ORDER : – The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who are regular students of M.Ed. (IV semester) and are students of Matushri Ahilyadevi Teachers Education Institute-petitioner No. 12 challenging the award of marks in the Marksheet issued by the University. 2. The petitioners appeared in the M.Ed. (IV semester) examination. According to them, the marks were awarded in M.Ed. Practical viva-voce IV semester by the external appointed by the University and the internal of the College. Copy of the marksheet of the marks awarded by the external of the University and internal of the College is Annx.P/1. However, in the final marksheet issued by the respondent/University the awarded marks to the petitioner for practical/viva-voce have been changed and the marks have been substantially reduced. The petitioners have been given lesser marks in the marksheet of IV semester than the marks actually given by the external. It is submitted that once the marks have been awarded by the external faculty and signed the marksheet on 2-3-2022, then neither the University nor any authority of the University could have changed/altered the marks obtained by the students. The respondents have acted in a arbitrary manner contrary to the rules and therefore, prayer has been made for amendment of the marks by changing marks of the petitioners by counting the marks as per Annx.P/1. 3. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that respondents have issued certain notifications after declaration of the result by which they have changed the examination scheme and made it applicable retrospectively by notification dated 12-8-2022 and communication dated 13-9-2022 (Annx.R/4). It is submitted that Annx.P/1 which is marksheet of external is of the year 2019-20/21 and the date of practical examination was 2-3-2022 whereas Annx.R/4 is dated 13-9-2022 which could not have been made applicable with retrospective effect for the examination of the year 2019 to 2021. It is submitted that by notification dated 12-8-2022, 50 marks have been divided for external and 50 marks each for two external is subsequent to the date of examination and therefore the same cannot be made basis for reducing the marks of the petitioners. 4. The respondents filed the reply and refuted the allegations made by the petitioners. It is submitted that by notification dated 12-8-2022, 50 marks have been divided for external and 50 marks each for two external is subsequent to the date of examination and therefore the same cannot be made basis for reducing the marks of the petitioners. 4. The respondents filed the reply and refuted the allegations made by the petitioners. It is also submitted that subsequent notification dated 12-8-2022 and communication dated 13-9-2022 are not retrospective in nature but they are only clarificatory in nature and therefore there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that there is a change in the examination scheme and the same is being applied retrospectively. It has been submitted that as per Annx.P/1 the marks given are regarding internal examination (main) i.e. viva voce for the M.Ed. Semester IV Dissertation. The marks have been given by the consent of both College internal along with external. The marks entered for the internal/viva voce is submitted to the University by the College through online mode. It is further submitted that as per M.Ed. Curriculum (as per NCTE Regulation 2014) the marks distribution regarding 4th semester clearly states that 50 marks are allocated for the internal evaluation i.e. viva-voce and 100 marks are allocated for the internal evaluation to be later evaluated as equally divided between two external examiners. The marks given by internal evaluator as per Annx.P/1 is against the M.Ed. Curriculum (as per NCTE regulation 2014) as the evaluator has given the marks out of 100 marks whereas as per the scheme the internal examination (viva-voce) evaluation shall be only out of 50 marks. The marks awarded to the petitioner by the internal examiner is only for 50 marks in place of wrongly mentioned 100 marks in Annx.P/1. It is further submitted that marksheet Annx.P/2 clearly shows that internal allocated marks are 50 marks and the external evaluation is allocated 100 marks. It is further submitted that in the marksheet of every petitioner in 6th column and 7th row the marks shown are regarding the internal evaluation and under the 7th column and 7th row the marks shown are regarding the external evaluation. The respondents further relied upon point No. 18 of the Statute No. 29 of Devi Ahilya University which reads as under - 18. The respondents further relied upon point No. 18 of the Statute No. 29 of Devi Ahilya University which reads as under - 18. where these is permissible in lieu of a paper there shall be a Board of two examiners for reading the thesis. The Maximum number of marks for the thesis shall be equally divided between the two examiners each of whom shall mark the thesis independently. If the valuation of these two examiners differs by 20%, the thesis shall be referred to the third examiner (other than a teacher of the University) who shall be awarded marks out of half of the maximum marks of the thesis. The aggregate of two of the three awards nearest to each other and to the best advantage of the candidate shall be taken as the correct valuation.” 