ORDER : 1. Both these petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially challenging the very same action of the respondent authority and as such, upon request of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, these petitions are taken up for hearing conjointly. 1.1 So far as Special Civil Application No. 12248 of 2020 is concerned, the same is filed by the petitioner for seeking following reliefs : “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction declaring the action on part of the respondent No.3 in conducting Online Entrance Examination on an overlapping date with the off line examination of B. Sc. Course of the Gujarat University, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, null and void. (B) Be pleased to direct respondent No.3 to conduct fresh online Entrance Examination for Group I for those candidates who were left out due to overlapping of the Examinations and thereafter only finalise the admission process to the M. Sc. Forensic Biotechnology course. (C) Pending admission and final hearing of present petition be pleased to stay further admission process to the M. Sc. Forensic Biotechnology course until an opportunity to appear at fresh online Entrance Examination for Group I is extended to the left out (due to overlapping of the examination schedule) students of Gujarat University, is provided. (D) Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quantify the cost in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. (E) Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 1.2 Whereas, Special Civil Application No. 13058 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner for seeking following reliefs : “(A) To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction directing the Gujarat Forensic Science University to hold an Entrance Examination for M. Sc. For the students who could not appear in online entrance examination on account of the fact that their offline examination of Semester VI of B. Sc. was also scheduled on the same date and time slot on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court. For the students who could not appear in online entrance examination on account of the fact that their offline examination of Semester VI of B. Sc. was also scheduled on the same date and time slot on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court. (B) Pending admission and final disposal of this Petition, to direct the Gujarat Forensic Science University not to proceed further with the admission process of M. Sc. courses. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this Petition, to direct the Gujarat Forensic Science University to hold an Entrance Examination for M. Sc. (D) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. Since the grievance of both the petitioners is similar, learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya appearing for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 13058 of 2020 has requested to lead the hearing. Hence, the petition being Special Civil Application NO. 13058 of 2020 is taken up as a lead matter. 2.1 The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite request having been made before respondent No.4 – Gujarat Forensic Science University to alter the date of entrance examination for post graduate course i. e. for M. Sc. Forensic Biotechnology in view of clash of date with final semester examination of B. Sc. and the University having not considered the same and mechanically concluded the admission process, the petitioner has brought this petition aggrieved by the same. 3. The petitioner of lead petition being Special Civil Application NO. 13058 of 2020 is a student of B. Sc. Microbiology subject of Samarpan Science and Commerce College at Gandhinagar, which is a college affiliated with the Gujarat University. The petitioner is having good academic track record. The final year examination i. e. 6th Semester examination of B. Sc. was to be conducted by the respondent University in the month of April 2020, but due to Covid19 situation, the same was postponed from time to time and lastly, the examination was scheduled on 13.07.2020 in view of circular dated 04.06.2020. Simultaneously, the petitioner had also filled in an online request form to appear in the entrance examination of M. Sc. Simultaneously, the petitioner had also filled in an online request form to appear in the entrance examination of M. Sc. Forensic Science with respondent No.4 – Gujarat Forensic Science University and the University sent an email to the petitioner that the said application is successfully applied and in turn, the petitioner was to appear in the entrance examination. According to the petitioner, the Gujarat University had again postponed the examination of B. Sc. 6th Semester and scheduled on 31.08.2020 from 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm and the same was notified by circular dated 20.07.2020 and therefore, the schedule of examination became uncertain. Vide circular dated 08.08.2020, the Gujarat University had given two options to the students to appear in the examination, one by online and another by offline and as such, the petitioner opted an option of offline examination for 6th Semester of B. Sc. to be conducted by the Gujarat University. Later on, the Gujarat University vide circular dated 18.08.2020 declared that the examination for graduation and post graduation would commence from 03.09.2020 and 12.09.2020. So in view of this, 6th Semester examination of B. Sc. would