- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25383 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: SRI BHAVIT BOHRA S/O. SANJAY BOHRA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT. NO.H17, SAGAR VIHAR COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, AJMER - 305 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHINMAY G KURANDWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, PALACE ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 009 BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. SVKM'S NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, (A DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) V.L. PHEROZESHAH MEHTA ROAD, VILE PARLE WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 056. REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHANCELOR. 4. THE REGISTRAR, SVKM'S NARSEE MONJEE Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, (A DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) BENGALURU CAMPUS, KALKERE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHEEMAIAH.K.S, CGC FOR R-1 SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 29.07.2025 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- " a) Issue a of Certiorari quashing the impugned communication dated 29.07.2025 sent by the Respondent No.4, produced at Annexure-A. b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus Directing the Respondent No.3 not to migrate the Petitioner from pre-NEP curriculum to the NEP curriculum and permit the Petitioner to clear the course within the maximum duration as set out in the Student Resource Book for the years 2023-2024, produced at Annexure-B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the examination policy Annexure-G, only in so far as it relates to the passing criteria mentioned in clause 7 and 8. d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to promote the Petitioner to the next academic year of 2025-2026 of the Bachelors of Commerce (Honours) course and permit the Petitioner to carry forward the subject 'Financial Accounting-III' to the next academic year. e) In the Alternative, issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to conduct another re-examination for the subject 'Financial Accounting-III'. f) Grant such other relief/s as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned CGC for 1st respondent, learned counsel for 2nd respondent as well as learned Senior counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and perused the material on record. 3. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to refer to the Interim Order dated 22.09.2025 passed in the present petition, which reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 “Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya Holla has filed an affidavit on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4. Copy of the same is served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. After going through the affidavit, this Court requires further clarification regarding option (iii).. Learned Senior Counsel seeks for a short accommodation to secure instructions and make submissions or file another affidavit. Re-list this matter on 25.09.2025 at 2.30 p.m.” 4. As can be seen from the aforesaid interim order, respondents 3 and 4 filed an affidavit dated 22.09.2025, which reads as under: “AFFIDAVIT Dr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, Registrar at SVKM's Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Deemed to be University, V.L. Mehtha Road, Vile Parle (w), Mumbai 400056, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the 4th respondent and I am authorized to swear to this affidavit. I know the facts of the case. In order to avoid verbosity, the statement of objections maybe read as part and parcel of this affidavit 2. The Petitioner in the present case has failed Financial Accounting III in his Semester III of 2nd year in both the main examination as well as the re examination. In view of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 the examination policy, he is not eligible for promotion to the 3rd year. 3. The Petitioner, now being considered 'a year back student' has to continue his further studies along with the batch of 2024-2025, in the 2nd year The Institution has implemented the NEP 2020 policy for the batch of 2024- 2025. 4. In view of the factual circumstances, the petitioner has three options: i. He may take re-admission with the batch 2024-25 as a fresh 2nd year student and exit after 3 years of the programme with a degree of B.Com as per the student resource book 2024-25 and the examination policy. ii. He may take re-admission with the batch 2024-25 as a fresh 2nd year student and after completion of 4 years as provided in the NEP 2020 policy, graduate with the batch of 2024-25 with a degree of B.Com (Hons) as per the student resource book 2024-2025 and the examination policy. iii. He may exit after 3 years of the programme after re- admission with the batch of 2024-2025 in 2nd year, with a Degree of B.Com (Hons) subject to completion of additional credits as per the batch requirement, prescribed by the respective Transition Committee. This is a condition applicable only for a year back student, from Non NEP batch. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 5. In the present case, in all circumstance, the student has to continue his further studies with batch of 2024-2025, (the batch from which the NEP 2020 policy has been adopted) and abide by the student resource book 2024-2025 which has implemented the NEP 2020 policy. WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may take this affidavit on record and pass necessary orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. As directed in the aforesaid interim order, respondents 3 and 4 filed one more Affidavit, which reads as under: " 1. Dr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, Registrar at SVKM's Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Deemed to be University, V.L. Mehtha Road, Vile Parle (w Mumbai 400056, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the 4" respondent and I am authorized to swear to this affidavit know the facts of the case. In order to avoid verbosity, the statement objections maybe read as part and parcel of this affidavit. 2. The Petitioner in the present case has failed Financial Accounting -II Semester III of 2nd year in both the main examination as well as examination. In view of the examination policy, he is not eligible promotion to the 3rd year. