Judgment : The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated 18. 1996 and direct the respondents to permit in petitioner to write the examination leading to the D.M. Cardiology Degree in September, 1996. Before going into the merits of the case, it has to be mentioned that by an interim order dated 30.8.1996, I permitted the petitioner to write the examination and directed that the results shall not be published till the disposal of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner had obtained M.B.B.S. Degree and also the Post Graduate Degree of M.D. (General Medicines). In October, 1989, he was selected for admission to the higher speciality course in D.M. (Cardiology) at the Madras Medical College. The admission was for the academic year 1989-90. At the time of admission, the petitioner was governed by Regulations of the Madras University which did not restrict the number of attempts for passing D.M. (Cardiology) examination. The petitioner completed the course of study in the year 1991. The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University came into being in the year 1987. The Standing Counsel of the first respondent/ University framed regulations on 11. 1992. In the regulations framed by the first respondent/ University the number of at-" tempts was restricted to five. The petitioner and others sought for exemption from the above condition and according to the petitioner by a letter dated 8. 1994, the first respondent had permitted candidates and admitted students in 1989-90, batch to appear for the examination without any limitation. However, in respect of the students admitted in 1990-91 batch, such a benefit was denied. In the impugned letter dated 18. 1996, the respondents informed the petitioner that they regret their inability to permit the petitioner to write the examination in September, 1996 because he had already completed eight attempts. They have quoted the regulations framed on 19. 1994 which are made applicable from the academic year 1994-95 and which are as follows: "The failed candidates will be, permitted to appear for a maximum of 8 attempts within 6 years from the date of completion of the course and shall be discharged from the course if he/she fails to fulfil this provision." 3. Respondents have filed a counter-affidavit where in they have disputed the letter dated 8. 1994 relied on by the petitioner. Respondents have filed a counter-affidavit where in they have disputed the letter dated 8. 1994 relied on by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the said letter was never signed by the Registrar and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to take advantage of the contents of the said letter. On the other hand, it is stated that on 19. 1994 the Standing Academic Board of the University had resolved that the maximum number of attempts should be restricted to 8 and as indicated in the passage quoted above. This decision of the Standing Academic Board of the University has been approved by the Governing Council of the University at its meeting on 30.9.1994. 4. The argument of Mr.N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner having been admitted to the course in the year 1989-90 and there being no restriction on the number of attempts during that year, it will not be permissible for the respondents to impose a new restriction on the number of attempts. In other words, it is argued that the regulations now introduced from the academic year 1994-95 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner who was admitted to the course in the year 1989 90. The second limb of the argument of the petitioner is that under Sec.67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Medical University Act, 1987, the petitioner is entitled to write the examination in accordance with the Rules and Regulations which prevailed during the year 1989-90. The petitioner also relies on the said letter dated 8. 1994 said to have been written by the Registrar of the first respondent- University. 5. The said letter dated 8. 1994 on which reliance is placed, can be disposed of at the first instance. The letter is as follows: "With reference to your representation, it is informed that the candidates admitted in the year 1989-90 batch are permitted to appear for the examinations (without any limitation) subject to the condition that they shall put in an additional attendance for one term or three months in a recognised Hospital/ Institution approved for the purpose for every subsequent appearance i.e., every appearance after the first three attempts." In my opinion, this letter runs against the very regulations made applicable from 4. 1995 which I have already quoted. That apart, the respondents dispute the very issuance of the said letter. 1995 which I have already quoted. That apart, the respondents dispute the very issuance of the said letter. Under such circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioner cannot succeeds on the basis of the said alleged letter written by the Registrar of the University. No doubt, I have relied on the said letter at the time of giving interim directions permitting the petitioner to write the examination. That does not mean that my opinion expressed in the miscellaneous petition is binding on me when I dispose of the writ petition itself. 6. So far as the first contention about the retrospective nature of the regulations, learned counsel for the first respondent/ University relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab University v. Subash Chander A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1415 and Punjab University v. Devjani Chakrdbarti, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1444. It is enough if I refer to the first judgment reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1415. The Apex Court was dealing with the identical situation where the candidate was relying on certain regulations which were inforce when the candidate was admitted to the M.B.B.S. course in the year 1965. In the year 1970 regulations had been changed and the candidate had taken the examination in the year 1974. His attempt was to get the grace marks as per the regulations which were in force at the time of his admission to the College in 1965. The Apex Court has rejected the case of the candidate and observed; “It is not possible to hold that it is retrospective in operation merely because though introduced in 1970 it was applied to Subash Chander, respondent 1, who appeared for the final examination in 1974, after he had joined the course earlier in 1965. No promise was made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time of his admission in 1965 that there will be alteration of the rule or regulation in regard to the percentage of marks required for passing any examination or award of grace marks and that the rules relating thereto which were in force at the time of his admission would continue to be applied to him until he finished his whole course.” The first contention of the petitioner therefore, fails. 7. The second contention is based on Sec.67 of the Act. 7. The second contention is based on Sec.67 of the Act. Strong reliance is placed on Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.67 of the Act, to contend that the petitioner should be permitted to appear for the examination and complete the course in accordance with the Regulations which were in force in 1989-90 when the petitioner was admitted to the Course. I do not agree with this contention because Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.67 of the Act will come into play only when regulations are not framed subsequently by the first respondent/ University, and the earlier regulations are continued under Sub-sec.(3). That is not the case before us because admittedly, the first respondent had framed regulations to which I have made a reference and which are applicable to the academic year 1994-95. These regulations are inconsistent with the regulations which were in existence in 1989-90 and therefore, the subsequent regulations alone will govern the case of the petitioner. 8. Therefore, all the points raised by the petitioner fail and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, states that in pursuance of the interim order in W.M.P. No.16392 of 1996 the petitioner has written the examination and hopes to succeed in the examination as well if results are furnished. In my opinion, inasmuch as the petitioner has failed in the writ petition, I cannot direct the results to be published. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent/ University on humanitarian and sympathetic grounds to declare his results, so that he will have the satisfaction of the completing the course and knowing the result of the examination. It is entirely for the respondents to consider such a request on sympathetic grounds and if satisfied it is open to them to pass any appropriate order. With the above observation the writ petition is dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.