Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ by directing the respondents to permit the petitioners herein to sit for the first semester M.B.B.S. examination to be held in the first week of April, 1993 or any other date and issue hall tickets to the said examination after collecting the necessary examination fee from the petitioners...” 2. All the petitioners applied for the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93. The procedure for selection to the admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93 was challenged before this Court, when the Government issued an order reserving a particular percentage of seats for the students who studied under the C.B.S.E. syllabus. A Division Bench of this Court, after considering the issue raised by the petitioners therein, in Association of Private Schools Affiliated to the C.B.S.E., etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, etc., (1992)2 L.W. 155 , held that only the marks obtained in the entrance examination have to be taken into account for the purpose of selection to the admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93. In view of the pendency of a batch of writ petitions, results were declared only in the middle of July, 1992. The matter was taken up on appeal to the Supreme Court and based on the directions given by the Supreme Court on the undertaking given by the State Government before the Supreme Court, another batch of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court for the selection to the admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93. This batch of writ petitions was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, to which I am a party, by the middle of October, 1992 and it look a view that the marks obtained by the students, both in the qualifying examination as well as in the entrance examination have to be taken into account for the selection and a suggestion was also given to the State Government to admit the students on that basis. The State Government accepted the suggestion rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, to which I am a party, and allotted seats to the students who Have obtained good marks both in the qualifying examination and also in the entrance examination. However, the results for the special category were hot published and a batch of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court, praying to release the results for the special Category. Orders were passed in the batch of writ petitions, giving certain directions, by a Division Bench of this Court, to which I am a party, with regard to the selection of candidates for the first year M.B.B.S. course among the special categories. The said list, was as such, published only in the second week of November, 1992. The petitioners herein had received their orders of allotment in seats and they had joined the first year M.B.B;S. course as stated below: Since the petitioners have joined the course after 20.9.1992, they ware not permitted to sit for the first semester examination held during the month of April, 1993. At that stage, the petitioners came up before this Court, with the prayer stated supra 3. Though the writ petition was admitted on 4. 1993, it was not disposed of yet. As such, the petitioners were notable to write the first semester exarmna-. lions in the month of April 1993. Now, the peti-tioner have filed W;M.P.No.18683 of 1993 for amending the prayer in W.P.No.6114 of 1993 which is to the following effect: "....to amend the prayer in the affidavit and the writ petition as detailed in the Schedule hereunder. Schedule: In the prayer column after the words "petitioner to sit for the", delete the following sentence "I Semester M.B.B.S. Examination to the held in the 1st week of April, 1993" and add the following: " I and II Semester M.B.B.S. Examinations to be held on November, 1993..." 4.. The petitioners allege in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that though qualifying examinations as well as in the entrance examina-tion, they are. to lose six months in their academic career, if they are treated as a separate batch of students. The petitioners allege in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that though qualifying examinations as well as in the entrance examina-tion, they are. to lose six months in their academic career, if they are treated as a separate batch of students. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the division was created artificially by the respondents that those who have joined the course before 30.9.1992 can write their first semester examination in April, 1993, that those who have joined in November, 1993 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioners were compelled to join the first year M.B.B.S. course later, because of the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in not publishing the results in time and that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for that. It seems the petitioners have made representations to the first and third respondents in the middle of December, 1992 and that there was no communication so far from the respondents. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioners were given allotment orders only subsequent to 30.9.1992 and that after receiving the same, they have joined the course immediately as indicated supra. It is also submitted that the petitioners should not be penalised for the inaction or the delay which took place in publishing the results under special category by the respondents 2 and 3. It is also alleged that the condition imposed by the respondents that for a first year M.B.B.S. student to write the first semester M.B.B.S. examination in April, 1993 he must have joined the course on or before 30.9.1992 and that he must secure 80% attendance during the term year cannot be implemented in so far as the present academic year i.e. 1992-93 is concerned. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the respondents cannot take shelter for the purpose of prohibiting the petitioners from taking part in the first year M.B.B.S. examination in April, 1993. It is also alleged that allowing a candidate to join the course in a particular academic year and asking him to write the examination in the next academic year is not warranted by any rules or regulations and that it is illogical and unreasonable. It is also alleged that allowing a candidate to join the course in a particular academic year and asking him to write the examination in the next academic year is not warranted by any rules or regulations and that it is illogical and unreasonable. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioners were not put on notice before joining the course that they would not be able to write the first semester examination in April, 1993 and as such on the ground of promissory estoppel, the respondents cannot deny the permission to petitioners to write the first semester examination in April, 1993 as originally asked for, in the writ petition. 5. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in which it is stated the portions in Physiology are not completed to the petitioners, that special classes are going to be held for completing the Physiology portion from 4. 1993 and that the petitioners should be permitted to take the first semester examination and the second semester examination both together in November, 1993 or in any other date. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent-University in which it is stated that the respondent-University is not in any way responsible for the delay in admission of the students in the medical college. As per the regulations of the respondent-University, the first M.B.B.S. course shall commence from July first of the aca-demic year that the candidates admitted from first October to 28th February will be registered to take up their first M.B.B.S. Part-I examination in the month of November of the said year and Part-II in the month of April in the subsequent year and that the candidates who have joined on or after first March upto 31st March will be registered for that academic year but they have to undergo the course and appear for the examination along with the subsequent year batch of students. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the regulations framed under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Act, 1987 (Act No.37 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) came into force with effect from 1990-91 academic year and were communicated to the Deans/Heads of the departments of all the medical colleges by the University and that it will be clear that the candidates admitted on or after 10. 1992 will be registered to take up their part I in M.B.B.S. examination in November, 1993 and Part II in April, 1994 only. It is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the candidates who have been admitted on or after 10. 1992 cannot be permitted to write the Part I examination in April, 1993. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that the very objective of the cut-off dates prescribed under the Regulations is to see that the candidates who joined the course have undergone the prescribed duration of the course without any shortage in the attendance. It is also staled in the counter affidavit that as per the Regulations framed under the Act, the minimum number of working days for one academic-year will be of 200 full working days in any institution affiliated to the respondent-University, that when the representations of the I year M.B.B.S. students selected under the All India Quota and who have joined after 30.9.1992 were placed before the Standing Academic Board, it had resolved that the students who have joined after 30.9.1992, shall not be permitted to appear for the first M.B.B.S. examination in April, 1993 and as such the petitioners who have joined the course after 30.9.1992, i.e. between 111. 1992 and 111. 1992, cannot be permitted to write the examination in April, 1993. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the candidates who are eligible to have their examination in April, 1993 are alone eligible to have their Part II examination in November, 1993 and as such the petitioners are eligible to have their Part I examination in November, 1993 and that they are entitled to have their Part II examination in April, 1994 only. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are asking for advancement of the second semester examination in November instead of April of the subsequent year, that it is contrary to the regulations of the respondent-University, that the petitioners should undergo the course of study and training for a prescribed period before they were permitted to write the first semester examination and that then only they are eligible to take up Part II in second semester examination. It is also stated that the prayer of the petitioners for permission to have Part I and Part II of I M.B.B.S. course together in second semester to be held in November, 1993 is contrary to the regulations and as such it cannot be entertained. Referring to the unreported decision of this Court in W.P. Nos. 9922 of 1989 etc. it is stated in the counter affidavit that in the said decision it has been held that no mandamus can issue against Regulations. 7. Mr.B.S.Gnanadesikan, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the petitioners-students were admitted on various date only in the middle of November, 1992 that it is not their own making, that they were compelled to join the said course belatedly because of the non-publication of the selection list for special category and the delay caused by the selecting agencies i.e. the State Government. The learned counsel further contends that during the academic year 1992-93, the M.B.B.S. course started only on 19. 1992, that the M.B.B.S. course did not start on the first day of July, 1992 as prescribed in the Regulations made under the Act. According to the learned counsel, the selection to admission to I year M.B.B.S. during the academic year 1992-93 was interdicted by orders of two Division Benches of this Court, the latter being constituted as per the directions given by the Apex Court of the land, and as such the I year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that it is true that the Regulations framed under the Act, provide that the academic year should start on first July on even year, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the admission to the I M.B.B.S. course started only in the middle of September, 1992. Thereafter, when the selection list for ‘special category’ was not published, candidates like that of the petitioners herein approached this Court praying for the publication of results for special category, and only after the publication of results by the State Government the petitioners have joined the course in the middle of November, 1992. So the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the undue delay caused is on the part of the selective agencies, i.e. the State Government, in publishing the results belatedly. So the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the undue delay caused is on the part of the selective agencies, i.e. the State Government, in publishing the results belatedly. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners should not be penalised for the inaction or the delay on the part of the State Government in publishing the results, belatedly, for admission to the I M.B.B.S, course for the academic year 1992-93. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the allotment letters, no communication has been given to the candidates that they will not be permitted to sit for the examination in April, 1993 and that only the students who have joined earlier, i.e. in the month of September, 1992 alone will be allowed to appear for the I M.B.B.S. examination in April, 1993. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioners ware admitted, they have the legitimate expectation that they will be permitted to write the examination along with other candidates in April, 1993, naturally. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the admission for the I M.B.B.S. course was not over by July, 1992, that the academic year did not start in the month of July, 1992 and that in such circumstances, the first respondent-University should exercise its powers under Sec.36 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987. Relying upon Sec.36 of the Act, the learned counsel contends that the first respondent-University should consider the plight of the students/petitioners herein, with regard to the grant of exemption from the provisions of Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.36 of the Act, which talks of the requirement of attendance under the Regulations framed under the Act. 8. Mr.M. Vellaisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, who is the main contesting Respondent has produced before me working sheets with regard to the number of working days in the academic year. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the minimum number of working days should be 200 and if the academic year starts in the month of July, the total number of working days should be 229 days and even after exercising the power of condonation, the petitioners will not be allowed to sit for the examinations along with other candidates, as they have not attended the minimum number of days. The learned counsel relies upon the Regulations of the respondent-University and contends that this Court should not issue a writ against the Regulations framed under the Act. The learned counsel relies upon an unreported decision of this Court in R. Venkatta Prakash v. The Director General Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, W.P.Nos.9922 of 1989 etc., dated 18. 1989 and contends that this Court has taken a similar view in the abovesaid decision. The learned counsel further points out that all the petitioners have joined the course only in the month of November, 1992 and that when they joined the course after 30.9.1992 they were not entitled to sit for I M.B.B.S. examination in April, 1993. The learned counsel contends that once they cannot sit for Part I examination in April 1993, they have to write the Part I examination in November, 1993 and Part II examination only in April, 1994 and that the petitioners should have undergone the course by attending the minimum number of days as per the Regulations. The learned counsel for the first respondent also contends that once the petitioners have not complied with the Regulations, they are not entitled to ask the relief as asked for in this writ petition. 9. I have considered the arguments of Mr.B.S. Gnanadesigan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and of Mr.M.Vellaisamy, the learned counsel for the first respondent, supported by the arguments of Mr. V.Raghupathy, who is appearing for other respondents. 10. Regulations of the first respondent-University are framed under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Act, 1987 (Act No.37 of 1987). According to the Regulations, academic terms for the first M.B.B.S. Part I is from First July to 31st March and for Part II is from First June to 31st October. The cut-off dates are, September 30th of the Academic year, February 28th of the Academic year and March 31st of the Academic year. Examination dates are fixed at April first and November first. With regard to the duration of the course, the period of certified study for the course of Degree of Bachelor of medicine and Surgery shall extend over a period of 41/2 academic years and one year of compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship before the award of the Degree. It is also stated in the Regulations, that each academic year shall consist of not less than 200 working days. It is also stated in the Regulations, that each academic year shall consist of not less than 200 working days. With regard to attendance required for admission to examination, Regulations state that no candidate shall be permitted to any one of the parts of M.B.B.S. examinations unless he has attended the course in the subject for the prescribed period in an affiliated institution recognised by this University and produces the necessary certificate of study, attendance and progress from the Head of the institution. It is also stated therein that a candidate is required to put in minimum 80% of attendance in both theory and practical/clinical separately in each subject before admission to the examination. With regard to Regulations for condonation of lack of attendance, it is stated that condonation of shortage of attendance upto a maximum of 10% in the prescribed eligible attendance for admission to an examination rests with the discretionary powers of the Vice-Chancellor, that a candidate lacking in attendance should submit an application with necessary fees, that the Head of the Department and the Head of the Institution should satisfy themselves and forward the same to the Controller of Examinations who would obtain the Vice-Chancellor’s approval for admission to the examination. With regard to the condition for appearing for Part I and Part II together, Regulations state that candidates certified to appear for Part I examination by the head of the Institution do not appear for the examination although qualified to do so shall alone have the option to appear for Part I and II examinations together at the end of the course and no candidate shall be permitted to appear for Parts I and II examinations together under any other circumstances. A provision for carry-over of failed subjects is also found in the Regulations. So it is clear, that Regulations are made by the first respondent-University with regard to the examination of the I M.B.B.S. course. Be that as it may, in so far as the facts of this case are concerned, what is to be done is the question to be decided. The peculiar circumstances under which these students were admitted for the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93 in Tamil Nadu are well known. Be that as it may, in so far as the facts of this case are concerned, what is to be done is the question to be decided. The peculiar circumstances under which these students were admitted for the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93 in Tamil Nadu are well known. A challenge was made with regard to a Government Order and a Division Bench of this Court had held that the marks obtained in the entrance examination alone should be taken into