JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner appeared at the B.A. Part I Examination of 1986 held by the respondent University with Economics, Geography and Hindi as his subjects. He, however, failed at the said examination owing to his performance in Hindi. Thereafter he filled the form to appear as an ex-student at the B.A. Part I Examination of 1987, but this time with Ancient History as his subject in place of Hindi. The allegations of the petitioner is that h e had filled the form after he had obtained prior permission for the change of subjects from both Heads of Hindi and Ancient History Departments. In due course he was issued admit card and he appeared at the examination. His result was, however, not declared. Enquiry revealed that the reason for non-declaration of the result was that the petitioner had neither obtained the permission of the Head of the Department or of the Admission Committee, nor had he attended any classes of Ancient History which was mandatory under Ordinance 9 of the Ordinance in Chapter XXXI framed by the Allahabad University. 2. The contention is that the petitioner having been issued admit card and allowed to appear at the said examination, his result could not legally be withheld by the respondent University. 3. We are unable to agree. Ordinance 9 which is relevant for determination of the controversy provides : "9. (i) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, a student who has attended a regular course of study for one year and qualified himself to appear at the B.A. (Part I) or B.Sc. (Part I) Examination, or has failed at the examination, may be permitted to change a subject and appear at the examination after regular attendance in the new subject in lectures and tutorials for one year" (Emphasis added). 4. It will, therefore, be seen that the attendance in the changed subject for one year both in lectures and tutorials is a condition precedent for enabling the candidate to appear at the B.A. Part I Examination in the changed subject as an ex- student. If attendance in the subject offered is compulsory for regular students in the first instance, it would be logical to conclude that there could be a similar requirement for the ex-students vis-a-vis the changed subject. An ex-student cannot claim a privilege not available to regular students. 5. If attendance in the subject offered is compulsory for regular students in the first instance, it would be logical to conclude that there could be a similar requirement for the ex-students vis-a-vis the changed subject. An ex-student cannot claim a privilege not available to regular students. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner had not attended a single class in the subject of Ancient History. Indeed he had not even got himself enrolled in the subject of Ancient History. Further the allegation of the petitioner that the permission of the heads of the Hindi and Ancient History Department had also been secured, has been specifically denied by the Deputy Registrar Ad- ministration of the respondent University. The petitioner has filed no document in support of his bald allegation that the Heads of the Department of Ancient History and Hindi had granted the requisite permission to the petitioner for the change of the subject. We, therefore, find no ground for rejecting the Deputy Registrar's version. Thus the petitioner had not complied with the conditions necessary for enabling him to appear at the B.A. Part I examination in the changed subject. 6. Learned counsel, however, placed reliance on Ordinance No. 1 which in so far as relevant for our purpose reads as follows : 1. Save as otherwise provided by the Ordinance elsewhere a candidate who has failed once in University Examination or, having completed the required percentage of attendance for the examination, has been prevented from appearing by illness or other cause, may be admitted to a subsequent examination without attending the regular course of studies provided that..."' 7. This Ordinance has, in our view, no application to the present situation. Ordinance No. 1 is a provision of general application and would be applicable when the candidate is desirous of appearing as an ex-student in the same subject as in the previous year. For those desiring to appear as an ex-student in the changed subject there is a special provision, viz., Ordinance No. 9 which deals exclusively with the cases where the students are permitted to appear as ex- students in the changed subjects. Ordinance 9 begins with a non obstante clause while Ordinance No. 1 starts with "Save as otherwise provided by Ordinance elsewhere" Ordinance 9, rather than Ordinance 1, will hence govern the case at hand. 8. Ordinance 9 begins with a non obstante clause while Ordinance No. 1 starts with "Save as otherwise provided by Ordinance elsewhere" Ordinance 9, rather than Ordinance 1, will hence govern the case at hand. 8. Learned counsel next submitted that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna v. Kurukshetra University reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 should be applied to the petitioner's case. It was urged that in that case also there was shortage of attendance but their Lordships ruled that in view of the fact that the student had been issued an admit card by the University and allowed to appear at the Examination without objection, the shortage of attendance was not material. 9. The submission is devoid of any merit. The defect which was the subject of consideration in the case of Krishna (supra) was fundamentally different from that from which the petitioner's candidature suffered. The present is not a case of mere shortage of attendance but one where the candidate did not even get himself registered as an ex-student in the new subject. It was a case of no permission for the change of subjects and total failure to attend a single lecture or tutorials. The petitioner was hence not eligible or qualified to appear in that subject. The principle, invoked in the case of Krishna (supra) cannot therefore be legitimately applied to the present situation. The petitioner was bound to get himself registered as an ex- student in Ancient History in view of Ordinance 9 and attend the classes in the subject for one year. The mere fact that admit card was issued to the petitioner did not place the petitioner in any adverse situation. He had not altered his position to his detriment by reason of issuance of admit card. The principle of estoppel invoked in Krishna case (supra) cannot therefore be applied with any justification to the facts of the present case. 10. It may also be mentioned that in the admit, card issued to the petitioner, there is a note at the bottom that if the petitioner's candidature to appear at the examination for which the admit card was being issued, suffers from any legal infirmity on account of acts or omissions committed by the candidate prior to the issuance of the admit card or after it, his examination would be liable to be cancelled. The admit card was hence issued subject to this qualification. 11. 1he petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.