JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. The appellants claimed to be the students of the 3rd year of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery Degree Course of the Jamini Bhusan Roy State Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta. According to the appellants, on 4th May, 1976, the University of Calcutta had notified the syllabus and scheme of Examination of the said B.A.M.S Degree Course which had been accepted by the Academic Council of the University of Calcutta on 22nd March, 1973. The Regulations in this behalf were circulated under an earlier notification dated 18th July, 1975. Thereafter, on 4th of June, 1976 the Government of West Bengal had invited applications in the prescribed forms from the eligible candidates for admission to the one year Pre-Ayurvedic College leading to the B.A.M.S. Degree Course of the Calcutta University in the Jamini Bhusan State Ayurvedic Collage and Hospital, Calcutta for the session on 1976-77. The appellants who were selected had taken admission in the said Pre-Ayurvedic B.A.M.S. Course and had also appeared in the annual test examination 1977. Thereafter, they had appeared in the Preliminary Examination in the Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery of B.A.M.S. Degree Course of the Calcutta University. The said nomination although due to be held in June, 1977 was actually held in September, 1977. The results of the said Preliminary Examination in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery were published on 29th May, 1978. 2. The appellants claimed, that in November, 1977 the second year class for the first examination of B.A.M.S. Degree Course in the Jamini Bhusan Roy State Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital had commenced and they had bean reading according to the curriculum of the B.A.M.S. Degree Course prescribed by the Regulations for the said Course framed by the Academic Council of the Calcutta University on 22nd March, 1971 and which was notified by the Calcutta University on 18th July, 1975. According to the respondents the Central Council of Indian Medicine under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 had prescribed an uniform Ayurvedic Course of Studies and had refused to recognize in future any other course. 3. The Calcutta University Council at its meeting on l3th July, 1978 had confirmed the proceedings of the Ayurvedic Committee of the said University dated 17th June, 1978 which had accepted the syllabi and the said Regulations prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine subjects to modification, if necessary. 3. The Calcutta University Council at its meeting on l3th July, 1978 had confirmed the proceedings of the Ayurvedic Committee of the said University dated 17th June, 1978 which had accepted the syllabi and the said Regulations prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine subjects to modification, if necessary. The duration of the said course of studies for the Degree of Ayurvedic Medicine was made 5 years after plus two stages. The Ayurvedic Committee further had resolved that the students who were reading in the first year class of the Ayurvedic course and also those students who would join the said course for the session 1978-79 after passing plus two Higher Secondary Examination, would follow the new syllabi and curriculum as accepted above. The said Regulations also stipulated that for the admission to the now 5 years B.A.M.S. Course students coming from plus two Higher Secondary Course should have passed the same with Sanskrit as of their subjects. 4. The appellants have claimed that the said new course was not applicable to them but the Principal of the Jamini Bhusan Ray State Ayurvedic Medicine College and Hospital purported to apply the said new Regulations for B.A.M.S. Course to them. The appellants have contended that they were entitled to continue their studies according to the previous Regulations for B.A.M.S. Course and the new Regulations could not and did nit govern them. Accordingly they filed a writ petition upon which Civil Rule No. 5735(W) of 1978 was issued. In their writ petition they prayed that the respondents be commanded to withdraw, rescind or cancel the order dated 7th August, 1978 as indicated in the copy of the proceedings of the Ayurvedic Committee dated 17th June, 1978 and accepted by the Calcutta University of 13th of July, 1978. They also prayed that the respondents be commanded to allow the appellant-petitioners to complete their course of study according to the previous Regulations for B.A.M.S. Degree Course and for further commanding the respondents not to enforce the new Regulations (vide Annexures 'I', 'K' and 'L' to the writ petition) 5. The University of Calcutta and the State of West Bengal contested the Civil Rule No. 5736(W) of 1978 obtained by the appellant-petitioners. On 22nd December, 1978 his Lordship, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee discharged the said Rule without costs. The University of Calcutta and the State of West Bengal contested the Civil Rule No. 5736(W) of 1978 obtained by the appellant-petitioners. On 22nd December, 1978 his Lordship, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee discharged the said Rule without costs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 6. The principle point in this appeal is whether or not the appellant-petitioners have any vested right to complete the B.A.M.S Degree course according to the Regulations for the said Course accepted by the Academic Council on 22nd March, 1973 and notified by the Registrar, Calcutta University on 18th July, 1975. In other words, whether the appellants would be governed by the said old Regulations or by the new Regulations prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine which was accepted by the Ayurvedic Committee on 17th June, 1978 and also approved by the Calcutta University Council on 13th July, 1978. 