( 1 ) THE petitioner, a student of First Year B. Com. in the 2nd respondent H. L. College of Commerce, affiliated to the 1st respondent Gujarat university, was not admitted to the First Year B. Com. University examination and his application form was withdrawn by the college as he did not pass the internal evaluation in five out of seven subjects. For internal (College) evaluation, the maximum marks are 30 in each subject and 70 marks are for the external (University) examination. The standard of passing is 36% of marks obtainable. The petitioner obtained the following marks in each of the seven subjects out of 30 : subjects Marks obtained out of 301. English 23 2. Commercial Communication-I 11 3. Economics-I 6 4. Accountancy 3 5. Business Organisation and Management-I 8 6. Principal Subject-Advance Accountancy 8 7. Subsidiary subject-Computer Programming 8

( 2 ) THIS refusal to admit to the University examination is based on Regulation F. B. Com. I, 2 (i) which provides that no candidate who has not passed in atleast half the number of heads for internal evaluation shall be admitted to the University examination concerned. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this Regulation.

( 3 ) PENDING the petition, by an interim order, the petitioner was directed to be allowed to appear in the examination and he has appeared in the examination. Though the result is not declared it is assumed that he has obtained the passing marks in the external examination.

( 4 ) REGULATION R. Com. 4 is relating to standard of passing First B. Com. examination. It provides that to pass the examination, a candidate must obtain atleast 36% of the marks obtainable, separately in each subject in the University examination and in the internal assessment in each subject. The validity of this Regulation is also challenged by the petitioner on the ground that this requirement of passing the examination separately at internal assessment is irrational, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) THE matter was heard by the Division Bench at length and both the learned judges have taken great pains and given deep consideration to the contentions raised and the same are reflected in their dissenting judgments. One learned Judge (B. C. Patel, J.) has held that the Regulation is not ultra vires and he has passed an order dismissing the petition. Another learned Judge (K. R. Vyas, J.) of the Division Bench has held to the contrary and held that the Regulation is ultra vires and the petition is required to be allowed and directed that the marks obtained in the internal as well as external examination are required to be clubbed together and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner accordingly.

( 6 ) ON account of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench, this matter is directed to be placed before me.

( 7 ) BOTH the sides have referred to large number of authorities to indicate the role of the Court in such matters. There is no difference of opinion between the two learned Judges as to any of the principles laid down in the judgments cited by both the sides. The learned Judge who has opined to allow the petition has summarized the decision as under :-"the sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions is that the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant in interfering with the matters relating to educational institutions imparting education since the decisions taken by the Academic Body are in the nature of policy decisions, unless they are found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. I am conscious of the fact that the Regulations in question have been incorporated in the statute following the recommendations made by the Expert Committee having rich experience of actual day-to-day workings of the educational institutions. It is equally true that this Court has absolutely limited power to interfere with the internal working of an academic institution imparting ed