, admits students, who have to study by themselves. To enable certification of such students, the University has provided for two additional examinations. To enable certification of such students, the University has provided for two additional examinations. In such circumstances, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with a valid prescription made by the University, that too, in a writ petition filed by an Association, which has absolutely no locus standi. Writ petition would stand dismissed.