ORDER : Petitioners, the Graduates holding B.Ed., degree holders are knocking at the doors of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept their application forms along with fee for taking up the ensuing Karnataka State Teachers Eligibility Test complaining that the non-acceptance of the said applications is unjustifiable, being unreasonable and arbitrary. 2. The 1st respondent has entered appearance through the learned Addl. Government Advocate Smt. Pramodini Kishan; the learned panel counsel Sri K.Anand appears for 2nd respondent-Central Admission Cell and the 3rd respondent- NCTE is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel Sri Basavaraj V.Sabarad. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the 2nd respondent has prepared and published the brochure for the Teachers Eligibility Test-2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-L which prescribes 50% as the minimum requirement of the performance of the candidates in the qualifying Graduation/Degree examinations viz., B.A., and B.Sc., and this is unauthorized; had there been no such prescription the petitioners could have been in the fray and therefore the respondent should be directed to treat the said prescription as being a nullity and further to permit them to take the eligibility test. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner hastens to add that the very purpose of acquiring the BA Degree is to take up the avocation of teaching and if the State prescribes certain unreasonable restrictions such as the minimum cut-off marks for deciding the eligibility, the same amounts to imposing unreasonable restriction on their Fundamental Right to Profession, since they are virtually prevented from acquiring a particular clarification required for taking up the said qualification. He further submits that retaining the said prescription would virtually render the B.Ed., degree useless. 5. The learned Addl. Government Advocate and the learned panel counsel for the 2nd respondent-CAC together submit that the brochure only states what has been mandatorily prescribed by the NCTE Notification dated 28.06.2018, a copy whereof has been placed on record after serving the same on the petitioners’ side and that the 2nd respondent-CAC did not have any discretion in not duplicating the said requirement and therefore in the absence of challenge to the NCCTE Notification no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 6. 6. The learned AGA and the learned panel counsel further more submit that this NCTE notification is dated 28.06.2018 and therefore the contention of the petitioners that earlier the candidates who had percentages short of 50 were permitted to take the test Teachers Eligibility Test pales into insignificance. They also contend that what should be the eligibility criteria for the candidates aspiring to become teachers, is a matter left to the wisdom of a statutory expert body like the National Council for Teacher Education. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State counsel as also the panel counsel for the 2nd respondent-CAC. I have perused the petition papers and the Gazette Notification now placed on record by the panel counsel. 8. The eligibility to take the Teachers Eligibility Test is governed by the norms prescribed by the NCTE, a statutory body established under the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 which is a Parliamentary Legislation. The notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made there under prescribes graduation with less at least 50% of marks and Bachelor of Education (BA) as the minimum requirement for taking up the Teacher Eligibility Test. However, a concession of 5% is shown in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 9. Admittedly, none of the petitioners has 45% of marks at the Graduation level. No provision is pointed out for relaxing the prescribed limit nor any representation is made to the NCTE or the second respondent seeking relaxation. Neither the brocher prescribing the minimum percentage of marks nor the NCTE notification is put in challenge. Smt. Geetha S, the Joint Director of Public Instructions present in the Court justifiably points out that, the respondent authorities have only duplicated the prescription of the NCTE, there being no discretion vested in them. 10. The NCTE is a statutory expert body constituted under a parliamentary legislation. In the matter of academics normally the standards prescribed by the statutory expert bodies are not interfered by the writ Courts, since they cannot run a race of opinions with these expert bodies subject to all just exceptions. Nothing has been shown from the side of the petitioners as to how the prescription of 50% of 45% as the case may be is unreasonable and arbitrary. Nothing has been shown from the side of the petitioners as to how the prescription of 50% of 45% as the case may be is unreasonable and arbitrary. As already stated above, there is no challenge to the NCTE notification which has amended the Regulations prescribing the minimum percentage of marks at the level of graduation. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions fails. No Costs.