5. It is submitted that apart from 50 marks allocated for the internal viva-voce examination (that has been wrongly inserted in Annx.P/1), 100 marks is equally divided between two external examiners for reading of the thesis. It is further submitted that if the marks given by both the examiners differs by 20%, a third independent external evaluator is allotted 50 marks for reading of the thesis. Thus the final mark is calculated by adding the marks of the third external evaluator and the marks nearest to the third external evaluator. As per statute No. 29 the dissertation of the petitioner students were sent to two different external examiners for evaluation and subsequently to third examiner in case of 20% difference. Copy of marks allocated by the external evaluators to the petitioners have been annexed as Annx.R/3 but the University for clarification of the aforesaid scheme of examination (NCTE Regulation, 2014) and regarding the bifurcation of marks of the internal/viva-voce, the University has passed a notification dated 13-9-2022 to all the colleges Principals. The respondents have denied any arbitrary action on their part. It is further submitted that action taken by the respondents is in compliance with the M.Ed. curriculum and also with the point No. 18 of statute No. 29 of the University. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in the contention of petitioners that the notification dated 12-8-2022 and Annx.R/4 dated 13-9-2022 issued by the University are retrospective in nature. curriculum and also with the point No. 18 of statute No. 29 of the University. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in the contention of petitioners that the notification dated 12-8-2022 and Annx.R/4 dated 13-9-2022 issued by the University are retrospective in nature. Upon bare perusal of the aforesaid notification/orders issued by the University, it is evident that aforesaid orders have been issued to clarify the allocation of marks in the light of M.Ed. Curriculum (as per NCTE Regulations, 2014) and Statute No. 29 of the University. The award of marks for the internal viva-voce is governed by the provisions of M.Ed. curriculum as per NCTE Regulations, 2014 which prescribes marks distribution regarding 4th semester clearly shows that 50 marks are allocated for the external evaluation i.e. viva-voce and 100 marks are allocated for external evaluation which is to be equally divided between two external examiners. The marks given in the internal evaluation in Annx.P/1 is clearly in contravention of M.Ed. curriculum. It is true that Annx.P/1 is signed by the external evaluator appointed by the University but same would not operate as estoppel against the respondents in view of specific provision in M.Ed. curriculum (Annx.R/1). The evaluator has given the marks out of 100 marks whereas as per scheme, internal examiner viva-voce shall be only out of 50 marks. Clause 18 of Statute No. 29 unequivocally states that the marks given are regarding the internal viva-voce which has been wrongly inserted in Annx.P/1 by the ink. 100 marks is equally divided between the two external examiners for reading the thesis. If the marks given by both the examiners differs by 20%, the thesis will be referred to the third examiner as per Clause No. 18 of Statute No. 29, the aggregate of two of three awards nearest to each other and to the best advantage of the candidate shall be taken as the correct valuation. The dissertation of the petitioners were also sent to two different examiners for evaluation and subsequently to the third external examiner in case of 20% of difference. Thereafter the marks were allocated to the petitioners by the external evaluator vide Annx.R/3. 7. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the action of respondents. The subsequent evaluation and award of marks by the University is in conformity with M.Ed. Thereafter the marks were allocated to the petitioners by the external evaluator vide Annx.R/3. 7. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the action of respondents. The subsequent evaluation and award of marks by the University is in conformity with M.Ed. curriculum (as per NCTE Regulation, 2014) and Clause No. 18 of Statute No. 29 of the University. There is no allegation of any mala fide against the respondents, therefore in absence of allegation of mala fide, no adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.