ORDER
D. Murugesan, J.
1. The petitioner is Tamil Nadu Nursery Primary Matriculation and Higher Secondary School Management’s Association represented by its General Secretary, Chennai. The petitioner has challenged the order of the 1st respondent made in G.O. Ms. No. 23 School Education (VI) Department dated 24-1-2000. By the said Government Order the 1st respondent directed that the students of the Matriculation Schools/ Anglo Indian Schools appearing for the 10th standard examinations in science subjects during March-April, 2001 should obtain a minimum of 70 marks out of 200 marks in theory examination and a minimum of 35 marks out of 100 marks in practical examination.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are that the petitioner association is a registered association and the main aim and object of the association is to provide high standard education to the nursery, primary, matriculation and higher secondary level through private management schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. Several members of the petitioner association are minority by their character and they are running the school from nursery level to higher secondary level. According to the petitioner that
the Matriculation Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu are separate entities of their own and these Matriculation Scho’ols were under the control of University of Madras as they were affiliated with the University of Madras. When the Madurai Kamaraj University came into existence in the year 1976, the syndicate of Madras University decided that the University need no longer the control of the Matriculation Schools and the control may be taken by the State Government. The State Government after the consideration has taken over the management of the Matriculation Schools. Accordingly, a separate Board called Board of Mariculation Schools was formed and the Director of School Education was named as the Chairman of the Board in G. O. Ms. No. 2816 Education dated 29-11-76. In G. O. Ms. No. 1720 Education dated 25-7-77 the Board of Matriculation Schools was constituted and the terms and conditions and functions of the Board was also defined. In accordance with the above decision, an Inspectorate of Matriculation Schools was also formed in G. O. Ms. No. 2678 Education dated 29-12-77. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the Matriculation Schools were allowed to retain their structures and they were permitted to levy fees and they were not allowed to receive any grant. The Matriculation Schools were free to adopt their own curriculum and make innovations suitable to their needs. However, from the academic year 2000 for 10th standard a common curriculum and common public examination are being adopted by the State Government. Subsequently, after the introduction of 10+2 pattern. Matriculation Schools were also allowed to have the +2 course and the curriculum and examination are common to that of the State Board students. In the result, the scheme of examination as far as the Matriculation Schools are concerned is that they can have their own curriculum and examination except 10th standard for which common examination is separately conducted by the Director of Government Examination. Similarly, +1 and +2 examinations were also conducted by the State. As far as the Matriculation 10th standard is concerned, there are 11 subjects each will be consisting of maximum of 100 marks till the impugned order was passed. The subjects/papers with maximum marks and minimum marks prescribed for a pass in
each subject prevalent is stated below:–
X STANDARD MATRICULATION BOARD
SUBJECT
MAX. MARKS
PASS
Part I English
Paper I
100)
70
Paper II
100)
Part II Language
Paper I
100)
70
Paper II
100)
Part II
1. Mathematics
Paper I
100)
70
Paper II
100)
2. Science I
100)
3. Science II
100)
Science I and II Practicals
100)
105
4. History & Civics
100
5. Geography
100
70
Total
1100
3. As per the above system for awarding a pass in science I and science II and science I and II practical, a student is expected to obtain 105 marks out of 300 marks put together in two theory papers and two practical papers. However, by the impugned Government Order, student who is taking examination during March-April, 2001 could be declared as pass in the science subject provided he obtains a minimum of 70 marks out of 200 marks in theory examination and a minimum of 35 marks in practical examination. The said introduction of new pattern for declaring a pass in science subject has adversely affected number of students who were admitted during the academic year 2000-2001 and are taking their examination to be held during March-April, 2001. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Mr. N. R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the above Government Order even though dated 24-1-2000 was communicated to the members of the petitioner association only on 19-1-2001 almost after one year. The said Government Order was not put on notice to any of the members
earlier, Therefore, the petitioner made representation on 23-1-2001 to the 1st respondent expressing their grievances over the Government Order which was rejected by the 1st respondent on 24-2-2001, In that view of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel would challenge the Government Order on the following grounds:–
(1) As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in ‘Tamil Nadu Tamil and English Schools Association Rep. by its General Secretary, Mr. B. T. Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9, “, the 1st respondent before effecting any change as it would amount to change in the policy of the Government, ought to have constituted a committee and the management also ought to have been heard. In the absence of the above compliance, the impugned order is unsustainable.