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 3. The Petitioner, now being considered 'a year back student' has t his further studies along with the batch of 2024-2025, in the Institution has implemented the NEP 2020 policy for the batch 2025. 4. In view of the factual circumstances, the petitioner has three options: i. He may take re-admission with the batch 2024-25 as a fresh 2nd years student and exit after 3 years of the programme with B.Com as per the student resource book 2024-25 and the examination policy. ii. He may take re-admission with the batch 2024-25 as a fresh 2nd year student and after completion of 4 years as provided in the NEP 2020 policy, graduate with the batch of 2024-25 with a degree of B.Com (Hons) as per the student resource book 2024-2025 and the examination policy. iii. He may exit after 3 years of the programme after re-admission with the batch of 2024- 2025 in 2nd year, with a Degree of B.Com (Hons.) subject to completion of additional credits as per the batch requirement, prescribed by the respective Transition Committee. This is a condition applicable only for a year back student, from Non NEP batch. 5. In the present case, in all circumstance, the student has to continue his further studies with batch of 2024-2025, (the batch from which the NEP 2020 policy has been adopted) and abide by the student resource book 2024-2025 which has implemented the NEP 2020 policy. WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may take affidavit on record and pass necessary orders as this Hon'ble Court fit, in the interest of justice and equity." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 6. In the case of Guru Nank Dev University vs. Parminder KR. Bansal and Others - 1993 (4) SCC 401, the Apex Court held as under:- “7. Shri Gambhir is right in his submission. We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions.” 7. In the case of Vipin Sharma vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Another - 2009 SCC OnLine Del 203, the Delhi High Court held as under:- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 “17. Clause 11(b)(1) provides for conduct of supplementary examinations for students who have failed to obtain 50% marks. The petitioner has assailed the said clause as being arbitrary. It is settled law that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with the matters relating to the internal working of educational institutions since the decisions taken by the academic bodies are in the nature of policy decisions. The decisions can be interfered with only in case they are unreasonable or arbitrary. It should also be kept in mind that the regulations are made on the basis of experience of actual day to day working of the educational institution and consequently the Court should not exercise the power to interfere with the internal working of an educational institution imparting education unless the decisions are ex facie unreasonable, arbitrary or in denial of the principles of natural justice. In Ashutosh Bharti v. The Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (Regd), WP © No. 19809 of 2004, order dated 14-1-2005 (Del) a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the cases of the students who had shortage of attendance and who had challenged the decision of the academic body to consider the condonation of shortage of attendance of only 5% and not beyond 5% had held that if any step is taken by an academic body towards better educational method and standard, the Court should not come in the way but the Court should rather commend and encourage it. It was held that though those who fail to maintain standards round the year may lose a very valuable - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 year of their young career, just as they lose if they fail in the examination but matters of academic judgment are not for the Courts to entertain. Better standards are required for learning and it can be got from experiences and different modalities. In the circumstances, it was observed that educational institutions are the best judge to impose appropriate restrictions and conditions. Merely because the conditions which are imposed should be found inconvenient to some students it cannot be challenged as being arbitrary. 18. The power of the Court to review the university rules prescribing minimum attendance of post graduates was considered by a Single Judge in Azra Seema Iyengar v. J.P.S. Oberoi, AIR 1979 Del 101. In this case the petitioner was a student of MA (Previous) in the Department of Sociology for a two year course. The petitioner had irregular attendance in tutorials and seminars. Out of total 46 seminars the student had attended only 24 as against the minimum requirement of 34. Though a medical certificate was produced by her but even considering the period when she was not medically fit, she was still short of attendance and an order was passed detaining her, which action of the Department was challenged by her. The plea of the petitioner that requirement of eligibility with reference to the attendance at tutorials, seminars etc. for post graduate students being unreasonable on the ground that students at that level were sufficiently matured to look after their own interest and could complete their requisite course of study even on their own, without the assistance of the university or attendance at the tutorials or participation in the seminars, was repelled and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 rejected. It was held as to what should be the attendance requirement and whether the attendance for seminars and tutorials is necessary or not is more of a policy decision and this facet of the system of education is to be considered by educationists and not by the Court and it will be beyond the scope of judicial review. The said student, however, had been allowed to appear in the examination under the directions made by the Court and in the circumstances it was contended that the university authorities should take a sympathetic view especially since the petitioner was able to secure requisite marks at the examination. The Court had held that it would not be appropriate for the Court to make any direction to the university even if the suggestion of the student was reasonable as it was for the university authority to consider the matter. 