commence from 12.09.2020 at a time from 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm. Simultaneously, on 16.09.2020, during 6th Semester examination for B. Sc., the petitioner received a timetable (revised) of entrance examination being conducted by respondent No.4 University scheduled on 18.09.2020 at 3.00pm. The petitioner by email dated 17.09.2020 – day before, sent logging details to respondent No.4 University and in turn, respondent No.4 University informed the petitioner that the application number is the enrollment number. In view of the fact that both these examinations i. e. 6th Semester examination of B. Sc. scheduled to be conducted by the Gujarat University between 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm and another entrance examination by respondent No.4 University also scheduled on the same date, the petitioner requested the Admission Team of respondent No.4 University to do the needful vide email dated 18.09.2020. However, on account of this clash, the petitioner was not allowed to appear in online entrance examination for M. Sc. conducted by respondent No.4 University and that being the situation left with no other alternate, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking reliefs as prayed for. However, on account of this clash, the petitioner was not allowed to appear in online entrance examination for M. Sc. conducted by respondent No.4 University and that being the situation left with no other alternate, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking reliefs as prayed for. 3.1 Almost similar is the situation with regard to the case of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 12248 of 2020 and therefore, since the facts are taken from the lead petition, the detailed narration is not made here in the present order. 3.2 With the aforesaid background of facts, both the petitions appeared to have been entertained by this Court by issuance of notice and by subsequent order dated 23.10.2020, an order is passed upon representation of learned advocates for the petitioners to tag both the matters and place before appropriate bench. 3.3 With the aforesaid background of facts, both these petitions have come up for consideration before this Court in which, in the lead matter, learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya has represented the petitioner, whereas in another cognate matter, learned advocate Mr. A. L. Sharma has represented the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Megha Chitaliya is appearing for the State authority, whereas learned senior counsel Mr. S. N. Shelat has represented respondent No.2 in the lead matter. So far as main contesting respondent No.4 University is concerned, learned senior advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave is appearing with learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya after drawing an attention of this Court to various documents attached to the petition, has submitted that there is legitimate expectation of a student that once timetable of the examination is scheduled, the same cannot be changed in any circumstance and here, in the instant case, without prior notice to the petitioner, alteration has taken place, which is detrimental to the petitioner. For altering the time schedule of entrance examination by respondent No.4 University, not only no prior intimation is given nor any opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner and as such, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. For altering the time schedule of entrance examination by respondent No.4 University, not only no prior intimation is given nor any opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner and as such, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. It has been further submitted that for changing the time of examination from morning to evening, the authority has no power to change such timing at the instance of few handful of students and on account of this unilateral alteration of timing of entrance examination by respondent No.4 University, the students of B. Sc. final examination could not appear in entrance examination and therefore, the action on part of the respondent University is absolutely false, arbitrary and mala fide. It has further been submitted that this action of change of time schedule of entrance examination is only with view to accommodate other students and hence, the action is against the principle of fair play in action. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has further submitted that once the Gujarat University has published the programme, the said programme ought not to have been overlooked by respondent No. 4 University and that being done, the action is without authority of law whereby one set of students have been allowed to appear by altering the time schedule of the entrance examination, whereas another set of eligible students have been deprived of and that action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Pandya has submitted that right to education is fundamental right and therefore, this action of respondent No.4 University has been in clear conflict with this fundamental right of the students and as such, said action deserves to be corrected. 