(2) The decision has been taken only on the directions of the Hon’ble Minister for Education, Government of Tamil Nadu and such a decision is not in conformity with the Full Bench Judgment.
(3) There was no actual evaluation of the problems which would be faced by the students in view of the change in the pattern of calculation of the marks obtained by the candidates in the science subject for awarding a pass.
(4) The Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu does not have a statutory character and it is only a non-statutory and as per Regulation 7, the schools will continue to be fee based and use English as medium of instruction and they will continue to be free as hitherto to innovate with regard to their curriculum except for the last one year when they prepare students for the public examination.
(5) The impugned Government Order is unsustainable on the ground of discrimination.
(6) The reasoning that 100 marks are given to the students in practical examination thereby leaving those students to secure a pass of 105 by obtaining only 5 marks in the theory is not factually correct since even in the practical examination, external examiners are employed and students getting 100 marks would be only on merit and the marks are not given at the discretion of
the management and the management had no control over the practical examination, ft. In support of the submissions 1 to 4, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that when the Government of Tamil Nadu by G. O. Ms. No. 324 School Education (C2) dated 19-11-99 making the medium of instruction in all Matriculation Schools as Tamil contrary to Regulation 7 of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, the Full Bench of this Court while setting aside the said Government Order among other grounds also observed that when the change of policy which had been there for over a period of half a century, it should have in all fairness called upon the Board of Matriculation Schools, the Managements Association and the Parents Association by sending individual communications to them to appear before the committee on a particular day to express their views. In the absence of the same, the action of the committee cannot be called in conformity with the acceptable standards and norms and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of the same and more particularly the decision was taken at the instructions of the Hon’ble Minister for Education only, the impugned order is unsustainable. As per Regulation 7 of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, the schools are entitled to continue to be free to innovate with regard to their curriculum. Therefore, the change that has been effected would result in interference with the management of the Matriculation Schools.
6. In so far as the ground of discrimination, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in +2, a student is to be declared as a pass in science subject if he obtains 40 marks out of 150 in theory and 30 marks out of 50 in practical and in all 70 marks out of 200. The corresponding percentage for theory and practical works out to 26% for theory examination and 60% for practical examination. On the other hand, for Matriculation Schools 70 marks out of 200 in theory examination and 35 marks out of 100 in practical examination works out to 35% in theory and 35% in practical examinations. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondents are adopting two different yardsticks for calculating the marks for declaring a pass to the
students of +2 in the State Board and 10th standard in the Matriculation pattern. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the above grounds.
7. In reply to the above submission, Mr. M. Rathinam, learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that the Full Bench judgment reported in ” ” holding that the respondents should have called upon the Board of Matriculation Schools, the Managements Association and the Parents Association before a change is made in the policy in the medium of instruction is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted, it is true that the Regulation 7 of the Code of Regulation for Matriculation Schools has no statutory character. Regulation 7 relates to medium of instruction as English. However, in the absence of any other provision namely the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act and the Rules made there under are applicable to the Matriculation Schools, the Regulations framed in so far as the Matriculation Schools shall be alone applicable. It is true that Section 7 states that the Matriculation Schools shall continue as fee based and use English as the medium of instruction. When a change was effected in the medium of instruction, the Full Bench observed that when there is a change in the medium of instruction it should be only a change in the policy of the Government and in such event the State ought to have called upon the Board of Matriculation Schools, Management Association and the Parents Association before a decision was taken. In that context only the Full Bench held that such an opportunity was not given before a change in the curriculum and had relied upon the same as one of the reasons to set aside the Government Order which was challenged before the Full Bench. However, in the case on hand, the Regulation does not speak of the procedure to be adopted in calculating the marks obtained by the candidates in theory and practical examination for declaring a pass. In the absence of any provision under the said Regulation, the Department of Government Examination framed a Scheme for Matriculation Schools known as “Scheme for the Award of Matriculation Certificate”. As per the said scheme, the Board of Matriculation Schools is constituted with a commit-
