ORDER : 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) to allow him to appear in the Diploma in Medical Lab Technology (DMLT) Part-II Examination 2017 (Remanded) scheduled to be held in the month of March, 2017. 2. Ordinance 6.4.2 of the Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan (hereinafter ‘the Board’) obtaining at the time of the petitioner’s admission in the academic year 2011-12 in the Two Year DMLT Course provided that a student has to pass the Diploma Course by the end of four academic years reckoned from the year of enrollment failing which his/her enrollment would be automatically cancelled. The petitioner having been admitted into the Two Year DMLT Course in the academic year 2011-12 was in terms of the aforesaid Ordinance required to pass the said course (within four years) by the end of 2014-15 ending December, 2015. He has however failed in the DMLT Part-II (New Scheme) Examination which was conducted in July, 2015 result whereof was declared in December, 2015. 3. The case of the petitioner is that albeit he was admitted to Two Year DMLT Course in academic year 2011-12 for which the DMLT Part-I Examination was to be held in the month of September, 2012, because of delay in the session for reasons attributable to RUHS the said examination was conducted only in the month of January, 2013. It has been submitted that consequently with the six months delay aforesaid in holding the DMLT Part-I examination the petitioner lost out six months and by extension one chance to appear in the remand examination. Consequently, he should now in equity be allowed to avail an additional chance beyond the Four Year limitation of Ordinance 6.4.2 in the DMLT Part-II Examination (remanded) being held in the month of March, 2017. 4. The case of the respondent-University in defence is that indeed there was a delay of six months in holding of the annual DMLT Part-I Examination at the end of academic year 2011-12 which although supposed to be held in the month of September, 2012 was held in the month of January, 2013. Consequently, the Examination (remanded) for DMLT Part-I was delayed by a period of six months. It has been submitted that however the issue before this Court is not with regard to any back paper in DMLT Part-I but of DMLT Part-II. Consequently, the Examination (remanded) for DMLT Part-I was delayed by a period of six months. It has been submitted that however the issue before this Court is not with regard to any back paper in DMLT Part-I but of DMLT Part-II. In any event, if at all, the petitioner would be entitled in equity for reason aforesaid, to avail of an additional chance for clearing his DMLT Part-II back papers that chance was available to the petitioner in the DMLT Part-II remanded examination held in June, 2016 and thereafter in DMLT Part-II Examination (Main) held in October, 2016. The petitioner did not avail the said opportunities for reasons admittedly to his account. In Grounds-B of the petition the petitioner has categorical admitted that after the declaration of his result for the DMLT Part-II annual examination in December, 2015, he went to his native place (Barmer) due to “some reasons” and was therefore unable to submit the examination form for DMLT Part-II Examination (remanded) in respect of the back papers in the subject of Pathology and Bio-Chemistry scheduled in June, 2016 and October, 2016 DMLT Part-II (Main) Examination. It has been submitted that the six months delay in holding the DMLT Part-I annual examination, albeit not relevant to the petitioner’s case relating to back papers of DMLT Part-II, could have been equitably compensated in allowing him to appear in the DMLT Part-II Examination (remand) immediately following the end of four year course period in December, 2015 i.e. in the DMLT Part-II Examination (remanded) of June, 2016. That change the petitioner failed to avail. He cannot now resurrect a delay in the first annual DMLT Part-I examination about four year ago, to claim without limitation of time any right/equity. 5. Mr. Iliyas Khan appearing for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that this Court should exercised its equitable jurisdiction to facilitate the petitioner completing the course and obtain requisite qualification by completing the DMLT course. It was submitted that subsequent to the DMLT Part-II Examination held in 2015 result whereof was declared in December, 2015, the petitioner look ill, for reasons of which he could not fill up the examination form to write the back papers in DMLT Part-II Examination (remanded) held in June, 2015 and even the DMLT Part-II examination (main) held in October, 2016. It has been submitted that despite entreaties, the respondent-University had not allow the petitioner to write the examination in the two back papers in DMLT Part-II in view of the Ordinance 6.4.2. The arbitrariness now be rectified by this Court issuing direction’s in equity, as sought. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. It is well settled that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with academic matters unless mala-fides are alleged and established or the college/university acts ultra vires the governing statutes. None of the two aforesaid situations obtain in the instant case. 8. Ordinance 6.4.2 of the RUHS categorically provides that a person enrolled in the University/College for a Two Year Diploma Course should complete the said course within four academic years from the date of her/his enrollment failing which the enrollment would stand automatically cancelled. The petitioner, having been admitted to the DMLT Two Year Diploma Course in the academic year 2011-12 (which commenced August/September, 2011) ought to have passed all papers of the said course in the two parts i.e. Part-I and Part-II towards the end of academic year 2014-15. No doubt the respondent-University delayed the annual DMLT Part-I Examination by six months and held it in January, 2013 as against the requirement of being held in month of September, 2012. The petitioner’s case however does not relate to DMLT Part-I Examination thereto DMLT Part-II. Be as it may, the delay in holding the DMLT Part-I examination of six months can be said to have disrupted the academic calendar by six months. In equity the four year period prescribed under Ordinance 6.4.2 can be stretched to 4 and a half years and not more for the aforesaid reason. On that reckoning the petitioner should have passed the Two Year DMLT Course by June, 2016. Indeed on the petitioner’s own admission DMLT Part-II Examination (remanded) for back papers was held in June, 2016 but he did not fill up the form and write the examination. 9. I find no force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to apply for and write the remanded examination of DMLT Part-II held in the month of June, 2016 and the even main examination of DMLT Part-II held in December, 2016 in respect his back papers in the subject of (Pathology and Bio-Chemistry) for reasons of his illness. The submission is in derogation and contradiction to the categorical averments made in the writ petition where it has been stated under Ground-B that the petitioner went to his village after the declaration of the result of DMLT Part-II Examination written by him, in the month of December, 2015. A different stand belatedly taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder relating to his alleged illness, having prevented him from writing the DMLT Part-II (remanded examination), June 2016 is an afterthought and plainly false. The allegation of the respondent-University having prevented the petitioner from writing the said remanded examination in June, 2016 is also an afterthought and without any supporting material. No contemporaneous correspondence obtains nor did the petitioner approach this Court at the relevant time, complaining of being denied opportunity of writing the DMLT Part- II Examination (remanded) held in June, 2016. Further there is nothing on record with regard to the petitioner’s illness or his having even approached to the respondent-University to write the DMLT Part-II (remanded examination) in June, 2016 in respect of two back papers in which he had failed in the result declared in December, 2015. 10. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner neither has any case in law nor in equity to warrant interference by this Court in the decision of the respondent- University not to allow him to write the two back papers in DMLT Part-II. The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be casually invoked in breach of the obtaining statute/rule/regulation. In this case Ordinance 6.4.2 of the RUHS mandates that students of Two Year Diploma Course have to pass the course within Four academic years of admission and failing to do so would automatically cancellation of their enrollment with the University. The law has inexorably caught up with the petitioner. There is thus no force in the petition. It is dismissed.