M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for orders by consent of parties is disposed of finally by the following order after hearing the counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is a law student. Petitioner joined the I Year LL. B. Course offered by renukacharya College of Law, an affiliated College of the University of Bangalore (1st respondent herein ). Petitioner asserts that he has put in the required term days for the three academic years, namely 1975-76, 77-78 and 78 79 respectively for the I, II and III year LL. B. Course. Petitioner did not pay the examination fee in 1978 -79 for the III Year course examination i. e. , final examination because he was not qualified to appear for that examination in terms of the regulations framed by the University as he had not passed some of the subjects of I and II year LL. B. examinations. In the year 1980 he completed the I year and II year examinations or in such subjects in which he had not passed. Therefore, on 11 5-1981 he approached the college to tender the examination fee for the III Year Examination to be held in July 1981. He was not permitted to pay the examination fee on the ground that the college had been informed by a circular that those who had not paid the examination fee in the III year of that term could not be permitted to take the examination and that such students should be directed to put in a fresh term in the iii year. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is employed in a factory known as Smith Kline and French. In view of the silence maintained by the 2nd respondent in respect of the letter dated 11 5-1981, petitioner for his remedy has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of mandamus to respondent 1 University and the 2nd respondent Controller of Examinations in the 1st respondent University to allow him to take the III Year examination to be held by the University from time to time without repeating or putting the term days in the final year once again. ( 4 ) THE petition is resited by the respondents. 1st respondent-University has filed its statement of objections. ( 4 ) THE petition is resited by the respondents. 1st respondent-University has filed its statement of objections. In substance the objections are that the university has issued a Circular claimed by the college of the student-petitioner that those who have not paid the examination fees in the final year while putting the term days at the College have to repeat the course in the following year by putting in the required term days. It is suggested that the Circular has been issued in accordance with law that is laid down in Reg. VIII of LL. B. Regulations of 1978 of the 1st respondent University. ( 5 ) SRI V. A. Mohanrangam, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that none of the regulations of 1977-78 governing the llb. degree Course (New Scheme) are attracted He also contends that this court should ignore the Circular because no such Circular has been produced and even if such a Circular did exist, the University had no power to regulate the conduct of LL B. Course by issue of Circular when the same was specified by the regulations made by Academic Council. ( 6 ) IT is seen from the Regulations of respondent University governing the New scheme LL. B. Degree Course that the duration of the course is for a period of three years The course of study is as prescribed by the University from time to time. Each student is expected to keep attendance in his college for all the three years and maintain the minima prescribed in that behalf. Scheme of examination is such that there shall be an examination for each year of the course at the end of the Academic year and maximum marks for the examination in each theory paper under any subject has been prescribed by the University under Regulation V. Under regulation VII the minimum marks for a pass are also prescribed. By Regulation vi the candidate is required to apply for all the subjects in each examination when he or she appears for the first time. ( 7 ) REGULATION VI further stipulates that the candidate shall be considered to have appeared for the examination only if the candidate has submitted the prescribed application for the examination along with the prescribed fee. ( 7 ) REGULATION VI further stipulates that the candidate shall be considered to have appeared for the examination only if the candidate has submitted the prescribed application for the examination along with the prescribed fee. Regulation VIII provides for determining the eligibility of the candidate to appear for examinations as well as for the grant of the Degree by the University. R. 1 of Regulation VIII provides that a candidate who has completed attendance in the I year LL. B. Course shall be eligible to put in term days in the II year LL. B. Course provided he had applied for the I year examination along with the required fee. In other words, the eligibility to put in term days in the II year LL. B. Course depends on whether the candidate had paid the examination fee of the I year at the relevant time. If he has not so paid the examination fee of the I year, then he is precluded from putting in term days for the II year. In other words, even a candidate who has paid the fee but has not appeared for the examination, or a candidate who has not passed the I year examination can also put in term days for the II year LL. B. Similarly, R 2 of Regulation viii provides that the student who has completed his term in the II year LL. B. Course may put in term for the III and final year LL. B. Course provided he has paid similarly the examination fee for the II year LL. B examination There is no other rule made in Regulation VIII which would empower either the University or the college to insist that the III year student who has completed his term days should pay the examination fee and put in fresh term for that final year once again if he has not paid the examination fee enabling him to appear at a supplementary examination held for that course. We are not concerned with Rule 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation VIII, which deal with other matters though concerned with the final year LL B course. We are not concerned with Rule 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation VIII, which deal with other matters though concerned with the final year LL B course. Shri T. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contended that a person who has not paid the examination fee after completing the terra in III year course is in no better position than his counterparts in the I year and II year courses who are governed by Rules 1 and 2 of Regulation VIII and therefore the III year student should necessarily put in tresh term once again if he has failed to pay the III Year examination fee. ( 8 ) I do not think that is the principle underlying Rules 1 and 2 of Reg ulation VIII. Regulation IV provides that etch academic year shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the attendance. In other words each year becomes a unit by itseif. Similarly, under Regulation V which provides for the scheme of the examinations, the 3 year Course is divided into 3 distinct years namely I, and II ana III. As there is no IV year, the principle underlying Rules 1 and 2 of regulation VIII cannot be extended for a repeat of the III year unless it is so expressly provided for in the regulations. It cannot be implied, nor Rules 1 and 2 taken as laying down any principle Therefore, I do not see force in the contention advanced for the respondents. Moreover, as is seen from the regulations, attendance be ing compulsory, once a candidate has completed his 3 years term days as required, he is eligible to take the examination. All that the Rules 1 and 2 of Regulation VIII provide for is to enable the candidate to put in the term, though he may not have passed i or II year examination. Sri Radhakrishna has not pointed out to me any other source of power available to the first respondent University to issue instructions by Circular which will have the effect of amending the regulations. Sri Radhakrishna has not pointed out to me any other source of power available to the first respondent University to issue instructions by Circular which will have the effect of amending the regulations. In that circumstance I must necessarily hold that petitioner who has now completed the I and II year examinations as well as the term days in the III year Course is entitled to sit for such supplementary examinations which may be held by the university in the academic years that follow the academic year in which he last put in term days for the III year course. ( 9 ) I, therefore, hold that the first respondent University is bound to admit the petitioner to the III year examination to be held at the end of any of the academic years in terms of regulation V provided that he satisfies the other requirements notwithstanding the fact that he did not pay the examination fee for the III year in the relevant academic year in which he put in his term. ( 10 ) A mandamus should necessarily issue but has become unnecessary in as much as this Court by an interim order permitted the petitioner to take the examination held in July 1981. In the view I have taken he was entitled to take that examination. It will be sufficient if by a Writ of Mandamus the University and the 2nd respondent are directed to announce the result of the performance of the petitioner in the examination which he has taken. A direction to the respondents will accordingly issue. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs --- *** --- .