tee and the Chairman of the Board of Matriculation Schools is the Director of Government Examinations. As per the scheme, a committee is constituted for evolving the method for the conduct of the examination, award of marks including the award of certificates. Under the scheme, in the interest of the quality in education the Board is empowered to prescribe the minimum marks for a pass both in theory and practical examinations separately. When the decision of the Board is taken, it cannot be contended that the Full Bench judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, reported in ” ” holding that before a decision is taken, the Board of Matriculation Schools, the Managements Association and the Parents Association ought to have been given an opportunity. The learned Addl. Government Pleader would further submit that the discrimination as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is also unsustainable inasmuch as each pattern of instructions namely the State Board and the Matriculation Scheme are different and distinct and hence there is no discrimination. In so far as the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the presence of external examiners, there was no control in the practical examination by the management and the reason of the Government that number of students obtain 100 out of 100 marks in practical leaving them only 5 marks for theory out of 200 marks, the learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that the practical examinations are conducted only under the control of the management of the schools. It is true that external examiners are also present. However, the award of marks are given only by the management. The learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted during the practical examination conducted during March 1999, out of 56549 students, 49602 students obtained 100 out of 100 marks. On the other hand, in the theory examination conducted during March, 1999 out of 56549 students, 217 students alone have obtained 90-100 marks. Similarly, in the practical examination conducted during March, 2000, out of 62573 students, 54025 students obtained 100 out of 100 marks. On the other hand, in the theory examination conducted during March, 2000 out of 62573 students, 276 students alone
have obtained 90-100 marks. Further, the learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that in so far as the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Government Order even though was passed on 24-2-2000 was communicated only on 19-1-2001, and the same was taken without any actual evaluation of the problems of the students, a proposal for the change in the curriculum of the marks for award of pass in science subjects both theory and practical was submitted to the Government on 17-12-99 followed by another proposal on 20-12-99 after the Board met and decided on 25-10-99. The said resolution of the Board was placed before the review meeting before the Hon’ble Minister for Education wherein the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Director of School Education, Director of Elementary Education, Director of Government Examinations, Director of Collegiate Education were present. The said Government Order was communicated to all the officers of the Education Department by the Director of Government Examinations in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 122386/M3/99 “dated 7-7-2000. The said proceedings were communicated to all the members of the Matriculation Schools on 4-8-2000. The same was also published in all newspapers on 7-8-2000. In fact some of the members of Matriculation Schools have acknowledged the said order by their letter dated 11-8-2000. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the Government Order was communicated to the petitioner only on 19-1-2001. Finally, the learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that in any event this Court will be very slow in interfering with the decision of the academicians for the improvement in the quality in education. Hence, the learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is not in dispute that the Code of Regulation for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu are applicable to the Matriculation Schools run by the petitioner association. Regulation 7 of the said Regulations which reads as follows :–
The schools will continue to be fee based and use English as medium of instructions. They will continue to be free as hitherto to innovate with regard to their curriculum except for the last one year when they prepare students for the public examination.”
As per the above Regulation, the Matriculation Schools will continue to be fee based and use English as medium of instruction. The Matriculation Schools also shall continue to be free to immolate with regard to their curriculum except last year before the Regulation came into force when they prepared students for the public examination. Nowhere in the Regulation, method of the conduct of the examination, award of marks as well as the certificates is prescribed. On the other hand, the Matriculation Schools are governed by a scheme called as “the scheme for award of Matriculation certificate” framed by the Department of Government Examinations. The following are the few provisions of the scheme which could be conveniently extracted as follows :–“CHAPTER-1
“BOARD” means the Board of Matriculation Examination as detailed under Chapter-II.
“CHAIRMAN” means the Chairman of the Board of Matriculation Examination.
“COMMITTEE” means a committee constituted by the President in consultation with the Board.
“DIRECTOR” means the Director of Government Examinations, Tamilnadu and includes an Additional Secretary or any other authority on whom all or any of the powers of Director under these rules may be conferred by the Government or any of the powers are delegated by the Director to any of the officers in the Directorate of Government Examinations.
“MATRICULATION EXAMINATION” means the examination conducted by the Board through the Department of Government Examinations at the end of Matriculation School Course and also supplementary examinations.
CHAPTER-II
CHAIRMAN
Director of Government Examination,
Madras 600 006
OFFICIAL MEMBERS (EX-OFFICIO)
1. Director of School Education, Madras-6
2. Director of Collegiate Education, Madras-6
3. Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madras
4. Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Coimbatore
5. Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madurai
6. Field Adviser, NCERT, Madras
7. Head of Division I. SCERT, Madras
8. Joint Director of Education, Pondicherry
9. Director, Government Data Centre;
Madras or his nominee.
