Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. The petitioner is a graduate in Engineering from the University of Bangalore. He joined the course in the academic year 1981-82. Regulation-6 of the University concerning the B. E. Degree course provides for taking into consideration the performance of the students at the third and fourth year examinations for determining the class in which they pass i.e., to say first class, second class and third class. On the basis of that Regulation by taking the average of the performance of the last two years of the course, the petitioner has been declared second class. It appears from the material furnished by the petitioner himself that the Academic Council some time ago had appointed a Committee to reexamine the manner of declaring class and ranks. That Committee made a recommendation to the Academic Council. The Academic Council in turn recommended and resolved that the declaration of the class will be based on the fourth year degree examination only. That recommendation was forwarded to the Syndicate, That was placed before the meeting of the Academic Council held on 8-4-1985. The Academic Council has resolved to accept the recommendations subject, however, to the condition that the benefit of the proposed amendment to Regulation-6 would not be available to the examinations already held and results declared for the 1980-81 batch of students. The petitioner is aggrieved by the last exclusion or reserve as his Counsel puts it. He alleges that it is discrimination, because the students who will pass the fourth year examination, though belonging to the batch 1981-1982, hereafter will be considered for determination of the class only by the amended regulation, thus giving them an advantage which the petitioner and the like of him oas been denied. This, according to him, constitutes violation of Article 14 in that similarly placed persons have been dissimilarly treated. In the result, he has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the concerned authority of the University to extend the benefit to all students in which case he will also get the benefit of being classified in first class.
2. I do not think such a Mandamus can be issued by this Court. First, that this recommendation accepted by the Academic Council has become Regulation in accordance with the Karnataka Universities Act is cot clear. Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the said Act requires that all regulations made by the Academic Council must have the approval of Chancellor, sought and obtained through he Government. Whether such approval has been sought and obtained is not made clear. Sub-section (3) of the said Section states that it shall come into force on the date it is approved by the Chancellor or on such other date as the Chancellor may direct. In other words, unless the amendment has been given effect in accordance with the Act, this Court cannot proceed on an assumption that it has become part of the regulation. Even otherwise, I do not see how it is discriminatory. Admittedly, petitioner belongs to a particular Academic year batch. He has completed that course under a regulation which governed that course then. If that regulation stands as it is on the date of declaration of his results, only that regulation must be applied and no other. Assuming that there was a regulation modifying the earlier regulation, making it obligatory to take the final year examination for determination of class, this Court, if satisfied that it is discriminatory, can at best quash it. This Court has no power under Article 226 to direct the Academic Council to change the regulation and make it available to other students who are excluded by the proposed amendment. In the case of State of U.P. v. Raja Ram Jaismal, : 3SCR1021 Supreme Court has said as follows :
'Where the High Court in a Writ Petition challenging remand order in appeal against refusal to grant licence to exhibit cinematograph directed the licensing authority by a writ of mandamus, to grant licence in question, the High Court was clearly in error in issuing the mandamus.'
Similarly, in a recent case the Supreme Court has laid down that the High Court or Supreme Court has no power to issue a mandamus directing the Legislature to legislate in a particular manner. The underlying principles of the above decisions are very clear that judicial restrain must prevail over its anxiety. Persons entrusted to do a job must be left to do their job without even judicial interference except to the extent that their completed actions do not infringe any legal or constitutional right of a person. If this is borne in mind, the prayer of the petitioner is misconceived.
3. Therefore, this petition is rejected.