19. The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 had set aside the order of Patna High Court directing re-evaluation of the answer book of a candidate although there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer book. It was held that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court had held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer books re-evaluated no such direction could be issued by a Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 20. When an academic year should commence and when it should end was held to be eminently a matter for the education authorities and not for the Court in State of U.P v. D.K. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 160 by the Supreme Court. It was held that Court should not dislocate the time schedule of the University for the convenience of a few students. In this case some of the students were unable to apply for admission to the post graduate courses which commenced in March, 1986. It was claimed by the students who had not been able to get admission that it would be wastage of time for them to wait for six months till January, 1987 for admission to the next post graduate course. Representation were made to the authorities and on their failure to accept the representations, a writ petition was filed in the High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to commence the post graduate course in July, 1986 instead of January, 1987 and admit them so that there may be continuity and no disruption in their medical studies. The High Court had allowed the writ petition holding that it was unreasonable on the part of the authorities to compel the students to wait for six months for no fault of theirs. The High Court had also expressed the view that the authorities were unnecessarily rigid in their view that the post graduate course should commence in January only. The order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court holding that the Court was not justified in interfering in a matter of such an academic nature. It was further held that the question whether a course of study should commence in January or July of a year in a post graduate medical institution is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 dependent on number of factors like the availability of seats, availability of beds in the hospital, the availability of teachers, laboratories and equipment and a host of other factors with which the Courts are not familiar and ordinarily it should, therefore, be a matter best left to the university to decide. 21. In the light of the law laid down in abovementioned decisions I find it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that Clause 11(b)(i) of Ordinance-11 of the Respondent University is arbitrary as it stipulates holding of semester examination only once a year for a subject of the particular semester. It could be that the petitioner is inconvenienced by the said rule of the respondent University. It could also be that on account of the said rule the petitioner stands to lose out on his chances of pursuing his higher education abroad this very academic year. But these are not grounds that would compel this court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to strike down academic policy of the respondent University. Xxxxx 33. This is not the contention of the respondent that the decision of the respondent is not open to judicial review. It appears that the contention is that the decision is not to be interfered with unless it is unreasonable and arbitrary. In order to ascertain whether a decision is unreasonable or arbitrary it has to be kept in mind that the regulations and rules are made on the basis of experience of actual day to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 day working of the educational institutions. Merely because a particular decision is not conducive or helpful to a particular student, the same cannot be termed unreasonable or arbitrary and the Court also should not exercise the power to interfere with the internal working of an educational institution imparting education in such circumstances. If conducting a supplementary examination of one student can lead to holding of supplementary examination for other students in other semesters and in other courses, considering various factors and the logistics and the time schedule which has to be maintained by the University, if the request of a candidate is declined, it cannot be termed ex facie unreasonable or arbitrary. 34. The logistics for conducting the examination cannot be equated with relaxation being granted for age of admission or admitting a student not having certain qualifications to a course. Though it has not been spelt out clearly by the Vice Chancellor as to what steps would be required to conduct the supplementary examination, however, it cannot be inferred that the Vice Chancellor was not aware of it and has not taken into consideration this aspect as it has been categorically stipulated in the impugned order that conducting a special supplementary examination will have tremendous impact on the declaration of the scheduled results. The academicians are not like judges and it cannot be anticipated or expected from them to write detailed orders dealing with each and every point in detail as the Judges do. In any case while exercising the power of judicial review this Court is also not exercising - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 appellate jurisdiction and ascertaining the validity of an order on the basis of finer technical rules of law. 35. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the supplementary examinations were conducted till 2007 the supplementary examination can be conducted in 2009 and should be conducted is without any rationale. Even though the impugned order does not spell out in detail as to what were the conditions under which examination were conducted in the previous years from 2004 up to 2007, cogent reasons have been given as to why special supplementary examinations cannot be conducted in 2009 by alluring to the various logistics involved in conducting the supplementary examination. In the totality of facts and circumstances which are apparent from the order, the observation of the Vice Chancellor that previous supplementary examinations for 2004-2007 for some of the candidates were contrary to Ordinance of the University also cannot be faulted. In any case in the present facts and circumstances as has been spelt out by the Vice Chancellor for not conducting the supplementary examinations, it will be inappropriate for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct him to conduct the supplementary examination. 