ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by a student seeking a direction that the respondent-The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India treat the petitioner as ‘pass’ in paper 6F in the examination conducted for Chartered Accountant Final (New). 2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner with Student Registration No. WRO-0631708 has cleared the Common Proficiency Test and Intermediate Levels of examination conducted by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The petitioner has appeared in the final level examination in May 2022. The examinations were held from 14.05.2022 to 29.05.2022. Paper 6F was a paper which was to be conducted as per open book methodology. It is the case of the petitioner having appeared in the paper which consisted of multiple choice questions accounting for 40 marks out of 100 and 60 marks out of 100 for descriptive type, received a phone call informing the petitioner that his case had been considered for unfair means by the ICAI. 2.1 Subsequently that miscommunication was clarified and it appears that the petitioner received a marksheet indicating assessment of only multiple choice questions where he secured 32 out of 100 marks and as far as descriptive questions were concerned he was assessed as fail. The result declared and the marksheet indicated that the petitioner had failed in paper 6F. A communication dated 25.08.2022 was issued by the ICAI informing the petitioner that it was noticed that the petitioner had not written the answers in the answer book, instead he had cut pasted the answers from the study material on the answer book. 3. Mr. Anshul Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that if the answer sheet that was procured under the Right To Information Act is perused, in the written examination, the marks obtained was 28 out of 60 assigned for descriptive answers. The communication and the action of ICAI therefore declaring the petitioner as ‘fail’ after having assessed him in the papers was in violation of principles of natural justice. The examination was an open book examination and therefore if the petitioner had pasted the answers from the extracts of the book, it would not amount to any unfair means and even otherwise the marks ought to have been allotted to the questions so answered. 3.1 Mr. Shah pressed into service the regulations known as The Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (for short ‘the Regulations’). 3.1 Mr. Shah pressed into service the regulations known as The Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (for short ‘the Regulations’). Stress was laid on Regulation No. 39(6) of such regulations which deals with examination results. He would submit that when a candidate had obtained the minimum number of marks for passing an examination, the Committee may, after giving an opportunity to the candidate, refuse to declare him to have passed the examination. The examination committee in the case on hand neither gave opportunity of hearing nor had reasons recorded for declaring him as ‘fail’ and therefore the action of the respondent institute violates the principles of natural justice. He would further submit that the instructions given in the admit card were followed which included the instructions that one should use only an ink ball point pen. No further instructions were given and this therefore did not prevent the candidate from adopting the method that he did adopt. 3.2 Mr. Shah would further rely on Para 27 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 726 , where it is mentioned that courts would interfere if there is violation of the regulations. 4. Mr. Dharmishtha Raval, learned advocate appearing for the respondent institute would rely on the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petition and indicate that Regulation No. 39(6) of the Regulations would not be applicable in the present case. She would further invite the court’s attention to Para 19 of the reply and submit that noticing irregularities in the answer sheets, the matter was put up before the examination committee of the institute. The examination committee at its 629th meeting held on 14-15.07.2022 considered the matter and decided to award 0 marks to the descriptive paper. This was done after due deliberation. The statement of marks were made available to the petitioner. 4.1 Ms. Raval would further submit that in accordance with several decisions of the Apex Court, the scope of judicial review in educational and academic matters are within the exclusive domain of professional experts and the role of the courts is limited. This was done after due deliberation. The statement of marks were made available to the petitioner. 4.1 Ms. Raval would further submit that in accordance with several decisions of the Apex Court, the scope of judicial review in educational and academic matters are within the exclusive domain of professional experts and the role of the courts is limited. In support of her submission, she would rely on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanchit Bansal and Another vs. Joint Admission Board and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 157 , particularly Para 25 which takes into consideration the observations of the Apex Court to observe that the courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies. 4.2 As far as the contention as to the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, she would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 . She would submit that Para 23 thereof would indicate that the principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond a reasonable and rationale limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, perusal of the admit card for the examinations namely the Final (New) examination-May 2022 indicates that there were composite papers. The papers which have multiple choice questions and descriptive questions. Candidates were required to answer the MCQs/OMR answer sheets on the cover page of specially designed descriptive answer books. Reading of the admit card would further indicate that a candidate was required to write answers in the medium (English/Hindi) opted. The admit card further indicates that paper 6 of the Final (New) is a case study based paper on open book methodology. The candidates were permitted to bring their own material to the examination center for this paper and refer to them while answering the paper during the examination. Instruction no. 7(e) also indicated that the candidate should write the answers only in black ink and no other colour. The candidates were permitted to bring their own material to the examination center for this paper and refer to them while answering the paper during the examination. Instruction no. 7(e) also indicated that the candidate should write the answers only in black ink and no other colour. Evidently, perusal of the answer sheet annexed to the petition would indicate that what the petitioner has done is cut and paste the relevant material available from the books and therefore satisfied himself to have attempted such questions in the examination. It is in this context that the ICAI in its communication dated 25.08.2022 opined that instead of writing the answers in the answer book the candidate had cut pasted answers from the study material. 