4.2 Mr. Pandya, learned advocate has submitted that approximately 113 students have been deprived of mechanically from appearing in the examination by altering the time schedule of the entrance examination. This is nothing but a clear arbitrary exercise of so called power, even if available with the respondent authority. Mr. Pandya has raised a serious grievance about the fact that from the beginning, respondent No.4 was aware about the fact that large number of students would suffer on account of change of time table and having full knowledge about the fact that some students have preferred the petition, still not only the examination is conducted, but even admissions have been effected. This tantamount to overreaching the process of law. This tantamount to overreaching the process of law. Hence, learned advocate has requested that this action is thoroughly unreasonable which may not be permitted in the interest of large number of students including the petitioners. Learned advocate has further submitted that this change of timing is at last moment and when respondent No.4 University was dealing with the career of several students, it has no authority to play with the career like this and as such, the entire exercise undertaken by respondent No.4 is required to be deprecated and by molding the relief, all the admissions deserve to be set aside and fresh process of entrance examination be undertaken, which would meet with the ends of justice. By referring to this submission, a request is made to allow the petition. 5. In another cognate petition, learned advocate Mr. A. L. Sharma appearing for the petitioner of that petition, has adopted all the arguments in substance advanced by learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya but has added that the eligibility criteria provided is made ineffective by altering the timing and to substantiate that, has submitted that the examination was already scheduled and there was no germane reason to postpone the timing. Hence, learned advocate has submitted that knowing fully well that there is legitimate grievance of the students not to alter the timing, respondent No.4 University arbitrarily changed it to give benefit to other class of students, but then favoritism or mala fide is not substantiated. No other submissions have been made. 6. As against this, learned senior counsel Mr. Dhaval Dave representing the main contesting respondent No.4 University has vehemently contended that first of all, the present petition in the present form itself is not maintainable since from the beginning, the petitioners were aware about the fact of conduction of entrance examination and further, there is no legal right much less fundamental right in favour of the students and by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, no student can plea as a matter of right to fix the schedule of examination by any University. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioners cannot be accommodated in any circumstances in view of the fact that the admissions have already been effected. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioners cannot be accommodated in any circumstances in view of the fact that the admissions have already been effected. Learned senior advocate has further submitted that the close reading of the relief which has been sought is not possible to be granted in this peculiar background of facts and there is no mala fide action of any nature nor intention of any nature to accommodate any student for changing time of the examination. Strictly speaking, the circumstances are such in which the present relief sought by the petitioners has remained mere academic in nature and as such, learned senior counsel has submitted that no writ is possible to be issued for such students. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that there are no specific averments made of any nature which would inferred mala fides of the University in any form. On the contrary, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court on some of the averments made on oath contained in affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.4 and thereby, has submitted that no case is made out of any nature. 6.1 To substantiate the stand of the University, learned senior counsel has vehemently further contended that the hardship is not a ground to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and so even if some hardship has taken place to the petitioners by virtue of which they could not appear in the examination, that cannot be a ground for requesting the Court to issue a writ and that too in a peculiar circumstances of present case, when already several admissions have already been completed. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to two decisions delivered by this Court (i) 1993 (2) GLH 691 in case of Hetalkumar B. Shah vs. Maharaja Sayajirao University and anr. and (ii) 1990 (2) GLR 1066 in case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar vs. Gujarat University and by referring to relevant observations contained in paragraphs of these decisions, a request is made that so long as action of the respondent authority is bona fide, there is no right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction at the instance of these students. Learned senior advocate has further submitted that both the petitioners have chosen to appear in B. Sc. Learned senior advocate has further submitted that both the petitioners have chosen to appear in B. Sc. final examination on their own volition and could not appear in entrance examination of M. Sc., which cannot be a ground to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. Learned senior advocate after referring to the averments made in the affidavit in reply, has requested