I.A. Ansari, J.

1. All these three writ petitions, which involve identical facts and common questions of law, are being disposed of by this judgment and Order.

2. The petitioners are the students of first year B. A. (Law LL.B. course in Tripura Government Law College. In the internal test, conducted by the said College, the petitioners failed to qualify. Acting upon the result of the internal test, so conducted by the said College, respondent No. 3, namely, Principal of the said College, declined the petitioners' request to allow them to appear in Part II final examination to be conducted by Tripura University, which the said College is affiliated to. As the Part-I final examination was to commence on 17th June, 2009, the petitioners, with the help of these writ applications, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought for, inter alia, issuance of writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, to allow the petitioners to appear in the said final examination of Part-I.

3. The case of the petitioners is, briefly stated, as under:

The relevant Regulations of Tripura University do not empower respondent No. 3 to restrain or disallow a student, who has, otherwise, completed the course of Part-I, from appearing the final examination, which may be conducted by the Tripura University, except when the student, as a candidate, has failed to secure 66% of classes in each of the subjects and also the moot Courts and practical training courses. Passing of an internal examination, which a college may, on their own, conduct, is not a condition precedent for eligibility of a candidate to appear in the Part-II final examination and, hence, the result of such internal examination cannot create a legal bar for such a candidate and disentitle him from appearing in the Part-I final examination to be conducted by the University.

4. The respondents have resisted the writ petitions, the case of the respondent No. 3 being, in brief, thus: The petitioners had appeared, without any reservation, in the internal test, conducted by the College w.e.f. 16-3-2009, and the result-sheets would indicate that the petitioners had not passed in several papers, which had been set by the College for testing the preparedness and ability of the candidates. As the petitioners had not objected to the holding of the test, they are, now, estopped from challenging the decision of the College not to let them appear in the final examination, in question. The holding of the internal test by the College was in exercise of the authority, which every academic institution has, and, hence, the holding of such test is not violative of the relevant Regulations of the University. The educational institutions are duty bound to consider the eligibility and viability of the students to pass the official examination, which a University may conduct. The practice of conducting internal tests have been in vogue for a long time and the petitioners too had appeared in the said test examination, but having been unsuccessful in the said test, they have, now, challenged the result of the test. This is impermissible in law. No provision of the relevant Regulations prohibits or can be said to have taken away the authority of the College to adopt its own methodology for evaluating the eligibility of a student to appear in the final examination to be conducted by the University. Since the internal test was held in the interest of the students at large, such an action of the College authorities is not subject to judicial review under Article 226. The decision of the College authorities, disallowing the petitioners from appearing in the Part-I final examination, is not arbitrary or discriminatory and may not, therefore, be interfered with.

5. As far as the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (i.e., the University, authorities are concerned), their case is that the internal test are conducted by the Colleges to adjudge the preparedness of the students and s