O.P. Saxena, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, thepetitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit him in M.Sc. (Ag) course of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad.
2. The petitioner joined the B.Sc. (Ag) course of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute and passed the examination in I Division. He applied for admission to M.Sc. (Ag) Agronomy. The petitioner appeared in the Entrance test examination held by the institute but could not qualify. He was consequently not admitted. The petitioner's grievance is that out of 96 seats, only 73 candidates have been admitted in the M.Sc. (Ag) course and a number of seats are lying vacant. The petitioner prays for admission on the ground that he is an old student of the institute. The petitioner also challenges the validity of the Entrance test conducted by the institute.
3. The respondents have contested the petition with the allegations that the petitioner did not qualify in the Entrance test and he was, therefore, not admitted. The Entrance test was being held by the institute and the petitioner had knowledge of the same and he also appeared therein. It is, therefore, urged that he is not competent to challenge the validity of Entrance test. It is further said that as the petitioner did not qualify, he cannot claim admission merely because a number of seats are vacant.
4. The parties have exchanged the affidavits and we are deciding the petition on merits at the admission stage.
5. Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the validity of Entrance test. He, however, submitted that it is nowhere provided in the prospectus of the institute that a candidate should obtain at least 50% marks for qualifying. He, therefore, urged that as a number of seats are vacant, the petitioner who scored 45 on a hundred point scale should also be admitted.
6. Sri R. H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the policy of the institute is not to admit the students who scored less than 50% on a hundred point scale and that no candidate has been admitted with less than 50%. The original list of admissions was also produced before us. He also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the right of the institute to fix the qualifying marks.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. We are of the opinion that it is the right of an institution which holds an Entrance test to fix the minimum qualifying marks. If the institution wants to maintain academic excellence and high standard of education, the course of law have no business to come in and ask the institution to lower the standard fixed by the institution. The mere fact that there are vacant seats cannot give the petitioner a right to be admitted to the institute. We have satisfied ourselves from the original list of admissions that the respondents have not admitted any student who scored less than 50% scored on a hundred point scale. In the circumstances the petition has no force.
8. The petition is dismissed. The costs will, however, be easy.