JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioners appear in person, as the Advocates are abstaining from judicial work, as such, they have been heard. 2. Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioners submitted that the petitioners-college are co-education college, both boys and girls are studying. All the petitioners-college had been made examination centres in the year 2014. The examination has been conducted smoothly and peacefully without any irregularity having been found. The petitioners are claiming for being made as examination centres in view of Government Order dated 16.10.2014. When the claim of petitioners have been rejected, all the petitioners have filed writ petitions before this Court, which have been disposed of by a common order dated 6.1.2015. The Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioners to file representations before the Divisional Level Committee within three days’ and the Divisional Level Committee was directed to examine the matter dispassionately and objectively and to take a decision thereupon. In pursuance thereof the petitioners have filed their representations before the Divisional Level Committee. 4. The Divisional Level Committee vide order dated 14th January, 2015 accepted the representations of the petitioners and directed the concerned District Inspector of Schools to take necessary steps for allotment of the students. It appears that the copy of the decision of the Divisional Level Committee has been sent to the Government for approval. The State Government vide impugned order dated 4.2.2015 has not accepted the proposal sent by the Divisional Level Committee. The State Government arrived at a conclusion that these institutions do not fulfill the requirement of Clause-1(Cha) of the Government Order dated 16.10.2014, therefore, the proposal for making these institutions as examination centres would be contrary to Clause-1(Cha) of the Government Order dated 16.10.2014. 5. It is also observed that the decision of the Divisional Level Committee has been sent late while the examinations are going to be held on 19.2.2015, therefore, in case any change is made in the allotment of the examination centres, the same will cause administrative and practical difficulties and accordingly the proposal of the Divisional Level Committee has been disapproved. 6. 6. The petitioners submitted that they are entitled to be made examination centres in view of Clause-1(Ka) of the Government Order dated 16.10.2014, which provides that where in the year 2014 the examinations have been conducted peacefully and properly, such institutions would ordinarily be made as examination centres for the year 2015. 7. It is further submitted that although two batches of students of the petitioners-institution have not appeared in the Board Examinations but, since, they have already been made centres in the year 2014, as such they are entitled to be made as examination centres for the Board Examinations, 2015. It is further submitted that the delay has been caused in taking decision about the allotment of centres, on the part of the respondents and for that the petitioners should not be made to suffer. In case the petitioners-college are not being made as examination centres, it will affect their reputation in future, therefore, their claim may be considered objectively for the year 2015 also. 8. Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that it is upon the examination conducting body to prescribe the procedure for conducting the examinations and to settle the examination centres. It is in the exclusive domain of the examination conducting body to decide that which institution be made as a examination centre in accordance to the policy dated 16.10.2014 made by the State Government. 9. The Clause-(Cha) of the said policy specifically provides that only those institutions shall be made as examinations centres, in which at least two batches have been appeared in the Board Examinations. In the case of petitioners-college the two batches could not appear in the Board Examinations and therefore, in view of Clause-(Cha) the petitioners-college are not eligible to be considered for making them as examination centres for the Board Examinations, 2015. 10. It is further submitted that Clause-(Ka) of the Government Order dated 16.10.2014 only provides that in the cases where the colleges have been made examination centres in the year 2014 and the Board Examinations have been conducted peacefully, they may ordinarily be made as examination centres for the Board Examinations, 2015. Clause-(Ka) does not say that they should necessarily be made as examination centres. It is further submitted that Clause-(Ka) is applicable, subject to fulfillment of requirement as provided under Clause-(Cha) of the Government Order dated 16.10.2014. 11. Clause-(Ka) does not say that they should necessarily be made as examination centres. It is further submitted that Clause-(Ka) is applicable, subject to fulfillment of requirement as provided under Clause-(Cha) of the Government Order dated 16.10.2014. 11. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Prabhandhan Samiti v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (1) ADJ 168 (DB). 12. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 13. It would be appropriate to refer Clause-(Ka) and Clause-(Cha) of the Government Order dated 16.10.2014, which are as under. ¼d½ o"kZ 2015 dh ijh{kkvksa ds fy, dsUnz fu/kkZj.k gsrq os fo++|ky; tgkW 2014 dh ifj"knh; ijh{kkvksa dk 'kafriw.kZ ,oa lqpk: lapkyu lEiUu gqvk Fkk] mUgsa lkekUr;k ijh{kk dsanz cuk;k tk,xkA ¼p½ ekU;rk izkIr fuxZeu ds i'pkr ftu fo|ky;ksa ds ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds dez ls dze nks cSap ifj"knh; ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks pqds gksa] mUgsa gh ijh{kk ds :i esa izLrkfor fd;k tk;A 14. Clause-(Cha) provides that only those institutions shall be considered to be made as examination centres where at least two batches have appeared in the Board Examinations. This clause provides eligibility criteria of the institution to become examination centre. This is mandatory and unless the conditions provided in this clause is fufilled, the institution is not eligible to be made examination centre. 15. Admittedly in the case of petitioners-college two batches did not appear in the Board Examinations and therefore, in view of Clause-(Cha) they are not eligible to be considered for making them as examination centres. Clause-(Ka) only provides that those institutions, who have been made examination centres in the year 2014 and examinations have been conducted peacefully, may ordinarily be made as examination centres for the Board Examinations, 2015. Clause-(Ka) does not say that they may necessarily be made as examination centres. We are of the view that Clause-(Ka) is applicable, subject to fulfillment of requirement as provided under Clause-(Cha). Clause-(Cha) is eligibility clause whereas Clause-(Ka) is a general clause. In case the petitioners-college are not eligible at all then Clause-(Ka) does not apply. 16. It is a settled principle of law that it is upon the examination conducting body to prescribe the procedure for conducting the examination and for the settlement of the examination centre. Clause-(Cha) is eligibility clause whereas Clause-(Ka) is a general clause. In case the petitioners-college are not eligible at all then Clause-(Ka) does not apply. 16. It is a settled principle of law that it is upon the examination conducting body to prescribe the procedure for conducting the examination and for the settlement of the examination centre. It is in the exclusive domain of the examination conducting body to decide that which institution be made as examination centre in accordance with the Government Policy for the year 2015. The Government has laid down the policy vide Government Order dated 16.10.2014, laying down the criteria for the settlement of the examination centre. No intervention is required to be made in the Government Policy unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide or discriminatory. 17. We do not find that the Government Order dated 16.10.2014, whereby the policy for settlement of the examination centres has been prescribed, in any manner, arbitrary or discriminatory. We further find that the Board Examination is going to commence from 19.2.2015. It is also informed that all the centres have been settled. In this view of the matter, any change at this stage would cause administrative as well as practical difficulties and, therefore, for this reason also we decline to interfere in the matter. 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Prabhandhan Samiti (Supra) in paragraph-4 has held as under: “We are unable to subscribe to the contention which has been urged on behalf of the appellant. First and foremost, a policy by itself does not give rise to any enforceable right. Secondly, the Government has justifiable reasons for issuing the modification. The mere fact that the examination has been conducted in a peaceful manner at a particular centre may be outweighed by other countervailing circumstances. For instance, where malpractices have been detected at an examination centre in the previous examination, that may be a reason to deny the allotment of the examination centre for the subsequent year. All that the circular dated 9 October 2013 does is to replace the mandatory requirement in clause 1(ka) with a requirement that ordinarily, a centre would be allotted where the institution has conducted examinations in the previous year in a peaceful manner. The expression ‘ordinarily’ means that the ordinary consequence can be disregarded for cogent and valid reasons. All that the circular dated 9 October 2013 does is to replace the mandatory requirement in clause 1(ka) with a requirement that ordinarily, a centre would be allotted where the institution has conducted examinations in the previous year in a peaceful manner. The expression ‘ordinarily’ means that the ordinary consequence can be disregarded for cogent and valid reasons. This does not amount to the conferment of an arbitrary or unguided power. In a given case, if the power is exercised arbitrarily, it would be open to an aggrieved institution to move the Court. Thirdly, it is well-settled that in such areas of academic discretion, recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226, would not be permissible to substitute the view of the Court with a view which has been taken by a competent body.” 19. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any reason, which call for interference and to exercise our extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. In view of above, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ——————