7. Mr. Nani Coomar Chakraborty, the learned Advocate for the appellant-petitioners, has submitted that when the aforesaid Regulations for B.A.M.S Degree Course come into force, they were then reading in the Third year class of the old B.A.M.S. Count and, therefore the new Regulations have no manner of application to them. The University of Calcutta, the Authorities of the Jamini Bhusan Roy state Ayurvedic Medicine College and Hospital and the Central Council of Indian Medicine have no right or authority to deprive the appellant petitioners of their vested right to prosecute and complete the old B.A.M.S. Course under the Regulations framed by the Academic Council of the Calcutta University on 22nd March, 1973. Mr. Chakraborty has taken us through a large number of papers including the admission notice, receipts for tution fees paid by his clients and also the routine prescribed by the Principal of the Jamini Bhusan Roy State Ayurvedic Medicine College and Hospital to establish that the appellants had been reading, in the 3rd year class when the new Regulations for the Ayurvedic Degree Course came into force. 8. We are unable to accept the above submission of Mr. Chakraborty that the appellants were reading in the 3rd year class of the old B.A.M.S. Degree Course because the same would be clearly contrary to the Regulations made in the 23rd March, 1978 and notified on 18th July, 1975. 8. We are unable to accept the above submission of Mr. Chakraborty that the appellants were reading in the 3rd year class of the old B.A.M.S. Degree Course because the same would be clearly contrary to the Regulations made in the 23rd March, 1978 and notified on 18th July, 1975. The said Regulations for the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Examination accepted by the Academic Council of the Calcutta University on 22nd March, 1973 prescribed the following three examinations : (1) Preliminary examination in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. (2) Final Examination in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. According to the said Regulations any under-graduate of the Calcutta University would be admitted to the Preliminary Examination in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery if he fulfilled the conditions mentioned in clause (a) to (c) of the said Regulation. A candidate in order to be admitted to the said Preliminary Examination was thus required to attend a regular course of study for not less than one academic year at an institution affiliated to the University for the purpose. The Regulation (2) mentioned the subjects for the preliminary Examination, the maximum marks as also the pass-marks in the said subjects. 9. The said Regulations of 1973 stipulated that a candidate could be admitted to the First Examination of Ayurvedic Medicine when he has passed the Preliminary Examination at least two years previously and had completed a regular course of study theoretical and practical in the subjects to the examination "extending over a period of at least two years subsequent to his passing the preliminary examination Ayurvedic Medicine in a collages of Ayurvedic Medicine affiliated to the University in the First Examination standard.." It is not relevant to refer to other conditions for admission to the first examination of Ayurvedic Medicine under the aforesaid Regulations or 1973. Similarly, a candidate would be allowed to appear in the Final Examination only when he had already passed the First Examination and had completed two years regular course of study subsequently to his passing the First Examination. 10. The petitioners claimed that they had appeared in the preliminary Ayurvedic Examination, June, 1977 held in September, 1977. Their results were published in May, 1978. 10. The petitioners claimed that they had appeared in the preliminary Ayurvedic Examination, June, 1977 held in September, 1977. Their results were published in May, 1978. In terms of the Regulations of 1973 mentioned above, one of the conditions of Eligibility for appearing in the First Examination of Ayurvedic Medicine was that the candidate must have completed the prescribed course of study for the first Examination for atleast two years subsequent to his passing the Preliminary Examination of Ayurvedic Medicine. In other words, the previous Regulations of 1973 clearly stipulated that for qualifying as a candidate for admission to that First Examination, one's course of study shall commence only after he had passed the preliminary examination. The duration of such study for the Preliminary Examination of old B.A.M.S. Course was two years after the passing of the Preliminary Examination. 11. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Chakraborty the under the said previous Regulations of 1973 the passing of the Preliminary Examination in Ayurvedic Medicine was not a condition precedent for admission to the course of study for the First Examination of Ayurvedic Medicine. The appellants had appeared in the Preliminary Examination held in September, 1971. The results of the said preliminary examination were published in May, 1978. Some of the appellate had passed the said examination and others had failed. Those who were unsuccessful cannot claim that they had begun to read for the First Examination or that they had advanced up to the Third Year of the B.A.M.S. Course and even those who were successful in the said Preliminary Examination could not count the period of their study for the First Examination of Ayurvedic Medicine under the Regulations for 1973 from any point of time earlier than the date of their passing of the Preliminary Examination. In the above view, it was not at all material how the class attended by the appellants were described by the college authorities who could not have over-ridden the Regulations of 1973. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge rightly accepted the case of the respondents that prior to the passing of the Preliminary Examination, the appellants (petitioners) had not been attending the regular classes for qualifying to appear in the First Examination under the old Regulations. 12. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellants, had pointed out that the Principal of the College while prescribing. 12. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellants, had pointed out that the Principal of the College while prescribing. In the routine of the classes did not describe them as tutorial but the said classes attended by the appellants were described regular ones for the Ayurvedic course. We have already pointed out that in the terms of the Regulations of 1973 one of the prescribed conditions was that the course of study shall be for a period of at least two years after the passing of the Preliminary Examination of Ayurvedic Medicine. Therefore, the Principal of the said College was not competent to make a departure from the Regulations of 1973 which prescribed two years regular course of study in order to qualify for appearing the First Ayurvedic Examination under the said Regulations of 1973. 13. In his judgment, the learned Single Judge has set out in some detail the circumstances under which the Calcutta University had accepted a new set of Regulations for the Ayurvedic Course. The learned Single Judge also referred to the fact that the Central Council of the Indian Medicine constituted under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 had laid down the minimum standard of education in Indian Medicine. The Central Council under Suction 21 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 may withdraw recognition of any particular decree course in case the conditions laid down by the Council, are not followed or maintained. According to the respondents consistent with the syllabus laid down by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, the University of Calcutta had to modify the prescribed course for the B.A.M.S. Examination. We agree with the learned Single Judge that in the facts and circumstances of this case the Calcutta University did not act in an arbitrary manner. 14. Mr. Chakraborty did not initially dispute the finding of the learned Single Judge that his clients who had been admitted according to the previous Regulations of 1973 had no vested right to prosecute and complete their course according to the said Regulations of 1973. According to the finding made by the learned Single Judge the petitioners were only the students of the Preliminary Ayurvedic Course Act, when the new Regulations came into force. But, at the time of the further hearing of this appeal Mr. According to the finding made by the learned Single Judge the petitioners were only the students of the Preliminary Ayurvedic Course Act, when the new Regulations came into force. But, at the time of the further hearing of this appeal Mr. Chakraborty submitted that his clients had Fundamental Rights under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution to acquire professional qualifications in order to exercise their Fundamental Rights. Mr. Chakraborty in support of his submission has relied upon the two decisions reported in (1) Anand Vardhan Chandel v. University of Delhi & anr., AIR 1978 Delhi 308 and (2) Inder Prakash v. Deputy Commissioner, Delhi and others, AIR 1979 Delhi 87. 15. The petitioner in Anand Vardan Chandel’s case (supra) was a student of the Delhi University. The Chief Election Officer for conducting the election of the office bearers of the Students’ Union on the ground of delay had rejected his nomination paper. The petitioner filed a writ petition. Despande and Annad, JJ. in paragraph (6) of their judgment had observed that the petitioner did not plead in this behalf in his writ petition but in view of the importance of the question the petitioner was allowed to submit that he had a fundamental right to education and the same included participation in the activities in the University Students’ Union. Further, the Division Bench in Anand Vardhan Chandel’s case (supra) found that the Delhi University Act, 1972 did not make any provision for the Students’ Union and the impugned actions were taken in exercise of the executive powers of the University. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had decided the case on two-fold basis. Right to education had been mentioned not in Part III but in Part IV of the Constitution (Vide Article 41). The Division Bench also recognized that the right to education not being a natural right, can be enjoyed only when the said right 19 created. