JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners in, this 'Original petition are students in different engineering colleges and they represent all students of Part-time B. Tech, Degree Course. This original petition is mainly to compel the University of Kerala to hold supplementary examinations for Part-time B. Tech. Course. Although they prayed for a direction to the Controller of Examinations to conduct such examinations before holding regular examinations, now they seem to be satisfied with a direction for holding supplementary examinations in addition to the regular examinations. 2. Petitioners broadly rely on two premises in support of their stand. First is that, Ordinance No. 1 in Chap.7 of the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978 (for short the Ordinances') enjoins on the University an obligation to conduct regular examination. Second is that this court by judgment dated 1st September 1988 in O.P. 6233/88 (Ext. P-1 is a copy of the said judgment) has held that it is obligatory on the part of the University to hold annually two examinations for B. Tech. Part-time Course, one regular and the other supplementary. According to the petitioners, respondents are bound by Ext.. P-1 from which they cannot wriggle out. 3. It is admitted that supplementary examinations due for 1992 have not been conducted so far. It is also admitted that Controller of Examinations (second respondent) has now fixed up a schedule for regular examinations most of which would be held in November and some of which would be held in December. 4. In a statement filed by the standing counsel for the University on 7th October 1992, the following stand was adopted: There is no provision for conducting supplementary examination for B. Tech. students, according to the regulations made by the Academic Council, and hence petitioners can appear for the regular examinations scheduled to take place. The syndicate of the University has not taken a decision on the request made by the petitioners to conduct supplementary examinations. The Academic Council has "now decided to dispense with the conduct of the supplementary examination" and hence there is no violation of Ext. P-1 judgment. 5. From the aforesaid stand it appeared as though the academic council of the University has taken a decision to dispense with the supplementary examination. The Academic Council has "now decided to dispense with the conduct of the supplementary examination" and hence there is no violation of Ext. P-1 judgment. 5. From the aforesaid stand it appeared as though the academic council of the University has taken a decision to dispense with the supplementary examination. As petitioners vehemently repudiated the stand that such a decision has been adopted by the academic council, an affidavit was filed by the second respondent in which a different stand has been adopted which is the following: The regulations approved by the academic council did not contemplate any supplementary examination. Since second respondent did not want to take a decision independently in the light of Ext. P-1 judgment; he placed the "matter before the appropriate body of the University. 6. At a later stage, the Registrar of the University also filed an affidavit, as per which he produced a copy of the approved regulations made by the academic council. When the original petition reached final arguments, learned counsel contended that Ext. R-1(b) regulations issued by the Academic Council "of the University shall be treated as a decision made by the Academic Council. 7. The relevant portion of Ext. R-1(b) (Regulations for B, Tech. Degree) is Regulation No. 5 which reads thus: "There shall be University examination at the end of every year in the subjects as prescribed under the respective scheme of examination." Ordinance No. 1 in Chap.7 of the Ordinances reads as follows: 1. Date, place, etc., of examination. (I)(a) All examinations shall be conducted at such places, at such times and on such dates as the Syndicate may decide, from time to time, A list of the centres at which examinations will be held shall ordinarily be published in the first week of January for the March-April examinations, and in the second week of July for the September-October examinations. (2) All examinations shall ordinarily be held twice in the academic year, unless otherwise decided by the Academic Council from time to time." S.36 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') empowers the Syndicate to pass Ordinances and S.35 of the Act empowers the Senate to issue Statutes, while S.38 empowers Academic Council to make "Regulations. S.83 of the Act says "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the first Statutes and the first Ordinances of the University shall be made by, the Government". S.83 of the Act says "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the first Statutes and the first Ordinances of the University shall be made by, the Government". It was in exercise of the said powers that Government issued First Ordinances". 8. Academic Council's power to make "Regulations" is subject to the provisions of the Act, Statutes and the Ordinances. A reading of S.38 of the Act clearly indicates that the Regulations" cannot -override Ordinances or Statutes. If there is any inconsistency between regulations and the other two, then the latter will prevail. 9. Be that as it may, the Ordinance quoted above (from Chap.7 of the Ordinances) which obliges the University authorities to hold examinations twice in the academic year, is subject to two exceptions. If any extraordinary situation arises, University need not hold two examinations. This can be discerned from the word "ordinarily" m the second clause of the said Ordinance. Second exception is that when the Academic Council decides otherwise, University need not hold examinations twice in the same academic year. Even according to the respondents, no situation has arisen warranting the application of the first exception adverted to above. But the contention is that by making Ext. R-1(b) regulations academic council must be deemed to have taken a decision otherwise. Clause.5 of the regulations for B. Tech. Degree [Ext. R-1(b)] that "there shall be university examination at the end of every year in the subjects as prescribed under the respective scheme of examination". This contention is based on the premise that S.25 of the Act is the repository of all the powers conferred on the Academic Council to make decisions. S.25 of the Act empowers the Academic Council to do any one of the matters enumerated therein. Power to make regulations is only one among them. Exercise of any of the powers enumerated in the section requires a decision to be made by the Academic Council as the first step, according to the counsel for the respondents. 10. Though at the first blush the argument appeared impressive, on a closer scrutiny of the various provisions, am unable to accept it. The words "unless otherwise decided by the Academic Council from time to time" in Clause.1(2) of Chap.7 of the Ordinances would indicate that the "decision" envisaged therein is the executive decisions of the Academic Council as distinguished from the legislative decision. The words "unless otherwise decided by the Academic Council from time to time" in Clause.1(2) of Chap.7 of the Ordinances would indicate that the "decision" envisaged therein is the executive decisions of the Academic Council as distinguished from the legislative decision. Power to make regulations conferred on the Academic Council is the legislative power. A special procedure is laid down for making the regulations (S.39 and 41 of the Act). The power to make regulations cannot, therefore, be equated with the exercise of other powers enumerated in S.25 of the Act. Hence the contention that the fifth clause of the regulations [Ext. R-l(b)] should be treated as a decision made by the Academic Council to bring it within the purview of the second exception adverted to above, is unsound. 11. The upshot of the discussion is this: University cannot be absolved from its obligation to hold two examinations in the academic year, since no situation has arisen to claim exceptions therefrom. 12. What remains to be considered is whether High Court should interfere, at this Me stage, with the decision of the University to hold regular examinations in November and December. It is contended that any such interference would I up set the prospects of regular students who would have already prepared for writing the regular examinations. It is also pointed out that those who want to appear in the supplementary examinations are. those students who have failed in the regular examinations. To give preference to such failed candidates at the cost of those other students, would inflict great hardship and handicap to those regular students. Sri. Sudhakara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, to alleviate "the aforesaid apprehension, suggested that University can hold the supplementary examinations even subsequent to the" completion, of the regular examinations and permit the students (similar to the petitioners) to appear in the regular examinations as well as in such supplementary examinations. He also pointed out that petitioners and similarly situated students may be permitted to appear for the third year examination subject to a rider that their results would be published only if they pass in the first year. There is no valid reason why the aforesaid suggestion should not accepted. In fact, the standing counsel for the University also suggested that there is no other way out if the scheduled regular examinations are to be held uninterrupted. 13. There is no valid reason why the aforesaid suggestion should not accepted. In fact, the standing counsel for the University also suggested that there is no other way out if the scheduled regular examinations are to be held uninterrupted. 13. In the result, the following directions are issued to the respondents. A supplementary examination shall be conducted for all the students who appeared in the regular examination held in October, 1991 without upsetting the present schedule for holding regular examinations. In other words, such supplementary examination need be held only after completion of the present scheduled regular examinations. Students, who were permitted to attend the, third year classes shall be permitted to appear in the regular examinations for the third year whether or not they have already passed first year examinations, but their results need be published only after they pass their first year examinations. Original petition is disposed of in the above terms.