the Court to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through overall chronology of events which have been projected before the Court, it appears that on account of clash of dates which unfortunately has taken place in this peculiar background of facts, no fault is possible to be found of the respondent University. Apparently, it appears that there is no mala fide intention. Now, on examination of contentions raised by learned advocates, the Court would like to first observe the stand taken by respondent No.4 University in the affidavit in reply. Hence, few paragraphs from the said reply deserve to be quoted here under : “6. In response to the aforesaid demands of the petitioner, I hereby submit the following: i. Respondent No.4 University is the world' fist and only University dedicated to forensic and investigation science. The Respondent No.4 University is a standalone university imparting education in various branches pertaining to forensic sciences. The Respondent No.4 University runs 3 Institutes namely Institute of Forensic Sciences, Institute of Behavioral Sciences and Institute of Research and Development. Under each of the Institutes, there are various Programs being run both at Masters and Diploma levels. There are in all 37 different programmes run in the aforesaid 3 Institutes run by the Respondent No.3 University. ii. At the outset, it is humbly submitted that no fundamental right, much less a legal right of the petitioner can be said to have been violated on account of the action on part of Respondent No.4 University which is sought to be impugned in the present petition so as to warrant cause of action of the Petitioner to institute the present petition. iii. The prayers made by the Petitioner are more general in nature without mentioning exactly how many students are similarly situated to the petitioner. The Petition is filed by only one person and the prayer sought for is for the whole program of M. Sc. Wherein hundreds of students are going to admitted for the academic year 20202021. iv. iii. The prayers made by the Petitioner are more general in nature without mentioning exactly how many students are similarly situated to the petitioner. The Petition is filed by only one person and the prayer sought for is for the whole program of M. Sc. Wherein hundreds of students are going to admitted for the academic year 20202021. iv. In addition to the above averment it is humbly submitted that the Respondent No. 4 University has followed the usual practice in conducting Entrance Examination as it has been doing since many years. v. Respondent No.4 University published Advertisement on 19.6.2020 in various daily Newspapers across the Country for admission of students in various Programs run by the University for the academic year 20202021. vi. As per the admission process decided by the Respondent No.4 University, 15.8.2020 was the last date for submitting Application Online and for submitting supporting documents along with the said application. In view of the Covid19 pandemic and in the interest of students, last date for submitting online application was extended up to31.8.2020. Information in this regard was published on University Admission Portal. Vii. At this juncture it would be relevant to state that, as there are various Programs conducted by Respondent No.4 University, it had divided the various Programs in Groups depending on the subject and for easy management of conducting Entrance Examination M. Sc. Forensic Science, the Program in which the Petitioner applied falls under Group I, which includes exam for admission to M. Sc. Forensic Science, M. Sc. Forensic Biotechnology and M. Sc. Toxicology. The Program in which the Petitioner applied i. e. M. Sc. Forensic Science , it has total intake of 113 students (including EWS Category) and it is a 2 year program. Attached herewith and marked as Annexure R1 is a copy of the Information Brochure of the said Program being M. Sc. Forensic Science. Viii. On 8.9.2020 the Respondent No.4 University issued Entrance Examination Notification of the various Groups and the Petitioners entrance examination which falls under Group I was scheduled to be held on 18.9.2020 from 11.00 a. m. Onwards (onlie mode). Attached herewith and marked as Annexure R2 is a true copy of the said Entrance Examination Notification dated 8.9.2020. ix. Viii. On 8.9.2020 the Respondent No.4 University issued Entrance Examination Notification of the various Groups and the Petitioners entrance examination which falls under Group I was scheduled to be held on 18.9.2020 from 11.00 a. m. Onwards (onlie mode). Attached herewith and marked as Annexure R2 is a true copy of the said Entrance Examination Notification dated 8.9.2020. ix. Thereafter, on 9.9.2020 Respondent No.4 University received an email from a parent of an aspirant who was interested in pursuing Post Graduation Program in the Respondent NO.4 University, stating that the Entrance Examination planned to be held on 18.9.2020 and 19.9.2020 by the Respondent No.4 University was clashing with the Central Universities Common Entrance Exam (CUCET 2020) which was planned to be held on 18.9.2020 to 20.9.2020 at centers all over the country and because of which various candidates would not be able to appear in the Entrance Examination to be conducted by Respondent No.4 University and hence in the interest of students, a request was made to consider changing the dates of the Entrance Examination to be conducted by Respondent No.4 University. Attached herewith and marked as Annexure R3 is a trued copy of the said email dated 9.9.2020 addressed to Respondent No. 4 University. x. The Respondent No.4 University also received another email dated 10.09.2020 from a group of 7 students who were studying B. Sc. Forensic Science at Aditya Degree College, Surampalem, affiliated to Adikavi Nannaya University. They also made similar request of postponement of Entrance Examination in Group I as on 18.9.2020 they would be giving their University examination from 9 a. m. on words and that would clash with the timing of the Entrance Examination declared by Respondent No.4 University. Attached herewith and marked as Annexure R4 is a true copy of the said email dated 10.9.2020 along with relevant documents attached with it. xi. At this juncture it would be relevant to state that the Respondent No.4 University also received 2 other applications from students for change of Examination timings, one student from Veer Narmad South Gujarat University sent an email on 9.9.2020 and another student who had to appear in an examination of Bangalore University sent an email on 10.9.2020, both these students requested for change in Examination timings. Xii. Xii. In view of the above, the Respondent No.4 University on the basis of the representations of several students of different universities requesting to change the schedule of Entrance Examination so as to avoid clash of timings finally decided to change only the timing of examination of various groups on 18.9.2020 and 19.9.2020 without changing the dates of the examination. Thereafter a fresh Time Table was issued on 11.9.2020 by the Respondent No.4 University which was published on its website. Attached herewith and marked as Annexure R5 is a true copy of the said Time Table dated 11.9.2020. xiii. At this juncture it would be relevant to note that Respondent No.4 University, in order to be doubly sure that all students appearing in the Entrance Examination are aware of the change of timings sent individual emails to all 749 students who were to appear in the Entrance Examination of M. Sc. Forensic Science. The Petitioner also received the said email which is attached at Annexure -M to the Memo of the petition at Page No. 43. The petitioner represented via email to change the date of the Entrance Examination 18.9.2020. The request of the Petitioner was a sole request and made qua only 1 Program out of the 3 which were part of Group I as explained earlier. In view of the same as timings of examination had already been changed once, based upon request of various students from all over the country, and that the said Entrance Examination being an online examination which was to be held in view of the Covid19 Pandemic, arrangement was made by the Respondent NO.4 University in such a manner that students could take the Examination from their home from Mobile/Computer/Laptop, this was specifically done to avoid traveling in these pandemic times and it was decided to go ahead with the Time Table published on 11.9.2020 and the Entrance Examination for which the Petitioner had applied was held on 18.9.2020 from 3:00 p. m. Onwards. xiv. It is humbly submitted that out of the total 749 students who had applied for the Entrance Examination for M. Sc. Forensic Science Program, in all 636 Students appeared in the Entrance Examination for the M. Sc. Forensic Science Program and 113 students remained absent for the same. xiv. It is humbly submitted that out of the total 749 students who had applied for the Entrance Examination for M. Sc. Forensic Science Program, in all 636 Students appeared in the Entrance Examination for the M. Sc. Forensic Science Program and 113 students remained absent for the same. Attached herewith and marked as Annexure R6 is a true copy of the list of students who remained present and those who remained absent for the said Entrance Examination for the M. Sc. Forensic Science Program which was held on 18.9.2020 from 3:00 p. m. onwards. xv. The result of Group I Entrance Examination was declared on the website of the Respondent No.4 University on 22.9.2020. Thereafter, the First Merit List (Provisional) was declared on 01.10.2020 on the website of the Respondent No.4 University along with General Instructions mentioned in it. Thereafter, another Merit List was published on 12.10.2020 and the students were asked to make payment of fees and confirm their admissions. Out of the 113 seats in the said program of M. Sc. Forensic Science in all 92 students have confirmed their admissions and remaining 21 would be confirmed from the waiting list by 29.1.2020. xvi. The said program of M. Sc. Forensic Science shall commence from 2.11.2020 as per UGC guidelines. Hence, now the entire Admission Process has got over for the academic year 20202021 and classes shall commence from 2.11.2020. xvii. It is humbly submitted that the procedure followed by the Respondent No.4 University for admitting students to various programs run by it, helps all students across the country and from various educational back grounds to apply for the said program and seek admission based upon their merits. Xvii. So far as the demands made by the petitioner are concerned, it would be now impossible to set the clock back and conduct fresh Entrance Examination at such belated stage especially when all seats are filled up and the classes are about to begin on 2.11.2020.” 