JUDGMENT : SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J. 1. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed in W.P. No. 25333(W) of 2016 (Ishita Patra vs. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology and Ors.) by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to quash, set aside, recall or rescind the impugned letter dated 26th of October, 2016 and claim of the petitioner to allow her in the first semester’s examination as a student of B. Tech Course at College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge erred in law and in fact by not considering the eligibility criteria that only in case of Jadavpur University the candidate has to obtain pass mark in theory and practical individually whereas in cases of other institution the eligibility criteria of B. Tech Course does not require any individual pass marks and only requirement is the individual pass marks in physics, chemistry and mathematics as compulsory subject including theory and viva-voice which the appellant already obtained in the Higher Secondary Examination 2016. 2. The appellant appeared in the joint entrance examination and was successful as an eligible candidate for counseling in B. Tech Course before admission in the concerned college upon verification of mark sheet. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had filled up the form by mentioning that she had obtained pass marks in chemistry and on the basis of online respondent authority admitted her provisionally by accepting a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) on verification of mark sheet at the reporting centre of Vidyasagar University on 07.07.2016. It is further submitted that the action taken by the university is contrary to the admission process conducted by West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board and the concerned university cannot by-pass the examination process. 3. The appellant challenged before the writ court the letter being No.CEM/D/Regn/2016 dated 26th October, 2016 of College of Engineering Management, Kolaghat informing the appellant that University has cancelled registration after physical verification of her documents debarring her from continuing her course in Engineering for the reason that she has not obtained pass mark in Chemistry in HS (10 + 2) 2016 examination but the learned judge turned down the prayer of the petitioner/appellant by referring to Clause 10.1.4 of Brochure of the Board for the relevant examination with the following observation:- 4. Since the petitioner did not pass the Chemistry paper as appearing from her Higher Secondary Examination mark sheet, it cannot be said that the authorities had acted on the basis of disclosed documents and therefore, are stopped from contending basis and was subject to the scrutiny of the documents have found that the petitioner did not pass in Chemistry paper and therefore, is not entitled to the admission. The University informed the College authorities, who in turn had issued the impugned letter stating that the petitioner is not entitled to continue with hear/her studies. Since the college authorities have agreed to make over the admission fees received from the petitioner at the time of admission, it would be proper to direct the college authorities to refund the same within seven days from date. The petitioner is at liberty to collect the same from the College authorities. It has come to the notice of the Court from the documents annexed to the writ petition that, there are websites in the Internet, which are making representations contrary to the Brochure of the Board. It is expected that the Board takes appropriate measures against such websites. The Board ought not to await a direction from a court to take measure against the websites it finds to be misrepresenting the Board. It would be appropriate for the Board authorities to take action as and when they come across such materials either in the Internet or otherwise. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents support the order of the writ court on the contention that though appellant appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2016 conducted by West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Examination with physic, chemistry and mathematics as compulsory subjects but she could not secure the qualifying 30 per cent marks in chemistry (theory) as a result of which Higher Secondary Council following Regulation 9 of Examination Regulations 2006 (hereinafter called as the Regulation of 2006) interchanged her chemistry with bio-science in which she secured qualifying marks. Thus, bio-science became her compulsory subject and she was declared pass on the basis of bio-science being her compulsory subject and chemistry being her optional subject. 6. It is also pointed out referring to Regulation 9 of the said Regulation of 2006 of West Bengal Higher Secondary Council which deals with the option of a candidate of changing compulsory elective subject as optional elective subject. 