Chapter-V relate to scheme of examination.
As per the said scheme, there shall be a
Government Examination at the end of the
10 year course. The scheme of examination
for each course is also enumerated under
the said Chapter and particularly for science papers which is extracted as follows:–
"SCIENCE (THEORY) PAPER I -- 2-1/2 Hours 100 (Physics and Chemistry) Practical-- Physics 1-1/2 Hours 25 Chemistry 1-1/2 Hours 25 50 SCIENCE (THEORY) PAPER II 2-1/2 Hours 100 300 (Botany and Zoology) Practical--Botany 1-1/2 Hours 25 Zoology 1-1/2 Hours 25 50 Chapter VII deals with the award of certificates and the relevant portion of the said Chapter relating to award of certificates reads as follows :--
“A pass in the Matriculation (X-standard) Examination requires a minimum of Thirty Five percent of marks in each one of the five subjects. This includes passing under the compartmental system also. Government may however modify the above rule of eligibility for a pass, to suit the changing trend in the standard of education and scheme of examination.”
9. On a reading of the above provisions, it would be clear that the scheme of examinations are totally governed by the Board of Matriculation Examinations. The said Board is headed by a Chairman and consisting of official members. As per the scheme, the Government is empowered to modify the rule of eligibility for a pass to suit the changing trend in the standard of education and scheme of examination. The Board of Matriculation Schools met on 26-10-99 wherein the Director of Government Examination, Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Chennai,
Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Coimbatore and other members of the Matriculation Board participated in the said meeting. The Board resolved to introduce a minimum of 70% of marks out of 200 marks in theory science subject for a candidate to be declared as pass. The said Board’s minute was submitted to the Government for its consideration on 17-12-99 and 20-12-99 which was accepted by the Government in the review meeting held in the presence of the Hon’ble Minister for Education, Secretary to Government, Education Department, Directors of School Education, Elementary Education, Government Examination and Collegiate Education. The Full Bench judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reported in ” ” relates to a change of policy which was sought to be effected by the Government in the medium of instruction. When the Government sought to introduce Tamil as a medium of Instruction in Matriculation schools and when the same was considered, the Full Bench was of the view that when a change was effected contrary to Regulation 7 of the Regulations, the Government ought to have consulted the Board of Matriculations, the Managements Association and the Parents Association. However, on the facts of the present case, it is seen that the conduct of examinations is governed by a scheme and under the scheme the Board of Matriculations is empowered to conduct the examination and award of marks. When the Board of Examination decided to improve the quality in education resolved in its meeting held on 25-10-99 to effect the change in the method of calculation of marks in the science subject both in theory and practical for awarding a certificate of pass. Under the scheme, the Board is entitled to effect such a change in the interest of the quality in education. Further the said resolution of the Board was placed before the Government which was accepted by the Government in the review meeting and the Impugned Government Order has been issued. Therefore, the Full Bench Judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the change effected in the method of calculating the marks for award of certificate is entirely governed by the scheme and such power vests with the Board and the Government, giving
an opportunity to the Managements Association and the Parents Association does not arise. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of an opportunity given to the members of the association, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Further, as pointed out by the learned Addl. Government Pleader that even in the meeting held on 26-5-99, number of Matriculation Schools participated who were representing the various Matriculation Schools.
10. Coming to the next submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as to the discrimination, it is to be noted that the pattern of examination for the +2 examinations and the 10th standard Matriculation Examinations are entirely different. They cannot be compared with each other. Each discipline or each course of examination is different and it cannot be equated and taken together. A Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in P. Nithiyan (Minor) Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian R. Palanisamy, Periyar District v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 Writ LR 624 has held as follows :– –
“Every professional course is a different and independent course and as such all professional courses, viz., Medicine, Engineering, Agriculture, etc., cannot be treated as one and the same. Students entering the engineering college and those entering the medical college constitute two different classes so that the prescription of age limit for M.B.B.S. course alone, in our view, is not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
In yet another Division Bench of this Court reported in “ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS AFFILIATED TO THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT V. VENKATACHALAM V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS-9 (1992 Writ LR 477)”, this Court has held thus ;–
The State in the exercise of its governmental power, has of necessity to make laws operating differently on different groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies and it must possess for that purpose large power of distinguishing and classifying persons or things to be subjected to such classification. This will not be in any manner Inhibited by the equality rule of the
Constitution of India if the classification is not palpably arbitrary and its action passed the twin test of classification founded on Intelligible differentia and that the differentia have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the action. It is difficult on the facts noticed above to say that there is no Intelligible differentia in classifying the CBSE students for three reasons stated in the Government Order as a separate group from the students constituting other sources for the reasons stated in the Government Order that it had reasons for conviction that CBSE students had been allotted marks liberally in qualifying subjects.”