36. The contention of the petitioner that the decision of the university to award grace marks vide order 16th January, 2009 thereby allowing students who had failed in one or more papers to complete the course, is not for academic excellence and therefore, the committee could not reject the plea for supplementary examination on the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 ground of academic excellence, is not sustainable. If granting grace mark for some reason is not for sustaining academic excellence does not mean that the decision of the committee not to conduct supplementary examination will also be not for sustaining academic excellence. The plea of the petitioner is illogical and cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances. 37. Therefore in the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Vice Chancellor not to hold special supplementary examination for the petitioner for the paper Indirect Taxes, cannot be faulted and the University cannot be directed to hold special supplementary examination for the petitioner for the ninth semester in subject ‘Indirect Taxes’ nor the respondents can be directed to amend their Ordinance for conducting special supplementary examination for the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.” 8. In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commissioner, Patna and others - 2004(6) SCC 714, the Apex Court held as under:- “7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer- books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer- books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer- - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer- books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated. 8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re- evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided. 9. Even otherwise, the manner in which the learned Single Judge had the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated cannot be justified. The answer-book was not sent directly by the Court either to the Registrar of Patna University or to the Principal of Science College. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed over - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 to the Standing Counsel for Patna University who returned the same to the Court after some time and a statement was made to the effect that the same had been examined by two teachers of Patna Science College. The names of the teachers were not even disclosed to the Court. The examination in question is a competitive examination where the comparative merit of a candidate has to be judged. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard is applied in examining the answer-books of all the candidates. It is the specific case of the Commission that in order to achieve such an objective, a centralised system of evaluation of answer-books is adopted wherein different examiners examine the answer-books on the basis of model answers prepared by the Head Examiner with the assistance of other examiners. It was pleaded in the letters patent appeal preferred by the Commission and which fact has not been disputed that the model answer was not supplied to the two teachers of Patna Science College. There can be a variation of standard in awarding marks by different examiners. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated, the marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and consequently, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Commission to treat the marks of the appellant in General Science paper as 63 cannot be justified.” 9. In the case of Kumari Tishika Aniket vs State of Karnataka and others - W.P.No. 11173/2023 dated 26.07.2023, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:- - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 “8. The respondent No.4-school is being run by the Central Government through its Ministry of Education, Government of India. Unlike private schools affiliated to CBSE and State Boards, the age of entry to class-I has remained 5 plus years for the academic year 2022-23. Therefore, respondent No.4 is bound to follow the guidelines issued by NEP, 2020 and imparting school education has envisaged creation of infrastructure (pre-school of age 3 to 6). The respondent No.4 has adopted NEP, 2020 and therefore, the eligibility criteria of minimum and maximum age for registration for admission to class-I and above is rightly modified by respondent No.4 which is obviously in terms of mandate of NEP, 2020. The admission guidelines issued by respondent No.4 and by the State are found to be legal, valid and in conformity with NEP, 2020. 9. The respondent-State has come up with a age norm in accordance with NEP (NEP, 2020 guidelines). The Karnataka Education Department has rightly mandated that minimum age limit for admission to class-I in schools in Karnataka should be 6 years as on June 1st, while currently the age limit is 5 years 5 months. The petitioner's contention that the guidelines have to be implemented prospectively cannot be acceded to. The NEP guidelines in fixing the age criteria is based on overall global education standards. Following the adoption of Global Education Development Agenda, India is seeking to ensure inclusive and equitable education for all by 2030. The new 5+3+3+4 education system aims at developing individuals with emphasis on cognitive capacities such as critical thinking and problem - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 solving and building social, emotional and ethical abilities. This policy proposes to replace the existing 10+2 structure of school education with 5+3+3+4 education system covering ages 3 to 18 and includes kindergarten/play school education. The classification of stages in NEP education system has been done based on the intellectual growth of a student. In the earlier model, the age group of 3 to 6 was not covered. Therefore, experts have come up with a new guidelines with a hope that a strong foundation of early childhood care and education would be given to the students and this is obviously aimed at promoting play-based, activity- based, inquiry-based and flexible way of learning. 