6. It is also pointed out referring to Regulation 9 of the said Regulation of 2006 of West Bengal Higher Secondary Council which deals with the option of a candidate of changing compulsory elective subject as optional elective subject. The said regulation states that if a candidate fails to obtain minimum pass marks in any compulsory subject but has obtained the minimum pass marks in optional elective subject he/she shall be declared passed by giving him/her the benefit of interchanging the compulsory elective subject as the optional elective subject and vice versa and that Chemistry being her compulsory subject but having failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks that is 30 per cent in theoretical paper she was declared failed in chemistry in terms of Regulation 20 where a candidate is required to pass separately in theory, practical or project work. 7. Our attention is drawn to Regulation 20 which reads as under: In order to be declared passed in any examination, a candidate must obtain a minimum of thirty per centum marks in compulsory subjects: Provided that if the examination on any subject consists of theoretical paper and practical paper or project work thereon, the candidate shall, in order to be declared pass in the subjects, have to score thirty per centum marks in theoretical paper and practical paper or project work thereon separately: Provided also that notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso, a candidate shall, in order to be declared pass in the subject on Environmental Education, have to score thirty per centum marks in theoretical paper and project work thereon taken together. 8. This regulation provides range of marks, respective grade and classification. It is also pointed out on behalf of the respondent authority that the appellant has secured only 14 out of 70 in Chemistry theoretical paper which is much below the minimum qualifying and or pass marks of 30 per cent as a result of which appellant was declared failed in chemistry as indicated in her mark sheet. 9. We are unable to accept this contention of the respondents as there is no remark or gradation awarded to the appellant as failed, in Chemistry subject. The subject grade noted against the said subject is N.A. which is not provided in term 07 relating to subject wise marks and grade shown in the mark sheet. 9. We are unable to accept this contention of the respondents as there is no remark or gradation awarded to the appellant as failed, in Chemistry subject. The subject grade noted against the said subject is N.A. which is not provided in term 07 relating to subject wise marks and grade shown in the mark sheet. Classification of grade for marks of 43 secured by the appellant ought to have been ‘Fair’ in the subject Chemistry. Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board’s notification in its Brochure prescribing the guidelines/eligibility for admission for degree level engineering, technology, architecture and pharmacy courses for the years 2016-2017. 10. According to Clause 10.1.4 of the said brochure the candidate has to pass Higher Secondary Examination from a recognized council/board in regular class mode with individual pass marks in physic, chemistry and mathematics as compulsory subject with minimum of 45 per cent marks in the above subjects taken together as well as pass in English with a minimum of 30 per cent marks (for all categories in the said qualifying marks for the purpose of seeking admission in engineering course). The said Clause 10.1.4 is reproduced hereunder for better appreciation of the appellant’s case. 11. In other institutes:-Candidates must pass Higher Secondary (10 + 2) Examination of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education or equivalent examination from a recognized Council/Board in regular class mode with: (a) Individual pass marks in physic, chemistry and mathematics as compulsory subjects and (b) Minimum of 45% marks in the above subjects taken together (40% for SC/ST/PwD/OBC-A/OBC-B candidates) as well as pass in English with a minimum of 30% marks (for all categories of candidates) in the said qualifying examination. 12. Thus it is pointed out that Joint Entrance Board while issuing the rank in favour of the appellant and other candidates specified that such rank is provisional and may be revoked in case any defect/ineligibility is detected at a later stage and argued that the appellant was well in the knowledge that she was not entitled to be admitted in any engineering course when the online registration system refused to register her name. 13. 13. On the contrary it is urged on behalf of the appellant that she was declared passed in terms of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (Examination) Regulation, 2006 and the mark sheet of the appellant would reveal that the candidate though unable to achieve the pass marks in theory paper in chemistry but she has got pass marks in practical paper, the total marks obtained in chemistry is 43 which is more than 30 per cent, the cut of percentage marks of pass mark. It is reflected from the Brochure 2016-17 of West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board and the regulation provided therein that academic eligibility criteria for other institution as per the said Regulation 10.1.4 (supra), there is no requirement for the candidate to have compulsorily passed in theory paper. In terms of Regulation 10.1.4 the appellant has obtained more than 30 per cent marks in chemistry on an average and 45 per cent marks in terms of Clause ‘b’ in the subjects physic, chemistry and mathematics taken together. Therefore, the appellant has fulfilled the Clause ‘a’ and Clause ‘b’ of 10.1.4 of the Regulation of West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination’s Board (Brochure 2016-17). The appellant was declared passed in terms of Regulation 20 of