account. According to this, the State Government admitted the students on the basis of the marks obtained in the entrance examination alone, in the month of September, 1992. On appeal against the said judgment of the Division Bench, the Supreme Court gave certain directions and another Division Bench of this Court, to which I am a party has held that marks obtained both in the qualifying examination as well as in the entrance examination have to be taken into account. This judgment is rendered in the middle of October, 1992. So students have got to be admitted into I M.B.B.S. continuously from September 1992. So far as candidates with regard to ‘special category’ are concerned, writ petitions came to be filed before this Court and orders were passed by a Division Bench of this Court, to which I am a party, only in the middle of November, 1992. On the basis of that order, students like that of the petitioners have been admitted into I year M.B.B.S. for the academic year, 1992-93. So the admission to I year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93 has been the subject matter of the writ petitions and due to the orders of this Court, candidates were admitted into I year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93, on various dates starting from September 1992 to the month of November, 1992. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the academic year 1992-93 started on 7. 1992. When students were admitted into I M.B.B.S. course due to the fault on the part of the selecting agents and when special classes were taken up for the batch of students who were admitted after September 1992, I do not see any reason why the first respondent-University should not think of exercising the power vested on it under Sec.36 of the Act. Sec.36 of the Act, 1987 reads as follows: “Admission to University examinations: 1. No candidates shall be admitted to any University examination unless: .(a) he is enrolled as a member of a University College, University laboratory, affiliated college or approved institution; and .(b) he has satisfied the requirements as to the attendance prescribed by the regulations. .(2) The Governing Council may, on the recommendation of the Standing Academic Board, grant exemption to any candidate from the provisions of Sub-sec(l) subject to such conditions, as it may deem fit...” Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.36 of the Act, which occurs in Chapter VI of the Act, enables the Governing Council, on the recommendations of the Standing Academic Board to grant exemption to any Candidate from the provisions of Sub-sec(l), which talks of admission to University examinations, with regard to the attendance prescribed by the Regulations, framed under the Act. This power, in my view is vested on the respondent-University to meet such peculiar situations, specifically by the legislature. Normally, Regulations provide for condonation upto 10%. I do not think that the Regulations can take away the specific power provided under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.36 of the Act, which occurs in Chapter VI. The question as to whether the students-petitioners to be granted exemption is to decided under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.36 of the Act, by the respondent-University. 11. Mr.B.S.Gnanadesikan, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon an unreported decision Kanakaraj, J. in S.Anathakrishnan represented by Father and Natural Guardian Dr.P.N.Sivaraman v. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University represented by its Registrar, Madras-7, W.P.No. 1646 of 1993, dated 2. 1993, wherein a student who was admitted in the Raja Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai University has got a transfer to the college within the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, the first respondent herein. In that case, when deciding the question with regard to the Regulations in granting exemption to allow the students into examinations, the learned Judge has held as follows: “In my opinion, one has to take pragmatic approach to the entire issue. The future of the student who had been putting all his efforts in the higher secondary course with an ambition to get admission to the Medical College cannot be jeopardised by taking a too legalistic view of the matter. The future of the student who had been putting all his efforts in the higher secondary course with an ambition to get admission to the Medical College cannot be jeopardised by taking a too legalistic view of the matter. The power of exemption is to be exercised in fit and proper cases and I do not think that there is a more fit and proper case which requires exemption......” With respect, I agree with the view of the learned Judge. 12. With regard to the unreported decision in R. Venkatta Prakash v. The Director General Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, W.P.Nos.9922 of 1989 etc., dated 18. 1989, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, I do not think that it will be applicable to the facts of this case because Sec.36 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the Court, in that case. In that case, judgment was rendered on to basis of the Regulations and the settled law, that no mandamus can issue against Regulations. As such, the said decision will not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 13. So taking the overall situation and the facts and circumstances of this case, under which the petitioners were admitted into I M.B.B.S. for the academic year 1992-93 in the State of Tamil Nadu, I am of the view that the first respondent-University has to consider the case of the petitioners, i.e. the request of the petitioners to appear for examinations for both semesters to be held on November 1993 itself. It is for the respondent-University to satisfy itself as to whether the petitioners have undergone the syllabi by way of having special classes etc. Since I feel that Sec.36 of the Act specifically confers power on the first respondent-University, for such a situation to the candidates like that of the petitioners herein to grant exemption, instead of giving relief to the petitioners as asked for, to suit the occasion by moulding the prayer, a direction is to issue to the first respondent-University to consider the request of the petitioners under Sec.36 of the Act and pass orders on or before 38. 1993. The petitioners are to make their representations with regard to grant of exemption, to the respondent-University within two weeks from to-day. This writ petition will stand allowed to the extent slated above. 1993. The petitioners are to make their representations with regard to grant of exemption, to the respondent-University within two weeks from to-day. This writ petition will stand allowed to the extent slated above. No costs.