8. In the background of aforesaid circumstance, it clearly transpires that there is no mala fide or any ill-motive of respondent No.4 University as has been canvassed by the petitioners in conducting the entrance examination in any way. In the background of aforesaid circumstance, it clearly transpires that there is no mala fide or any ill-motive of respondent No.4 University as has been canvassed by the petitioners in conducting the entrance examination in any way. On the contrary, out of total 749 students who applied, almost 636 students appeared in the examination and pursuant to which, a process of admission has been undertaken and as such, in this situation, to set the clock back as suggested by the petitioners is not possible to be considered by this Court at the instance of two students i. e. the petitioners. Additionally, these are the post graduate courses and as such, a right of education as claimed to be as fundamental right may not be considered in the background of this situation. Hence, the stand of the petitioners apparently is not possible to be accepted by this Court. 9. In the aforesaid background of facts, now the reference to the observations which have been made by the High Court in the aforesaid two decisions which are pressed into service by learned senior counsel Mr. Dave. Since the same have been considered by the court, relevant observations are reproduced here under : “2. The question involved in this petition is whether this Court would have jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to give direction to the autonomous institution to relax the condition and give admission to IIMs Post Graduate Programme in Management by relaxing the eligibility condition because it acts harshly on the petitioner. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the date fixed by respondent No.2 is in any way arbitrary or unreasonable. Further, because of the cut-ff date in any case some hardship may be caused to some persons but that would hardly be a ground for its relaxation. Merely because the petitioner or some other candidate could qualify for getting the admission to the course if the last date for appearing in the examination is shifted from 29th June 1992 to 15th July 1992 would hardly be a ground for holding that the date fixed by respondent No.2 is in any way arbitrary or irrational. 10. Merely because the petitioner or some other candidate could qualify for getting the admission to the course if the last date for appearing in the examination is shifted from 29th June 1992 to 15th July 1992 would hardly be a ground for holding that the date fixed by respondent No.2 is in any way arbitrary or irrational. 10. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that a student or a candidate has no legal or equitable right for relaxation of mandatory condition and autonomous body is required to follow the standard or norms laid down by it otherwise it would lead to charge of favoritism or nepotism. He, therefore, submitted that it cannot be stated that respondent No.2 irrationally and arbitrarily refused to relax that condition of obtaining certificate of appearing in the examination including practicals prior to 26th June, 1992. He submitted that that the stand taken by the authority cannot be dubbed as rigid or irrational. He pointed out that it is rational and reasonable because of the fact that the programme for Post Graduate course is to begin on 30th June, 1992. Respondent No.2 in its advertisement has made it clear to all candidates that candidates who had obtained Bachelor's Degree is entitled to get admission. Still however, that condition is relaxed in favour of a candidate who can complete his examination for obtaining Bachelor's Degree prior to 29th June 1992. If this condition is relaxed at this stage, it would mean that for favoring certain candidates this condition is relaxed. He relied upon the decision in case of State of UP v. D. K. Singh, A. I. R. 1987 Supreme Court 190, wherein the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court by observing as under : “We also notice that admission to post graduate courses in all medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh are made once a year only and never twice a year. We do not think that the authorities can be said to have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in not departing from the practice which they had invariably been following. When an academic year should commence and when it should end is eminently a matter for the education authorities and not for the court. We cannot dislocate the time schedule of the University for the convenience of a few students.” In my view, this submission requires to be accepted. When an academic year should commence and when it should end is eminently a matter for the education authorities and not for the court. We cannot dislocate the time schedule of the University for the convenience of a few students.” In my view, this submission requires to be accepted. It cannot be said that respondent No.2 has taken any irrelevant factors into account for holding that the said condition is mandatory and it is required to be fulfilled before granting admission in the postgraduate courses. Normally in a postgraduate course admission is granted to a candidate who has cleared his graduation. Merely because respondent No.2 gave a chance to those students who have not obtained Bachelor's degree to appear in the test for getting admission to postgraduate course, it would not mean that even though they do not clear up the examination before commencement of the course, they should be admitted to the said course. In any set of circumstances, it cannot be said that the stand taken by respondent No.2 in not relaxing the said condition is in any way unfair, unreasonable and de hors the purpose. Presuming that relaxation of such condition is permissible, yet such relaxation must be given by some defined guidelines or for some defined object. In this case, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 ought to have relaxed the mandatory condition in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the nature of the requirement, its purpose and consequences of its relaxation on its educational programme.” 