said Regulation 2006. Therefore, the appellant should not be debarred from taking admission in the engineering course and the plea that she has not passed in the Higher Secondary Examination as per said Regulation 2006 cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid academic eligibility criteria. This fact cannot be lost sight of that the appellant on being successful in the Joint Entrance Examination, participated in the counseling process and disclosed her mark sheet and subsequently on 07.07.2016 by depositing fees of Rs.20,000/- and also deposited further sum of Rs.49,000/- and has attended 5 months classes after admission in the first semester. The learned counsel for the respondent authority drawing our attention to the terms 02, 03 and 07 in respect of the Higher Secondary Course mentioned overleaf the mark sheet of the appellant in respect of Regulation 9(1)/9(2b) which read thus: 02. A candidate to be declared pass, must secure pass marks in two compulsory languages, three elective subjects and in Environmental Education (in respect of Old Syllabus only). A candidate to be declared pass, must secure pass marks in two compulsory languages, three elective subjects and in Environmental Education (in respect of Old Syllabus only). Grand Total is done by taking into account the highest marks obtained in five subjects including Language Group and Optional Elective subject, if any, where a minimum pass marks in each language of Language Group should be secured mandatorily and accordingly, mark sheet is printed. Overall grade is calculated by dividing the Grand Total by five. 03. Regulation 9(1)/9(2b) will be applicable to the cases where necessary. 9(1): If a candidate fails to obtain minimum pass marks in any compulsory subject excepting Environmental Education for the reasons of deficiency of less than five per centum of full marks, he/she shall, to make up the deficiency in the compulsory subject, be given credit by transfer of marks from the highest marks obtained by him/her in a compulsory subject excepting Environmental Education. 9(2b): Failure in obtaining the minimum pass marks in a compulsory elective subject, but has obtained the minimum pass marks in the optional elective subject, shall be declared passed by giving him/her the benefit of interchanging the compulsory elective subject as the optional elective subject and vice versa. Application for declining the benefit of interchange of subjects shall not be accepted on expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of result. 07. Subject-wise marks and grade are shown in the Mark sheet. Classification of grade is given below: 90-100 : O [Outstanding] 60-69 : B+ [Good] 30-39 : P [Passed] 80-89:A+ [Excellent] 50-59:B [Satisfactory] Below 30:F [Failed] 70-79:A [Very Good] 40-49:C [Fair] Subject Grade is awarded on the basis of total marks secured by a candidate in theoretical and practical/project/oral taken together. N.A. (Not Applicable) is shown against Subject Grade when a candidate is absent or does not obtain minimum pass marks in either theoretical or practical/ project/oral. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents adverting to the aforesaid regulation, submitted that the appellant is not having academic eligibility for admission in any Engineering course and for that registration was declined to her and further supported their contention by placing reliance on a decision in case of Sanchit Bansal & Anr. vs. Joint Admission Board and Ors. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents adverting to the aforesaid regulation, submitted that the appellant is not having academic eligibility for admission in any Engineering course and for that registration was declined to her and further supported their contention by placing reliance on a decision in case of Sanchit Bansal & Anr. vs. Joint Admission Board and Ors. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157 (paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29) and pointed out that the court will interfere only if they find violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations and mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone or where the procedure adopted arbitrary and capricious. Paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29 are given below for profitable consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 25. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan this court held : (SCC p.732, Paras 16 & 17] "16.The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. 17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in." 26. This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in." 26. This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain this court held: [2007 (4) SCC 746, para 16] "16....Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review..." 27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following : (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. 28. An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide. 29. The appellants in this case have alleged mala fides on the part of Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Organising Committee. The allegation is that on account of personal enmity, rivalry and hostility harboured by them towards the second appellant, who happens to be a professor at IIT, Kharagpur, they manipulated the ranking and selection process and deliberately set cut-off marks to deny admission to second appellants' son, a seat in an IIT. The appellants have not made out, even remotely, any such motive, in regard to the procedure for arriving at the cutoff marks. The claim that to deny admission to one student from among more than 2,87,000 students, they manipulated the process of fixing cut-off marks is too far- fetched and difficult to accept, apart from the fact that there is no iota of material to support such a claim. 