Therefore, I do not agree with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel as to the discrimination. Further, as contended by the learned Addl. Government Pleader that when the Government had taken note of the fact that in the examination conducted during March 1999 about of 56549 students, 49602 students obtained 100 out of 100 marks. On the other hand, in the theory examination conducted during March 1999 out of 56549 students. 217 students alone have obtained 90-100 marks which would go to show that 87% of students have obtained 100 marks in practical-examination as against 0.38% in theory. Similarly, in the practical examination conducted during March, 2000 out of 62573 students, 54025 students obtained 100 exit of 100 marks. On the other hand, in the theory examination conducted during March 2000 out of 62573 students, 276 students alone have obtained 90-100 marks which would go to show that 86% of students have obtained 100 marks in practical examination as against 0.44% in theory which would justify the Government to Insist a minimum pass in the theory examination. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there was no proper evaluation by the committee before the change is effected. The factual aspects given above would justify the decision of the respondents in Insisting the candidates to obtain a minimum of 70 marks out of 200 marks in theory and 35 marks out of 100 marks in practical examinations.
11. That part, effecting a change in the calculation of marks for award of certificate is academic matter and such power vests with the experts in the conduct of the examinations. This Court as well as the Supreme Court in more than one case have
held in academic matter the Court will not interfere except where there is blatant violation of provision governing the subject is national and arbitrary. In the Division Bench judgment reported in “Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmar Sheth. “, while considering the test for determination of the validity of a Regulation pointed out as under :–
“In our opinion, this approach made by the High Court was not correct or proper because the question whether a particular piece of delegated legislation — whether a rule or regulation or other type of statutory instrument — is in excess of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the delegate as to be determined with reference only to the specific provisions contained in the relevant statute conferring the power to make the rule, regulation, etc., and also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment. It would be wholly wrong for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in Judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the Court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be Incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its
scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the Impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation making power conferred on the delegate by the Statute. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole depositors of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision Impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.”
12. In the Division Bench judgment reported in “K. Anthony Savarimuthu v. The Director of School Education, 1985 Writ LR 178” their Lordships have held thus :–
“The educational authorities are alone the proper authorities who can compare the nature of the educational course and the nature of the instruction on the basis of which the certificates or degrees are granted; and unless it is shown that a decision of the educational authorities is so perverse or so unreasonable or arbitrary that no reasonable person would arrive at such a decision, this Court would not interfere with such decision on academic matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
13. The same view has been taken by this Court in the judgments reported in “Miss Sathya Rao v. University of Madras (1977) 2 Mad LJ 403” and in “Meenakshi Sundaram v. Director of Legal Studies (1981) 2 Mad LJ 141 : (AIR 1981 Mad 198) “.
14. In view of the categorical decisions, it would be clear that this Court cannot interfere in the academic matters unless the decision of the experts is so Irrational and unless it is shown that a decision of the educational authorities is so perverse or so unreasonable or arbitrary calling for interference by this Court. The impugned Government Order in my considered view is only in order to improve the quality of education as well as practical skills in the science subjects among the students and when a decision is taken by the respondents in the interest of the quality in education, this Court shall not interfere in such decision as the said decision cannot in my view be considered as either perverse or unreasonable or arbitrary. The impugned order has been issued only to improve the standard and competence of the students to write the 10th standard Matric/Anglo Indian examinations as a stepping stone as well as touch stones to higher studies like + 2, polytechnic, medical engineering and any equivalent courses. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. Undoubtedly, even such a body if it were to contravene rules and regulations binding upon it, the Court in exercise of extraordinary Jurisdiction to enforce rule of law, may interfere in a writ petition under Article 226. Even then, the Court, while enforcing the rule of law, should give due weight to the opinions expressed by the experts and also show due regard to its recommendations on which the State Government acted. If the recommendations made by the body of experts, keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations, manifest due consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court should be very slow to interfere with such recommendations.
15. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 5159 and 5160 of 2001 are also dismissed.