9.1 Relevant observation in paragraph 9 of another decision in Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar (supra) reads as under : “9. In order to appreciate these rival contentions, it would be necessary to examine the nature of the right which is claimed by the petitioners and disputed by the University. The Supreme Court in Dr. Muneeb Ui Rehman Haroon v. Govt., of Jammu & Kashmir State AIR 1984 SC 1585 , did not accept the contention that such a right is a fundamental right under Art. 19 of the Constitution. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, were unable to point out any provision of law under which the right claimed by them can be regarded as a legal right. Obviously, the 'only right which the petitioners can claim is the one which is available to them under Art. 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, were unable to point out any provision of law under which the right claimed by them can be regarded as a legal right. Obviously, the 'only right which the petitioners can claim is the one which is available to them under Art. 14 of the Constitution. This Court in Kumari Jayshree v. State of Gujarat (1979) 20 Guj LR 614, while, considering the rules for admission to First M.B.B.S. course, observed that, "till admissions are given, no rights are acquired". As pointed out in that case, the protection available to such candidates is under Art. 14 of the Constitution. As the petitioners cannot be said to have acquired any right as claimed on their admission to First M.B.B.S. course, or when they passed the Final M.B.B.S. Examination, the question of taking away their right really does not arise and, therefore, the contention that new rules are violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as they are made retrospective in operation, as they are made applicable to candidates like the petitioners, with retrospective, operation must be rejected. This Court further pointed out in that case that rules with retrospective operation can be made unless the exercise of such power is found to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Though such a question had not directly arisen before the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. Gopala Gowda, AIR 1965 SC 1932 , it observed, while interpreting the Regulations framed by the Academic Council, that the power conferred on it by the Mysore University Act to control and generally regulate teaching courses, of studies to be pursued and maintenance of the standards thereof, is extended not merely to prescribing minimum qualifications for admission, course of study and minimum attendance at an Institution, which may qualify a student for admission to examination, but also conferred an authority to refuse to grant a degree/ diploma certificate or other academic distinction to students who fail to satisfy the examiners at the final examination and to direct that a student who is proved not to have the ability or the aptitude to complete the course within a reasonable time to discontinue the course. This decision of the Supreme Court in a way supports the view that even in respect of students, who can be said to be midstream in, a sense, rules can be made which can affect their chances or even make them ineligible for further higher studies.” 10. In view of aforesaid situation which is prevailing on record, as rightly submitted by learned senior counsel Mr. Dave that the hardship issue of the student may not be possible to be considered in this peculiar background of fact. Hence, the contentions raised by learned advocates for the petitioners are of no avail. Unfortunately, on account of events which have taken place, the petitioners could not appear in the examination, but for that, no fault is possible to be found of respondent No.4 University since large number of students did appear in the changed timing of entrance examination and hence only at the instance of the petitioners, no writ is possible to be issued by this Court. 11. In addition to this, the relief which has been sought for and requested to set aside all admissions and conduct afresh examination would tantamount to be playing with career of so many students which this Court would not allow the petitioners to pursue in this background of facts, and furthermore particularly at the instance of only two students i. e. the present petitioners. Apart from that, with regard to admissions and decisions related to education matters, the courts should slow in interfering unless apparent mala fide or irregularity with any malice or a cast iron case which may bound to succeed. No such eventualities are visible here in present case on hand. Hence, this court is unable to accept the stand of the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, both these petitions are found to be meritless. Hence, the petitions stand dismissed with no orders as to cost.