15. We have respectfully gone through the cited judgment which is our opinion is quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the ratio of decision is not well nigh within the facts of the case inasmuch as, instant case does not relate to the process of ranking and selection of the appellant for admission. The appellant herein has already secured a good rank in the process of selection for admission in B.Tech Course and she was admitted for the course but was subsequently debarred from the appearing in 1st Semester examination by not issuing registration certificate to the appellant and further from prosecuting her studies for the reason that she is not having academic eligibility for the B.Tech Course. 16. 16. We have observed in the foregoing paragraphs that this academic eligibility criteria on the basis of which the appellant appeared for the Joint Entrance Test, was awarded rank and Assistant Registrar, College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat by his letter No. CEMK/5-4/2016 dated 29.9.2016 wrote to the Registrar of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology West Bengal with submission of registration form for first year B. Tech (general entry to first semester) 2016-17 enclosing the list of the students showing the appellant’s name at serial no.8. The mark sheet of the appellant evince that she secured 14 marks in theory and 29 out of 30 marks in practical aggregating a total marks of 43 in Chemistry. She was entitled to be awarded Grade ‘C’ for having secured 43 marks in the bracket of 40-49 in the subject chemistry. 17. Admittedly she has secured more than 40 per cent marks in aggregate in subject chemistry. The mark sheet reveals that appellant has obtained 68 out of 100 marks in Bengali Grade B+, English A+, Mathematics B, Physics B and Bioscience B+ averagely she appears to be a good student and has secured in aggregate 43 marks out of 100 in Chemistry. Therefore, she cannot be said to be a failed candidate. 18. We have taken note of the Regulation 10.1.4 in respect of academic eligibility criteria for admission to B. Tech course in other institution. Admittedly, the institution and the College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat is a private college and does not stand at par with Calcutta University or Jadavpur University. The provision provides that individual marks in physics, chemistry and mathematics as compulsory subjects has to be minimum 45 per cent marks in the above subjects taken together as well as pass mark in English in minimum of 30 per cent marks for all categories of the students in the said qualifying examination. We have found that as per the Regulation 10.4.2, the appellant has secured more than 45 per cent marks in the subject physics, chemistry and mathematics as compulsory subjects taken together. Therefore, bearing in mind the academic eligibility criteria vide Regulation 10.1.4 for admission to Engineering and technical course and further considering the academic career of a student, she is entitled to relief of her continuity of B.Tech Course in which she was admitted. 19. Therefore, bearing in mind the academic eligibility criteria vide Regulation 10.1.4 for admission to Engineering and technical course and further considering the academic career of a student, she is entitled to relief of her continuity of B.Tech Course in which she was admitted. 19. We also find from the impugned judgment that the learned writ court has made observation with regard to documents annexed to the writ petition that there are web-sites in the internet making representation contrary to the brochure of the board and the board was requested to take appropriate action against such web-sites. 20. This observation in our view is a wishful thinking on the part of the learned judge who has simply ignored the Regulation 10.1.4 relating to academic eligibility criteria for admission in other institution by declining to concede to the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant herein. 21. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed in W.P. No.25333 (W) of 2016 is hereby set aside, ergo, the appeal being MAT No.2006 of 2016 is allowed and the letter dated 26th of October, 2016 of the Registrar of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology stands quashed. The respondents authorities concerned are directed (i) to issue University registration certificate in favour of the appellant as a student of B. Tech Engineering College under the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology and to allow to her to continue her studies as a B. Tech student in the said College (ii) to allow the appellant to appear in the first semester examination as a student of B. Tech Course at College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat Midnapur to declare her result as its other students. Accordingly CAN 11453 of 2016 and CAN 4094 of 2017 are disposed of. However, we pass no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.