M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) 1. In these petitions common question of law and facts arise for consideration and therefore they are disposed of by the following common order. ( 2 ) IN all these petitions notices have not been issued to the respondents. In writ petition No. 470/1988 and connected matters which have been filed by five students, the Standing Counsel for the university Mr. Devadas, was directed to take notice and subsequently he was directed to file his statement of objections which he has done on behalf of the university of Mysore. W. P. . No. 4831/88 has been filed by Mr. Manoj Divakar, also a student of National Institute of Engineering, Mysore. W. P. . No. 2510/1988 is filed by the Mysore University, Engineering Students Association a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies registration Act represented by its Vice president. In the latter mentioned petitions this court merely directed them to be posted along with the first batch of petitions. ( 3 ) THE common question of facts relating to these petitions may be briefly stated as follows :- petitioners are all students of 8 semesters, four year duration, bachelor of Engineering Degree Course of the respondent Mysore University. Each year consists of two semesters. The course amongst other things is governed by Regulations known as the bachelor degree course in Engineering (BE) (4 years' scheme ). That course was commenced in the year 1980-81 or so. However having regard to the decision taken at all india level to alter the scheme of studies in Engineering a new syllabi was introduced for a new course also consisting of 8 semesters spread over 4 years. That was introduced in the University in the year 1986-87. They are conveniently referred to as the 'old Scheme' and the 'new scheme' in the course of this order, though the University calls the first scheme as FYS and the second scheme as RFYS i. e. , four year scheme and revised four year scheme. The students who are petitioners and presumably the majority of the students of the association the petitioner in W. P. . No. 2510/88 are all students of old scheme. They are governed by the regulations which are at Annexure-A to writ petition No. 2510/1988 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. The students who are petitioners and presumably the majority of the students of the association the petitioner in W. P. . No. 2510/88 are all students of old scheme. They are governed by the regulations which are at Annexure-A to writ petition No. 2510/1988 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. Under said Regulations regulation-G and G-1 provides for eligibility of a candidate for promotion to the next higher semester provided he satisfies one of the three conditions set out in the said Regulation. Those conditions are :-A) If he has passed all examinations of all lower semesters ; b) Even when he has failed in all subjects of the immediate lower semester provided he has passed in all the preceding lower examinations in full ; c) If the candidate is in arrears of not more than six subjects, in all in two or three immediate lower semesters as the case may be. In regard to (a) above, there is no need for any confusion. A person who has passed in all subjects is certainly eligible to go to the next higher semester; (b) provides for a concession to failed students in the first semester and those who may have failed in second and subsequent semesters. In other words if a candidate has failed in all the subjects of the lower semester but has passed in ail the preceding lower examination in full he should also eligible to go to the next higher semester which pre-supposes that he has answered examination of second semester and even if he has failed in all the subjects of the first semester he shall go to the third semester if he has passed all the subjects of the second semester. The cases on hand fall under (c ). It covers those students who are not in arrears of more than six subjects, in two or three immediate lower semesters which necessarily means they should be in the fourth semester. From the arguments submitted from the Bar, it appears that the petitioners or most of them fall in the category coming under (c ). It covers those students who are not in arrears of more than six subjects, in two or three immediate lower semesters which necessarily means they should be in the fourth semester. From the arguments submitted from the Bar, it appears that the petitioners or most of them fall in the category coming under (c ). Their common grievance is that the Registrar has no authority to write the letter dated 21st May 1987 to all the Principals of all Engineering colleges affiliated to the respondent- university of Mysore informing them that provision has been made for the benefit of the students of the old scheme BE students in the following manner :"if a student has to go over to higher semester in the revised syllabus but has been admitted under the Old Syllabus, semester to semester equivalence will have to be established. For example, if a student passes the 3rd semester in the old syllabus after failing once or twice and has to join the 4th semester, he will join the 4th semester of the revised syllabus treating the old and the new syllabus as one to one equivalent". ( 4 ) MR. Ravivarma Kumar for the association, Mr. Hosmath and Mr. Papi- reddy for the petitioners in the other petitions strenuously contended firstly that the Registrar had no authority to write the letter in question. Secondly that the letter is contrary to the Regula- lionswhich govern the old scheme. Thirdly, without changing the Regulations governing the old scheme students cannot be asked to study syllabus prescribed for the new scheme in the next higher semester which they must enter in order to prosecute their course whether under the old scheme or the new scheme. ( 5 ) THE first-argument need not detain this Court for long Registrar is an officer of the University provided for under Section 14 of the Karnataka State universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It provides that he will be whole time Officer of the University appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Vice Chancellor and State government. His emoluments and terms ano conditions of service shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor in like manner. It provides that he will be whole time Officer of the University appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Vice Chancellor and State government. His emoluments and terms ano conditions of service shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor in like manner. He shall ex-officio be the secretary of the Syndicate and member secretary of the Senate, the Academic council and the Faculties, which are ail authorities of the University provided in the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof enumerates some of his duties. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act specifically provides inter alia one of his duties is to conduct the official correspondence on behalf of authorities of which he is the secretary. Therefore this court has to presume that Annexure-D is on the instructions of one of the authorities addressed to all the principals of the colleges and therefore does not suffer from any legal infirmity or want of jurisdiction. ( 6 ) WHILE on this it is necessary to state that the intention of the letter addressed to all the principals is to blend the old scheme and the new scheme into one scheme so that the University shall not have the task of continuing two schemes of studies for the same degree more or less parallel to each other. This has been, in detail, explained by the Universiry in the statement of objections in the batch of petitions first mentioned That appears to be the reasonable attitude of any authority entrusted with the task of imparting higher education. The dominant reason appears to have been the vast changing concepts and subject matter of studies in modern science and technology which motivated the Universities in India to adopt themselves to the changing world and revise the syllabi as well as the scheme of the studies for the BE. degree course. That the syllabi for each semester in the two schemes is at same variance if not total variance is obvious from the scheme of studies and subjects found in syllabi produced by the University for perusal of the Court. Therefore the letter impugned, that is, of the Registrar must be understood in this context and no other. degree course. That the syllabi for each semester in the two schemes is at same variance if not total variance is obvious from the scheme of studies and subjects found in syllabi produced by the University for perusal of the Court. Therefore the letter impugned, that is, of the Registrar must be understood in this context and no other. ( 7 ) COMING to the second contention that it is without authority of law inasmuch as the Regulations have not been altered in so for as B. E. degree studies' scheme is concerned and therefore out making a corresponding change in the regulation-G and G-1 students eligible to go to the higher semester cannot be asked to study the subject prescribed for the corresponding higher semester in the New Scheme, to my mind, does not appear to be well founded. Under the new scheme neither the scheme of examination nor the scheme of study or the duration of the course or the number of semesters are changed. The Regulations provide for nothing else but the above. The regulations in question do not provide for the subjects which the student taking either the old scheme or the new scheme should study in each of the. semesters. That is a matter which apparently is covered by the scheme of study and examination provided for by the academic Council or the Syndicate of the university or both. ( 8 ) THE thrust of the argument by ravivarma Kumar adopted by others appearing for the petitioners was that the students of the old scheme who have now become eligible to go to the higher semesters are made to study subjects to which they are not prepared adequately and therefore will suffer hardship in that corresponding higher semester as against those students of the new scheme who are properly and thoroughly prepared for that semester. ( 9 ) IN the light of the arguments advanced I passed an order on 16-3-1988 directing the University to produce the syllabi for the 5th semester in the new scheme to which majbrity Of the petitioners appear to be eligible to go in. I cio not see any novel or strange subjects introduced for study which will imperil or create hardship to the students of the old scheme though Mr. I cio not see any novel or strange subjects introduced for study which will imperil or create hardship to the students of the old scheme though Mr. Hosmath, learned counsel for one of the petitioners strenuously contended that it does so because one subject which would have been withtaught in the 5th semester in the old scheme namely mathematics of a particular level has been eliminated in the corresponding semester of the new scheme. This is an argument which the students ought not be permitted to advance. The Academic Council and the syndicate which are in charge of providing the scheme of examinations and the syllabi for studies are the better judges of what will constitute the proper subjects for study for the BE degree course. This Court would not venture to assume that the Academic Council or other authority of the University would call upon the students to take subjects without sufficient background to study that while attempting to blend the old scheme with the new. If their hardship in that behalf is brought to the notice of the authorities by the students, either to give them additional training and teaching facilities to equip themselves to compete with the students of the new scheme, the Court is confident the authority concerned will attend to it. But it cannot confer legal right on them to question the wisdom of blending the old and the new schemes. ( 10 ) TO my mind, it appears, the apprehension that there will be hardship comparatively between the syllabi of the 5th semester of the old scheme and the new scheme is more imaginary than real. Petitioners and the like of them have not entered the 5th semester. Therefore they cannot imagine that they would be total strangers to the new syllabi or inadequately equipped. Therefore the second contention also is liable to be rejected. ( 11 ) LASTLY the contention that without changing the Regulations governing the 8th semester 4 year course B. E degree examination the students of the old scheme cannot be asked to study the new syllabi of the new scheme is equally without proper foundation in law. In the regulations which are to be found at annexure A in W. P. . No. 2510/88 it is seen there is no mention of any of the subjects of study in each semester. In the regulations which are to be found at annexure A in W. P. . No. 2510/88 it is seen there is no mention of any of the subjects of study in each semester. From which it simply follows, it is not part of the object of framing Regulations. The prescribed syllabi for the course, apparently is kept back in order to facilitate the concerned authority or authorities of the University to make effective changes in the syllabus to suit the needs of times and change the pattern of education that may be forced on the educating body by the changing circumstances in the world. When, no right, legal or otherwise, is conferred on the students under the Regulations to study any specific subject they cannot be allowed to complain of hardship or lack of legality in the new syllabi they are asked to study in the 5th semester or the any other higher semester in the new scheme to which they are eligible. ( 12 ) FOR all the above reasons I do not think that there is merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. These petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. ( 13 ) MR. Ravivarma Kumar however added an additional argument. It was that some students who for reasons beyond their control like illness or accident could not keep them in any given semester and therefore could not take that examination and as such they are hard hit and such pupils asked to study totally new subjects are put to greater hardship. It may be so. When a transition has to take place, exceptional cases must suffer if for unforeseen reasons they are unable to keep term then it was something which neither they expected nor the University anticipated. If some unanticipated hardship is caused the position will be the same as in Force Majeur cases. They have to suffer without claiming any damage. It is inevitable in the scheme of things and therefore no authority on earth can provide for every contingency or unforeseen thing and provide a system of change over which will not cause hardship to any individual for whatever reason. ( 14 ) THEREFORE I do not see any compelling reasons to change the view I have taken. Order accordingly. Writ petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .