H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to permit him to appear for the ivth semester examination in the master of computerapplication. On 24-8-1989 the petitioner was permitted to take the examination inivth semester course by an interim order. ( 2 ) THE material facts are that the petitioner, who is a student of the b. m. s. college of engineering in post-graduate course in the master of computerapplication, did not pass one of the subjects in the 1st semester course. However, hecontrived to appear for the ivth semester course, admittedly in contravention of theuniversity regulations. The course of study consists of six semesters and eachsemester spans 6 months. According to regulation viii (b) (i) of the regulations, acandidate should have completed the 1st semester in all respects in order to beeligible to appear for the ivth semester. Though the petitioner was not eligible, yethe was permitted to take the ivth semester course. On coming to know of theviolation of the Regulation, the first respondent herein, who is no other than thecontroller of examinations, Bangalore university, by letter dated 9-8-1989 notifiedthe 2nd respondent college that the petitioner is not eligible to register for the ivthsemester and he was ineligible to take the ivth semester examination. The subjectwhich the petitioner ought to have cleared in the 1st semester is digital computer. care had been taken by the first respondent to notify the 2nd respondent asaforementioned well before the issue of hall tickets by the 2nd respondent collegepointing out the irregularity in the registration of the petitioner and forbidding thecollege from permitting the petitioner to take ivth semester examination. ( 3 ) THE petitioner approached this court and an interim order was passed on 24-8-1989 in the following terms:"issue rale and interim order directing the respondents to permit thepetitioner to take his iv semester examination in m. c. a. course scheduled to beheld from the 25th of august, 1989. However, the result of the examination to beso taken by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of this writ petition". However, the result of the examination to beso taken by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of this writ petition". ( 4 ) THE petitioner relies on a subsequent development during the pendency of the writ petition, which is, that he has passed in the examination on the subject of digitalcomputer of the 1st semester and subsequent acquisition of the eligibility is what thepetitioner is seeking to rely upon after having taken the ivth semester examination. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition by virtue of the fact that be has passed in the only subjectthat was remaining over in the 1st semester after he had taken ivtb semester examination? ( 6 ) THE answer is to be found in the regulations of the Bangalore university governing six semesters masters degree course in computer application. according to regulation viii (b), the eligibility to go to ivth semester from iiirdsemester requires that the candidate should have completed the 1st semester in allrespects and it further provides that he can carry over a maximum of 4 unclearedpipers of iind and iiird semesters (both inclusive ). It is not disputed that theseregulations have the force of law. It is also not disputed that these regulations arerelevant and applicable to the facts of the case. If that be so, what arises forconsideration is, whether the subsequent acquisition of eligibility would lendlegitimacy to the petitioner taking ivth semester examination under the cover of thecourt's interim order despite the aforesaid regulation? ( 7 ) THE interesting aspect of the case is that the 8. m. s. college of engineering was shaken from its slumber and made to open its eyes by the controller ofexaminations of Bangalore university by issuing the letter dated 9-8-1989 pointing outthat the petitioner was neither qualified nor eligible to take ivth semester coursesince he did not satisfy the requirements of regulation viii (b) and that he should bedischarged from the college. However, harsh the direction may sound, what is mostsurprising is how the 2nd respondent-permitted the petitioner to take ivth semestercourse contrary to the aforesaid regulation. It appears to me that the regulation hasbeen sacrificed for the sake of expediency or on some other consideration and itcertainly cannot be said that the principal of b. m. s. college of engineering could feignignorance of university regulations. It appears to me that the regulation hasbeen sacrificed for the sake of expediency or on some other consideration and itcertainly cannot be said that the principal of b. m. s. college of engineering could feignignorance of university regulations. At any rate, no explanation is offered by the2nd respondent in this regard as to how and why the petitioner was permitted to takethe ivth semester course. ( 8 ) STRANGELY enough, a contention is advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was not aware of the regulations and therefore he should not lose the benefit of theresult of ivth semester course. The contention that the petitioner was not notifiedbefore the order was communicated by the first respondent to the 2nd respondent byletter dated 9-8-1989 cannot be accepted because there is no statutory provisionwhich compels the issue of any such notice by the first respondent to the petitioner. in any event, what is relevant for the purpose of the case is, whether the petitionerwas eligible and qualified for taking ivth semester course withouthaving completedall the subjects in the 1st semester. The answer is plainly in the negative. I do not findany justification whatsoever to interfere with the jurisdictional control of the firstrespondent over the 2nd respondent-college and action taken in respect of infractionof university regulations, which are clear and binding on the 2nd respondent. Theconsequences of such a violation be falling the petitioner cannot be warded off byany extraneous consideration. I do not find any lawful excuse which could enablethis court to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. ( 9 ) HENCE, I pass the following: the writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .