Judgment :- 1. The three petitioners in O. P. No. 567 and toe 38 petitioners in O. P. No. 1045 of 1976 challenge the Regulation sought to be made by the University of Kerala in regard to the Post-Graduate Medical Course of that University by which, candidates like the petitioners in these writ petitions admitted to the course in 1974, were asked to take examinations in Part 1 of the Course commencing from tomorrow. By the interim orders granted by this Court, in O. P No. 567 of 1976, an interim stay of operation of the concerned notification as far as the petitioners are concerned was granted. Interim stay granted in O. P. 1045 of 1976 was vacated by order dated 17-3-1976. The hearing of these writ petitions was expedited as delay might render them infructuous. 2. The only ground on which the petitioners challenge the Regulation clamped on them by the University is that under the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and the First Statutes 1972, the right of making Regulations belongs to the Academic Council, that these Regulations had to be published and submitted to the Senate, and if not so submitted, the Regulations would lapse and be of no effect whatsoever. It was therefore said that in so far as the examinations were sought to be prescribed without following the procedure of passing Regulations by the Academic Council, publishing them, and submitting them to Senate, the prescription of the examination was not legal and proper. Our attention was called to S.25 clause (ii) of the Act. S.25 provides for powers and duties of the Academic Council. It enacts: "25. Powers and duties of Academic Council. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Academic Council shall have the following powers, duties and functions namely: [i] ...... [ii] to make Regulations and to amend or repeal the same S. 38 Clause (a) of the Act was referred to, under which the Academic Council subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, may make regulations providing inter alia the courses of studies and conduct of examinations. Further, our attention was called to the First Statutes 1972. Statute No. 6 of the 1st Statutes in Chapter XV provides: "6. Further, our attention was called to the First Statutes 1972. Statute No. 6 of the 1st Statutes in Chapter XV provides: "6. Approval of Regulations Every Regulation made or amendment or repeal thereof shall be submitted as soon as may be, to the Chancellor and to the Senate during its next meeting and shall be subject to such modification, as may be made by the Senate by a resolution passed at such meeting. If any Regulation or an amendment or repeal thereof is not so laid before the Senate, the Regulation or amendment shall lapse or the Regulation repealed shall revive as the case may be, after the next meeting of the Senate". S. 41 of the University Act requires that the Regulations, Statutes and Ordinances and Regulations made under the Act shall be published in the Gazette. It was in the light of these provisions that the petitioners' Counsel submitted that the prescription of examinations had been specifically provided for to be done by Regulations by the Academic Council, that these Regulations had to be published in the Gazette, and had to be submitted to the Senate and Vice Chancellor for approval and unless so done, they would lapse. 3. The answer made for the University was that the power of regulating examinations by Regulations framed by the University does not exhaust the powers of the Academic Council, that as S.38 itself would indicate, the power of framing regulations was only an enabling power which the Council may exercise, and that even in default of Regulations, duly framed and published, and approved by the Senate and the Vice Chancellor, the Academic Council had the requisite power of regulating examinations under S.24 (2) of the Act. The said Section reads as follows: "24. The Academic Council (1) The Academic Council shall be the academic body of the University. (2) The Academic Council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, have the control and general regulation, and be responsible for the maintenance of standards, of instruction, education and examinations within the University, and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes". We have given careful consideration to the provisions of the various sections of the Act and the provisions of the Statute to which our attention was drawn. We have given careful consideration to the provisions of the various sections of the Act and the provisions of the Statute to which our attention was drawn. It seems to us that the stand taken by the University is well-founded and is entitled to acceptance. S.24 (2) gives the Academic Council, the power of control, and general regulation of, and responsibility for, the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination within the University This power is in addition to the exercising of such other power, and the performance of such other functions conferred or imposed by the Statute. It must also be remembered that under the provisions of Chapter X, Statute I of the First Statute, the Academic Council is ordinarily to meet once in six months; and, as and when required by the Vice Chancellor In the nature of things, it seems to us, it would be very necessary to vest in such a body as the Academic Council, meet-rag only at comparatively long intervals, a general and residuary power regarding the control of examinations and the maintenance of standards in connection with the affairs of the University, such as is provided for by S.24 (2) of the Act. It seems to us too, that the existence of statutory power to frame regulation and to specifically prescribe matters connected with the examinations of the University does not necessarily detract from the existence of a general or residuary power in respect of these matters, so long as such Regulations have not been framed by the Academic Council. The view that we take, seems, in some measure, to be supported by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kallar Cardamom Auction Company v. Cardamom Board (1975 KLT 290). In Para.9 of the said judgment, reference was made to the provisions of the Cardamom Act, 1955 which was as follows: "S. 9 (3) The Board shall perform its functions under this section in accordance with and subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government". Construing the above Section, the Bench observed: "Para, 9. It is true that S.9 sub-s. (3) uses both the expressions "in accordance with" and "subject to any rules". Construing the above Section, the Bench observed: "Para, 9. It is true that S.9 sub-s. (3) uses both the expressions "in accordance with" and "subject to any rules". Even if it is to be held that the expression "in accordance with" indicate pre-exisieoce of rules, we do not find our way to accept the contention that the Board can exercise powers only if there are rules regulating its activities". We are therefore of the opinion that there was power in the Academic Council under S.24 (2) of the Act to prescribe and regulate the conduct of examinations for the post-graduate medical course, and that the petitioners can have no grievance in respect of the action complained of at the instance of the University. 4. There is, as pointed out by the Counsel for the University, another aspect of the matter. If the petitioner's stand that the University can regulate courses and prescribe examinations and studies only by Regulations passed by the Academic Council were to be accepted as correct, it should follow that the provision made for Symposium of Lectures for the course by Ext. RI and for a syllabus by Ext. R 2, both produced with the counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 & 2), would also be without the authority of law. But the petitioners, without demur, have accepted, and submitted to, the instructions offered in the course without questioning the source of the power or the authority to organise the course and to regulate the symposium and the syllabus. There is force in the contention of Counsel for the University that having done so, they should not, certainly, in these proceedings, under Art.226, be allowed to turn round and question the source of the University's power when attempt is made to prescribe examinations for further and more efficient regulation to the course. We dismiss these writ petitions, but in the circumstances, without costs. Dismissed.