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the view: "However, the State takes action by legislation or otherwise to make the right to education available to every eligible person. The statutory right or statutory facility should stand in practice (if not in theory) on the footing of a fundamental right". In the first place, the Division Bench in Anand Vardhan Chandel’s case (supra) had not mentioned the particular provision of law by which "right to education" has been created. The statutory right or statutory facility should stand in practice (if not in theory) on the footing of a fundamental right". In the first place, the Division Bench in Anand Vardhan Chandel’s case (supra) had not mentioned the particular provision of law by which "right to education" has been created. Secondly, a broad distinction would always remain between fundamental rights under Part III and the other rights created by a statute. Article 13 shall have no manner of application in respect of right created by a statute and not included in Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, the legislature would be free to repeal, amend or modify such statutory rights. In case of infringement of a statutory right which is not a fundamental right, the aggrieved person has no remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 16. We are unable to agree with the view expressed in Anand Vardhan Chandel's case (supra), that the right to education can be spelt out of the provisions of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 19(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution. Bhagwati, J. who expressed the majority view in (3) Maneku Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597, laid down the following tests for determining whether a particular right is a fundamental right. Even if a right which is not specifically named in Article 19(1), it may still be a fundamental right covered by some clauses of that Article if it is an integral part of a named fundamental right or partakes of the basic nature and character as that fundamental fight. 17. Bhagwati, J. in his judgment is careful enough to point out that it is not enough that a right claimed flows or emanates from a named fundamental right or that its existence is necessary in order to make the exercise of the named fundamental right meaningful and effective. Every activity which facilitates the exercise of a named fundamental right is not necessarily comprehended in that fundamental right nor can it be regarded as such merely because it may be possible otherwise to effectively exercise that fundamental right. Every activity which facilitates the exercise of a named fundamental right is not necessarily comprehended in that fundamental right nor can it be regarded as such merely because it may be possible otherwise to effectively exercise that fundamental right. What is necessary to be seen is, and that is the test which must be applied, whether the right claimed by the petitioner is an integral part of a named fundamental right or partakes of the same basic nature and character as the named fundamental right so that the exercise of such right is in reality and substance nothing but an instance of the named fundamental right. This being the correct test, the majority decision in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) is that, the right to go abroad cannot in all circumstances be regarded as included in freedom of speech and expression. 18. The majority decision in Maneka Gandhi’s case (supra), had approved the earlier Supreme court decision in (4) All India Bank Employees’ Association v. The National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay and others, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 171. The Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees’ Association's case (supra) recognized that while the right to form a labour union is guaranteed by sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 19, the right of the members of the association to meet would be guaranteed by sub-clause (b), their right to move from place to place within India by Sub-clause (d), their right to discuss their problems and propagate their views by Sub-clause (a) etc. each of these freedoms are subject to such restrictions as might properly be imposed by clause (2) to (6) of Article 19 as might be appropriate in the context. The Supreme Court further observed that it was one thing to interpret each of the freedoms guaranteed by the Articles in Part III in a fair and liberal sense, it is quite another to read each guaranteed right as involving of including concomitant rights necessary to achieve the subject which might be supposed to underlie the grant of each of those rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees’ Association's case (supra), inter alia, held that a right to form unions guaranteed by Sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 19 did not carry with it a fundamental right in the union so formed to achieve every object for which it was formed. Therefore, the Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees’ Association's case (supra), inter alia, held that a right to form unions guaranteed by Sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 19 did not carry with it a fundamental right in the union so formed to achieve every object for which it was formed. The trade unions have no guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike. The right to strike or the right to declare lock out may be controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislation and the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with reference to criteria laid down in clause (4) of Article 19 but by totally different consideration. 19. With great respect the Division Bench in Anand Vardhan Chandel’s, case (supra) has applied the theory of peripheral or concomitant rights which had been rejected in All India Bank Employees’ Association', case (supra) and also in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra). In our view, the Division Bench in Anand Vardhan Chandel's case (supra) failed to distinguish between a right which is an integral put of a named fundamental right and a right which makes exercise of a named fundamental right effective. Education would make enjoyment of the fundamental rights named in Articles 19 and 21 meaningful and effective but we cannot hold that education is an integral part of these fundamental rights. Right to participate in the activities of the students’ union in Anand Vardhan Chadel's case (supra) was not even statutory and the actions complained of were done in exercise of executive powers. We are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that when that date of commencement of the official year of the Union is fixed and a student's nomination paper in an Union election is cancelled on the ground of delay there could not be any question of infringement of right to association, right to freedom of speech or right to liberty. Right of franchise is not a natural far less a fundamental right ; it is at best a right created by a particular election law/rules. Therefore, when a candidate fails to comply with the law/rules relating to the filing of nomination papers, he can not complain that his fundamental right had been unreasonably infringed. Right of franchise is not a natural far less a fundamental right ; it is at best a right created by a particular election law/rules. Therefore, when a candidate fails to comply with the law/rules relating to the filing of nomination papers, he can not complain that his fundamental right had been unreasonably infringed. It may be noted that in Anand Vardhan Chandel's case (supra), the persons elected as office bearers were not made parties and therefore, the court did not set aside their election. 20. We need not elaborately discuss the decision of Anand, J. in Inder Prakash v. Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, A.I.R 1979 Delhi 87 which followed the decision in Anand Vardhan Chandel's case (supra). The University had cancelled the admission of the petitioner who was a student in a Medical College on the ground that he had obtained admission on a false representation that he belonged to the schedule case. We have already given our reasons why we are unable to agree with the view that the right to education is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Professional education may be necessary to qualify for practicing a particular profession. In other words, such professional education is imparted to facilitate the exercise of the right to carry on one’s profession or calling. Such training is therefore, is only peripheral or concomitant but not comprehended in the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. Under Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution, the State may make any law relating to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession, or carrying on any occupation, trade or business. Therefore, law prescribing such professional or technical qualification would be within the permissible limits of reasonable restriction in the interest of general public. Such right to make law relating to professional or technical qualification would obviously include power of the State to alter and modify the prescribed professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business. Right to acquire professional or technical qualifications according to a particular syllabus or prescribed course of study cannot be a fundamental right. Right to acquire professional or technical qualifications according to a particular syllabus or prescribed course of study cannot be a fundamental right. Therefore, one who is undergoing a particular course for acquiring professional or technical qualifications cannot claim that the competent authority cannot or modify the said prescribed course and that once admitted to a particular course a student has a vested right to complete his study according to the syllabus as prescribed on the date of his admission. 21. Article 41 which is a directive principle enjoins that the State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in case of unemployment, old-age, sickness and disablement and in other casa of undeserved want. Article 37 clearly provides that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty or the State to apply these principle in making laws. When Article 41 mentions right to education, we cannot hold that the right to education is also an integral part of and comprehended in several freedom guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution. 22. The Academic Council under Section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 had power to make Regulations. The University Council is now entitled to exercise the said powers to make Regulations under Section 54 of the said Act. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that in exercising the said power of subordinate legislations the Academic Council or the University Council could not make any retrospective Regulations depriving the appellant-petitioners of their vested right. It is not necessary to consider that abstract question whether or not a statutory rule can be made with retrospective effect became we are unable to uphold the contention that the petitioners had any vested right to complete their study of B.A.M.S. Degree Course according to the Regulations of 1973 and that the University cannot amend or make new Regulations. The University Council in the instant case by making the Regulations of 1978 did not purport to act under Section 54 (3) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Central Medical Council the University had framed new Regulations. The University Council in the instant case by making the Regulations of 1978 did not purport to act under Section 54 (3) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Central Medical Council the University had framed new Regulations. The Regulations of 1973 and the Regulations of 1978 could not simultaneously remain in force. The Regulations of 1978 impliedly repealed the Regulations of 1973 subject to certain savings. It was not a case of canceling or modification of the Regulations of 1973. Secondly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not indicate that the present appellants had urged in the trial court the above submission regarding the infraction of sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the Calcutta University Act. Further whether or not the resolution of the University Council introducting a new Regulations was passed by requisite majority under Section 54 (3) would be a question of fact. No foundation for making such a case was laid down either in the writ petition or even in the "affidavit-in-reply filed in the trial court. Therefore, the above submission must be rejected. 23. Mr. Chakraborty with some force had submitted that the University Regulations of 1978 did not expressly provide for repeal of the Regulations of 1973 and also did not make provision for there students who might have appeared in the Preliminary Examination according to the old Regulations of 1973. In this connection Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the learned Single Judge was not correct in interpreting paragraph 1(c) of the proceedings of the meeting of the Ayurvedic Committee dated 17th June, 1978. The same was as follows :- (a) That the Syllabi and Regulations prescribed by the C.C.I.M. be accepted subject to modification if necessary. (b) That the duration of the courses of studies for the degree in Ayurvedic Medicine in this State would be of 5 years after 2 stage. (c) That the students who are now reading in the 1st year class of the Ayurvedic Course and also those students who would join the said course from the session 1978-79 after passing the Higher Secondary Examination would follow the new syllabi and curriculum as accepted above. Mr. (c) That the students who are now reading in the 1st year class of the Ayurvedic Course and also those students who would join the said course from the session 1978-79 after passing the Higher Secondary Examination would follow the new syllabi and curriculum as accepted above. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that in July 1977 his clients had already completed 1st year class of the previous course of study and in May, 1978 they went not in the 1st year but in the 3rd year of the old Syllabi. 24. In case the expression "1st year class of the Ayurvedic Course" appearing in the said paragraph 1(c) of the proceeding deled 17th June 1978 refers to the 1st year class of pre-Ayurvedic Course then obviously the appellant-petitioners would be outside the scope of the said paragraph 1(c). We have already found that admittedly after completing the 1st year of the Preliminary course, under the old Regulations in September, 1971 the appellant petitioners had appeared in the Preliminary Examination. In case this expression "1st year class of the Ayurvedic Course" meant that the 1st year class for qualifying to appear in the First Examination of the Ayurvedic Medicine, according to the Regulations of 1973, then the appellant-petitioners will fit the said description. According to the old Regulations of 1973, only after the passing the Preliminary Examination a student could read and complete the regular course of study theoretical and practical extending over a period of at least two years in a college of Ayurvedic Medicine affiliated to the University. We have found that the results of the Preliminary Examination having been published in May 1978, the appellants’ claim that their course of study for the First Examination for the degree course of the old Regulations had commenced in September, 1977 must be rejected under the said Regulations of 1973. The said course of study was to commence subsequent to the appellants passing of the Preliminary Examination. They had completed the 1st year class until they had passed the pre-Ayurvedic Station and they did not become qualified to be admitted in the course of study for the First Examination of the old degree course. 25. If we accept the contrary submission of Mr. They had completed the 1st year class until they had passed the pre-Ayurvedic Station and they did not become qualified to be admitted in the course of study for the First Examination of the old degree course. 