10. If the experts are of the view that policy focuses on formative and holistic assessment to reduce exam-related pressure and fear among students as the students reach to a higher secondary education, this Court under the garb of judicial review cannot alter the educational guidelines set up by the competent authority. NEP 2020 guidelines are brought into force with a hope that it will address multiple problem areas across educational institutions that require improvement. Prima facie, I am convinced that there is a core focus on enabling holistic development of students and therefore, one student's inconvenience that he/she will be compelled to repeat the class cannot in itself constitute a ground to interfere with the guidelines. 11. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the parties, even though I find some force in the petitioner's plea that this change in age criteria - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 by NEP, 2020 is found to be little late in the day, cannot constitute a ground to interfere with the said policy. The respondents have strongly urged that this change was necessitated to ensure that NEP formulated after extensive consultation with the experts is made applicable all over the country at the earliest. The RTE Act, 2009 in itself places the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in a separate category coupled with the fact that all branches across the country being run by the same management are obliged to follow uniform criteria. It is also borne out from the records that NEP, 2020 is not under challenge in the captioned petition. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. This Court has to bear in mind the role of statutory expert bodies in education and role of Courts are well defined. If the question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter is raised before writ Courts, the Courts keep their hands off. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that, Judges must not rush in where even educationist fear to tread. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that Courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. Unless, any illegality is committed in the education policy or same is contrary to law, decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court. Taking cognizance of the statement of objections, this Court is not inclined to express and test the guidelines issued by the NEP. I am of the view that it is best left to the discretion of the State. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.” 10. In the case of Sri. Aaditya Gupta vs. SVKMS Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies and others - W.P No. 14686/2025 dated 08.07.2025, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:- “5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner has appeared for III Semester (2 years) Final Examination of Bachelor of Business Administration, Degree Course offered by the respondent Institution. The petitioner has secured 16 marks out of 50 marks in the subject 'Direct and Indirect Tax' and declared as 'FAIL' as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, petitioner sought for revaluation, pursuant to the e.mail addressed by the petitioner and same was increased to 19 as per Annexure-D. However, results were declared as 'FAIL'. The petitioner re-took the test and secure 11 marks out of 50 marks as per Annexure-E. Though the petitioner alleged there were discrepancies in the evaluation of his re-test paper, I have carefully examined the marks awarded in the original valuation, re-valuation and marks awarded after re-test and the petitioner has been declared 'FAIL'. It is settled principle in law that the interference of - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 this Court in the processes of academic evaluation, ranking and selection is very limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and same are in the domain of academic field (see AIR 2012 SC 214). 6. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAN VIJAY SINGH (supra), that, in disputed questions of awarding marks, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the discrepancies urged by the petitioner with regard to awarding lesser marks to the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petitioner has obtained lesser than the requisite marks in the qualifying examination, revaluation and re- examination conducted by the respondent Institution and therefore, this writ petition is rejected.” 11. Director (Studies, Dr.Ambedkar Institutute of Hotel Management Nutrition and Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan - 2009(1) SCC 59, the Apex Court held as under:- “11. Coming to the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 31-3-2006, it may be noted that in the very second sentence of the order the learned Single Judge stated that the record did not bear out whether the chit had actually been used in the examination. As already noted above, this was a wholly irrelevant consideration. Once it is found that - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 the chit/piece of paper contains material pertaining to the examination in question it amounts to malpractice, whether the same was used by the examinee or not. 12. The learned Single Judge in the interim order has then emphasised on the fact that the respondent had apologised and had confessed to the possession of the chit. In our opinion this again is a misplaced sympathy. We are of the firm opinion that in academic matters there should be strict discipline and malpractices should be severely punished. If our country is to progress we must maintain high educational standards, and this is only possible if malpractices in examinations in educational institutions are curbed with an iron hand. 13. The learned Single Judge in the interim order then states “if we care to think back to our student days, one would invariably recollect preparation of such kind of slips for refreshing the mind immediately before an examination, with no further intent to use it in an unfair or illegitimate manner”. 