6. Basic common sense would indicate that the concept of examination is a formal test conducted to evaluate a person’s knowledge of a particular subject. The examination assesses a candidate’s aptitude, skills and physical fitness and his mental acumen to assess the question and answer accordingly. It is a test to adjudge the skill of the candidate who appears. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that examinations conducted by such highly qualified academic bodies like the present namely the ICAI which hands out a qualified Chartered Accountant would want to conduct an examination which it so did in this case to adjudge the mental abilities, acumen and skill in the subject in which the test was conducted. Merely because of the methodology i.e. an open book method that was adopted would not give leverage to a student to cut paste material from the relevant study material available because such material would not enable an examiner to assess the intellectual abilities of a candidate, the understanding of the subject and the acumen. Obviously, therefore, even if there were no such instructions on the admit card normally common sense test that can be made the yardstick would indicate that it was not open for the petitioner to merely cut paste study material from books on the answer sheet. 7. The next question that needs to be therefore answered is whether by awarding 28 marks and thereafter assessing the petitioner as ‘fail’ violates the principles of natural justice. 7. The next question that needs to be therefore answered is whether by awarding 28 marks and thereafter assessing the petitioner as ‘fail’ violates the principles of natural justice. In the decision in the case of Sanchit Bansal (supra), the Apex Court while quoting from the decision in the case of Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Others (supra) in Paras 25-27 has held as under: “25. In All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, 2009 (11) SCC 726 this court held: “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.” (Emphasis supplied) 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 vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, 2007 (4) SCC 737 this court held: “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. 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.....” (Emphasis supplied) 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.” 8. Assuming for the sake of arguments that Regulation 39(6) of the regulations make it incumbent for the authorities to follow the principles of natural justice, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Apex Court in Para 23 has held that the principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rationale limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths. 9. The concept even otherwise of what is well known as ‘a useless formality theory’ has been recognised by several decisions of this court. In the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1999 (6) SCC 23, the Apex Court has held as under: “20. It is true that in Ridge vs. Baldwin, (1964) A.C. 40, it has been held that breach of principles of natural justice is in itself sufficient to grant relief and that no further de facto prejudice need be shown. It is also true that the said principles have been followed by this court in several cases, but we might point out that this court has not laid down any absolute rule. This is clear from the judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, 1980 (4) SCC 379 . It is also true that the said principles have been followed by this court in several cases, but we might point out that this court has not laid down any absolute rule. This is clear from the judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, 1980 (4) SCC 379 . After stating (page 395) that “principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed” and that “nonobservance of natural justice is itself prejudice to a man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary” Chinnappa Reddy, J. also laid down an important qualification (Page 395) as follows: “As we said earlier, where on the admitted or indisputable facts, only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice, but because courts do not issue futile writs.” 21. It is, therefore, clear that if on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of principles of natural justice.” 9.1 Referring to the celebrated case of Ridge vs. Baldwin, the Apex Court has held that though the principles of natural justice should itself be sufficient to grant relief however if on an admitted or undisputed factual position only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Facts of this case indicate that what the petitioner had done was cut and paste the study material and expected the institute to treat them as answers which, as stated hereinabove did not given an institute an opportunity to assess the ability, aptitude and acumen of the student who aspires to become a Chartered Accountant. That he had done so was undisputed. Rather than answer the papers, the material was pasted from the available literature. Even if therefore the petitioner was issued a notice, the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he had failed to satisfy the standards which were expected of an aspiring Chartered Accountant. 11. That he had done so was undisputed. Rather than answer the papers, the material was pasted from the available literature. Even if therefore the petitioner was issued a notice, the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he had failed to satisfy the standards which were expected of an aspiring Chartered Accountant. 11. In view of the above, this court does not find any reason to entertain this petition and therefore the same is dismissed.