25. If we accept the contrary submission of Mr. Chakraborty that in July 1978 his clients were already in the Third year although they had not passed the First Examination of the old Degree course, then the appellants would find themselves in much greater difficulty. We have held that the appellants have no fundamental or even the vested right to complete their course of study according to the old Regulation of 1973. The old Regulations now stand replaced by the new Regulations of 1978 in conformity with the directions of the Central Council under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. In the event, the appellants would be unable to prosecute further studies. We do not wish to put such an interpretation because the same would result in total dis-continuance of their study. It is somewhat unfortunate that the new Regulations of 1978 made by the University in accordance with the directions of the Central Council had caused some inconvenience and difficulty for the appellants who could no longer prosecute their studies according to the old Regulations. 26. Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the Calcutta University, has submitted that the University Council by a resolution dated 20th of April, 1979 has attempted to remove the possible anomaly resulting from the introduction of the new Regulations of 1978. Let a copy of the said proceeding filed in the Court be kept with the record marked with the letter "X". 27. The University Council by the said Resolution resolved:- That the Regulation and syllabus for Examination of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), New Delhi is adopted from 1977-78 session superseding, subject to modification, if necessary, of the Old B.A.M.S. syllabus & Regulations prescribed by the Calcutta University. The duration of the course of study for the decree in Ayurvedic Medicine in this State would be qualifying examination. Admission qualification in the main 5 years course under CCIM Regulation adopted by the Calcutta University is prescribed as :- 1. The duration of the course of study for the decree in Ayurvedic Medicine in this State would be qualifying examination. Admission qualification in the main 5 years course under CCIM Regulation adopted by the Calcutta University is prescribed as :- 1. The students who took admission in the Pre-Ayurvedic Course of B.A.M.S. under regulation and syllabus of Calcutta University in the academic session of 1976-77 may take admission in the 1st year B.A.M.S. Main Course as prescribed by C.C.I.M., New Delhi after passing the said Pre-Ayurvedic Examination. 2. The students who had been admitted in the Pre-Ayurvedic Course of B.A.M.S. Syllabus of Calcutta University in the academic session 1977-78 may also take admission in the 1st year B.A.M.S. Main course prescribed by the C.C.I.M., New Delhi after passing the said Pre-Ayurvedic Examination. 3. The students who passed 10+2 (Equivalent to Intermediate) Examination may also take admission direct in the main course, i.e., 1st year of B.A.M.S. syllabus prescribed by the C.C.I.M., New Delhi. 4(a) For admission to the new five years’ B.A.M.S. (C.C.I.M.) course students coming from plus two Higher Secondary or Equivalent course must pass with Sanskrit as one of the subjects. (b) The students who did not pass Higher Secondary or equivalent examination/in Sanskrit will have to appear at the Special Examination in Sanskrit before admission to 1st Ayurvedic Examination. Thus, the University has now expressly provided that students who had taken admission in the Pre-Ayurvedic Course of B.A.M.S Degree in the academic session of 1976-77 may be admitted in the 1st year of the new course after they pass the Pre-Ayurvedic examination. The above resolution dated 20th April 1979 has clarified the position that the appellants who took admission in the academic session of 1976-77 and had already appeared in the Preliminary Examination, if successful in the said examination, were eligible to be admitted in the 1st year of the new course. We find no substance in the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellants that the aforesaid Resolution of the University Council is not legal and the same does not affect the appellant’ claims and contentions. 27. Mr. Chakraborty also submitted before us that the learned Single Judge did not correctly record that his clients had conceded that the courses of study under the old and new Regulations were substantially same. The said point is not relevant in a writ proceeding. 27. Mr. Chakraborty also submitted before us that the learned Single Judge did not correctly record that his clients had conceded that the courses of study under the old and new Regulations were substantially same. The said point is not relevant in a writ proceeding. The change of the Regulations was not made in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The Regulations were changed in view of the directives of the Central Council of India Medicine. If inspite of the directions of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, the University of Calcutta had retained the Old Regulations for Ayurvedic Study, then the same might have seriously endangered the future professional carrier of the students reading in the Ayurvedic Degree Course. The Central Council of Indian Medicine under section 21 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 has power to withdraw recognition when the courses of study, examination etc. do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Central Council. Therefore it might have been hazardous to retain the old Regulations and not to introduce a new set of Regulations for Ayurvedic study in conformity with the standard prescribed by the Central Council. 28. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. We accordingly dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs. Roy, J. : I agree.