14. Here again, we respectfully cannot approve of the above observation of the learned Single Judge. A judge is supposed to keep his personal views in the background and not inject them in the judgments. What was done in his student days was surely irrelevant for deciding the case or even passing an interim order. It is true that seeing a slip of paper before commencement of the examination is not a malpractice, but in the present case we are concerned with its use during the examination and not before the examination. Hence we fail to see how the above observation of the learned Single Judge could be justified. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 15. The learned Single Judge has then directed the institution to allow the respondent to reappear in the forthcoming “Front Office examination”. In our opinion, this again was wholly illegal. As noted in Rule 9.2 (quoted above), even if a candidate has used unfair means only in one paper, he will be deemed to have failed in all the papers. In the present case, the respondent no doubt was found with a slip of paper in the “Front Office examination” which was only one of the papers. However, in view of Rule 9.2 he will have to reappear in the entire examination i.e. in all the papers, and not merely in the Front Office examination. 16. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was wholly unjustified in passing the aforesaid interim order dated 31-3-2006. 17. Thereafter in the final judgment dated 30-10-2006, the learned Single Judge directed the result of the respondent to be declared forthwith for the subject “Front Office” for which the respondent appeared in April 2006 pursuant to the interim order dated 31-3-2006, and also to declare the result of the respondent in other subjects in which he appeared in 2005. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the offence, particularly since the respondent had shown remorse and sought forgiveness. 18. We are afraid we cannot agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As already stated above, we have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 country is to progress. Sympathy for students using unfair means is wholly out of place. 19. Moreover, the respondent examinee has been given the minimum punishment under the Rules and no lesser punishment could have been imposed, except in exceptional circumstances. It is true that when a person confesses his guilt it is often treated as a mitigating circumstance and calls for lesser punishment if that is permissible. However, this is not an absolute rule and will not apply in all kinds of cases. In particular, as stated above, in academic matters there should be no leniency at all if our country is to progress. Apart from that, the respondent had been given the minimum punishment under Rule 9.2 and we fail to understand how a lesser punishment could have been given to him, except by exercising discretion in a particular case. This is not that kind of exceptional case, and no sympathy was called for. 20. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 30- 10-2006 has directed that the writ petitioner's result in the subject “Front Office” in which he appeared in April 2006 and other papers in which he appeared in 2005 be declared forthwith. In our opinion, this was an illegal direction, because as stated in Rule 9.1, once a candidate has been found using unfair means even in one subject/paper, he will be deemed to have failed in all the subjects/papers and he has to rewrite the entire examination, and not merely for the single paper in which he is found to have used unfair means. 21. An appeal was filed before the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which has been dismissed by - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 the impugned judgment which we have carefully perused. We regret our inability to agree with the Division Bench. xxxxx 27. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of High School & Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad [AIR 1966 SC 875] (vide AIR para 12), J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436 : AIR 1980 SC 2141] (vide SCC para 17 : AIR para 17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University [1986 Supp SCC 740 : AIR 1986 SC 1448] (vide SCC para 7 : AIR para 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair means in the examinations.” 12. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that insofar as the impugned communication at Annexure-A dated 29.07.2025 sent by 4th respondent is concerned, the same cannot - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 be said to be suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 13. Insofar as prayer(b) is concerned, having regard to the New Education Policy (NEP) which came into force in the academic year 2024-25, the question of issuing any directions to the 3rd respondent not to apply the New Education Policy to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-B would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and as such, the said prayer sought for by the petitioner also cannot be granted. 14. Insofar as challenge to the NEP at Annexure-G to the extent it relates to the passing criteria mentioned in clauses 7 and 8 therein is concerned, as per prayer(c), no valid or sufficient ground has been made out to challenge the said passing criteria in the NEP and consequently, even this prayer cannot be granted. 15. Consequently, in view of what is stated herein before, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief sought for in prayer(d) also. 16. Insofar as alternative prayer for a direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct another re-examination in the subject - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41141 WP No. 25383 of 2025 Financial Accounting - III is concerned, in the absence of any Regulations which permit such conducting of re-examination, the petitioner would not be entitled to this relief also. 17. Insofar as contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that he has a legitimate expectation not to migrate but to continue education as per the terms and conditions of the course at the time he took admission is concerned, in view of the NEP having been challenged and that the same having been rejected, even this contention cannot be accepted. 18. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the various contentions urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, all the grievances of the petitioner have been adequately and sufficiently safeguarded and protected by the aforesaid Affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the present petition. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.