ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Ms. Syeda Arshiya Mahjabeen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayanrao University of Health Sciences appearing on behalf of the respondent N.2. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner, Mrs. Arshiya Fathima, to appear for the remaining Final Year BDS examinations commencing from 17.01.2026 for the three pending subjects, in accordance with law. Direct the Respondents , upon completion of the theory examinations, to provide the Petitioner with an expedited and time-bound schedule for completion of her Compulsory Rotatory Internship, strictly within the permissible period prescribed under the Dental Council of India Regulations.” 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under: i) The petitioner was a final year BDS student in respondent No.1 College. The respondent No.2 issued notification for the final year BDS examinations scheduled in January, 2025. ii) During the course of examinations in the year 2025, the petitioner underwent an emergency Caesarean Section and delivered a male child and hence, the petitioner could not secure passing marks in three subjects i.e., Orthodontics, Prosthodontics, and Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics. iii) Though the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondent authorities requesting to permit the petitioner to appear for the January-2026 examinations, the respondents refused to permit the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34643 of 2024 seeking prayer as under: “…….to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the actions of Respondent No. 1(MIDS) and the inaction of Respondent No.2 (KNRUHS) in barring the Petitioner from appearing for final year examinations and completing her internship as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that this Honorable Court direct Respondent Nos. It is further prayed that this Honorable Court direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to permit the Petitioner to appear for the January, 2025 final-year examinations and complete her Compulsory Rotatory Internship as per DCI regulations along with suitable adjustments to the internship schedule to ensure completion before the expiry of the nine year window. The Petitioner also prays for an investigation into administrative and financial malpractices by Respondent No.1 and directives to Respondent No. 3(DCI) to enforce compliance with its regulations across affiliated institutions. By way of interim relief the Petitioner prays for immediate permission to appear for the January, 2025 examinations and expedited scheduling of internship postings. The Petitioner humbly seeks any other order or directions that this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” B) The relevant portion of the Division Bench order of this Court dated 20.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.34643 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein on an earlier occasion, is extracted hereunder: “8. The petitioner was admitted to BDS Course in the academic year 2016-17. She passed the First Year BDS examination in November, 2017. Thereafter, she appeared in the Second Year BDS examination in August, 2018, and cleared four subjects. However, she failed in one subject. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the supplementary examination in the month of January, 2019, and cleared the remaining one subject. The petitioner appeared in the Third Year BDS examination in January, 2020, and cleared all the subjects. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to appear in the Fourth Year BDS examination in the month of March, 2021; September, 2021; January, 2022; September, 2022, and January, 2023. However, on account of her poor financial condition, the petitioner was unable to pay the examination fee. As soon as the petitioner was in a position to pay the examination fee, she submitted a representation seeking permission to appear in the Fourth Year BDS examination which is scheduled to be held in the month of January, 2025. 9. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner was unable to appear in the Fourth Year BDS examination on account of her poor financial condition and in the peculiar facts of the case, we direct the respondent University to permit her to appear in the Fourth Year BDS examination which is scheduled to be held in the month of January, 2025, as a onetime measure. It is clarified that this order has been passed by this Court in peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.” C) The relevant portion i.e., paragraph No.6 of the Division Bench order of this Court dated 18.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.22640 of 2025 pertaining to the student of BDS course in the same respondent University i.e., Kaloji Narayana University of Health Sciences of 2018-2019 batch, who could not complete the course because of repeated interruptions on account of the said petitioner’s ill health, is extracted hereunder: “6. Though the case of the petitioner draws sympathetic consideration, the Regulations do not permit completion of the BDS course with such disruption. The regulations had been framed keeping into account the need for continuity of studies , but it also permits the course to be completed in an extended period of nine years taking into account the inevitable circumstances, which a student may be subjected to. However, despite condonation of the first period of absence for a period of eleven months, petitioner could not continue his studies from September, 2023 to March, 2025. Such absence over a period of time can hardly be compensated, even if the petitioner could get re-admission. The object behind the Regulations, therefore, cannot be said to be irrational. Since the Regulations do not permit any exception beyond the permissible limit, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.04.2025.” D) The relevant portion of the Revised BDS Course (7 th Amendment) Regulations, 2015 vide proceedings No.DE-87(1) (7) –M2-2017/ 9897 dated 13.09.2017, which is notified in official gazette, is extracted hereunder: “Any student who does not clear the BDS Course in all the subjects within a period of 9 years, including one year compulsory Rotatory paid internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the relief has to be extended to the petitioner on grounds of equity considering the health condition of the petitioner and the peculiar facts of the present case. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the relief has to be extended to the petitioner on grounds of equity considering the health condition of the petitioner and the peculiar facts of the present case. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2- University contends that no relief can be extended to the petitioner herein since as per rules in force any student who does not clear the BDS Course in all the subjects within a period of nine (09) years including one year compulsory rotatory paid internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course. 7. Taking into consideration the Division Bench specific observations when the petitioner herein approached this Court on an earlier occasion, which clearly indicate that the relief granted to the petitioner herein vide order of this Court dated 20.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.34643 of 2024 as observed at paragraph No.9 of the said judgment, was a relief extended to the petitioner herein as a onetime measure and also in view of the relevant rule which is in force as on date, which mandates that any student who does not clear the BDS Course in all the subjects within a period of nine years including one year compulsory rotatory paid internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course. Hence, therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the circumstances put-forth by the petitioner, which could not enable the petitioner to complete the course within a stipulated mandatory period of nine(9) years from the date of admission of the petitioner herein in the respondent No.1 College. 8. This Court duly considering the submission made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University that Regulations do not permit any exception beyond the permissible limit of a period of nine (09) years study including one (01) year compulsory rotatory paid internship from the date of admission of a student to clear the BDS Course in all the subjects opines that petitioner herein is not entitled for the relief as sought for in the present writ petition. 9. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and Others , reported in (2010) SCC 694 , dated 17.08.2010 and in particular para Nos.14,30 and 31 are extracted hereunder:- 14. 9. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and Others , reported in (2010) SCC 694 , dated 17.08.2010 and in particular para Nos.14,30 and 31 are extracted hereunder:- 14. This Court time and again cautioned that the court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compel the Government to implement the same. Equation of posts and equation of salaries is a matter which is best left to an expert body. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Even the recommendations of the Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection, the Courts cannot compel the State to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commissions though it is an expert body. The State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission. It is no doubt, the constitutional courts clothed with power of judicial review have jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have remedy only if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction while fixing the pay scale for a given post. 30. Yet another question that arises for our consideration is whether a writ of mandamus lies compelling the State to act contrary to law ? The State Government having accepted the recommendations of the successive Pay Commissions gave effect to those recommendations by framing statutory rules being ROPA Rules and scales of the employees have been accordingly fixed. The respondents did not challenge the vires of the said Rules under which they were entitled to only a particular scale of pay. The State Government is under obligation to follow the statutory rules and give only such pay scales as are prescribed under the statutory provisions. Neither the Government can act contrary to the rules nor the Court can direct the Government to act contrary to rules. No Mandamus lies for issuing directions to a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. No court can issue Mandamus directing the authorities to act in contravention of the rules as it would amount to compelling the authorities to violate law. Such directions may result in destruction of rule of law 31. No Mandamus lies for issuing directions to a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. No court can issue Mandamus directing the authorities to act in contravention of the rules as it would amount to compelling the authorities to violate law. Such directions may result in destruction of rule of law 31. In the instant case, the impugned order of the High Court virtually compelled the State to give pay scales contrary to statutory rules under which pay scales of the employees are fixed. The decision of the Chief Engineer being contrary to ROPA Rules, 1998, cannot be enforced even if such a decision was taken under the directions of the Administrative Tribunal. The orders of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court suffer from incurable infirmities and are liable to be set aside. 10. The aforesaid observations of the Apex Court in the judgment (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicate that no mandamus lies contrary to regulations, and no mandamus can be issued contrary to law and this Court hence, cannot under any circumstances compel the respondent University to go against its own regulations, which would eventually result in destruction of rule of law. 11. TAKI NG I NTO CONSI DERATI ON: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for University appearing on behalf of the respondent N.2, c) The observations in the Apex Court judgment dated 17.08.2010 reported in (2010) SCC 694(referred to and extracted above), d) The order of this Court dated 18.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.22640 of 2025 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Revised BDS Course (7 th Amendment) Regulations, 2015 vide proceedings No.DE-87(1) (7) –M2-2017/ 9897 dated 13.09.2017 (referred to and extracted above), f) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.5 to 7 of the present order, Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.