M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD petitioner's learned Advocate, learned Advocate who represents the University. ( 2 ) THE petitioner at the relevant time, was a medical student and the record indicates that he had passed his second M. B. B. S. exam on the fourth attempt. As far as the third M. B. B. S. is concerned, it consisted of three parts and on the first attempt, the petitioner failed in all the three parts. He thereafter reappeared for the exam and on the next occasion, was successful. For purposes of considering his eligibility for post-graduate the University regulation was sought to be applied against him. The relevant part of the resolution prescribes that the student shall not be eligible if he has taken more than four attempts in the course of his M. B. B. S. Course. The authorities completed the three unsuccessful attempts as far as the second M. B. B. S. Course was concerned and treated the failure in the three parts of the third M. B. B. S. Course as three more attempts and thereby held that the petitioner was not eligible. It is this decision that has been challenged in the present petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate submitted that while interpreting the regulation in question, the Court will have to construe the term "attempt" as being the number of times the student has taken the examination and that this should not be held to mean the number of subjects or phases that the student has been unsuccessful in. To illustrate more clearly, the petitioner's learned Advocate submitted that as long as the various subjects constitute part of the same examination, irrespective of how many subjects the student has failed in, it will have to be treated as one unsuccessful attempt. His contention possibly is that while construing the principle, it is not the subject wise consideration, but the number of examinations at which the student has appeared that will have to be added up. Learned Advocate seeks to place reliance on two decisions of this Court, the first one in the case of N. Vijayendra simha v Gulbarga University and Others and the second one in the case of Dr. Sharanamma M. Patil v Registrar, Gulbarga university and Others. Learned Advocate seeks to place reliance on two decisions of this Court, the first one in the case of N. Vijayendra simha v Gulbarga University and Others and the second one in the case of Dr. Sharanamma M. Patil v Registrar, Gulbarga university and Others. In both these cases, a similar issue had come up for consideration and this Court upheld the view that it is examination wise that the number of attempts will have to be counted and not subject wise. In otherwords, this Court took the view that even if a student has failed in more than one subject in a particular examination, that it will still have to be considered as one attempt. In the second of these decisions, the Court had occasion to place reliance on a resolution of the Academic council which followed the decision of the High Court in the earlier case whereunder the Academic Council had itself accepted that position. ( 4 ) SRI Patil, learned Advocate who represents the University, submitted that the present interpretation is correct and that even if for any reason, the learned Single Judges of this Court had taken a contrary view, that this will not bind this Court from deciding otherwise. In support of his submission, he contended that the resolution of the Academic Council is not the criterion, but that the regulation is what the Court is required to interpret. He submits that if the Academic Council for any reason, passed a resolution in terms of the view taken by this court, that that resolution will not in any way come in the way of a clear and correct interpretation of the regulation at this point of time. He also submitted that where the regulation, is unambiguous and where it clearly stipulates that the attempts during the M. B. B. S. Course shall not be more than four, that it would be doing violence to the regulation if something were to be read into it and the Court were to hold that the four attempts during the M. B. B. S. Course must be construed as four examinations and not otherwise. ( 5 ) AS far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, I need to observe that there is considerable substance in the submission canvassed by Sri Patil. ( 5 ) AS far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, I need to observe that there is considerable substance in the submission canvassed by Sri Patil. However, having regard to the view taken by this Court on two occasions earlier, and since the regulation itself is capable of being interpreted either ways, it would not be fair at this point of time to hold against the present petitioner. ( 6 ) REGARDLESS of this position, there is an aspect of the matter which Sri Patil brought to the notice of the Court and which to my mind, was not considered by the High Court on the earlier occasion. Learned Advocate submitted that the whole purpose behind providing for regulations of this type, is in order to provide for some degree of sifting even as far as the successful students are concerned, because where merit is of predominant consideration particularly, in professional courses, it is necessary to eliminate those of the students who admittedly have struggled to get through the previous course. In this regard, he submitted that providing for four attempts as far as the M. B. B. S. Course goes, is more than adequate and if a student is unable to complete the course in those four attempts, then any academic body would be justified in disqualifying that student from being considered for post-graduate education. The learned Advocate pointed out that there is a valid reason for this namely that, when it comes to the higher levels of professional education and where the seats are necessarily limited and where high levels of competence are necessary, that the regulations must prescribe that such class of students who have virtually scraped through the examinations after several attempts must be straightaway eliminated. ( 7 ) I am in complete agreement with the submissions canvassed on behalf of the University, if this is the objective behind the promulgation of the rule. It is highly desirable that the necessary clarification to this effect be incorporated in the rule or that the rule be amended and that this be done at the earliest opportunity. ( 7 ) I am in complete agreement with the submissions canvassed on behalf of the University, if this is the objective behind the promulgation of the rule. It is highly desirable that the necessary clarification to this effect be incorporated in the rule or that the rule be amended and that this be done at the earliest opportunity. It is because of the peculiar wording of the rule that a particular interpretation had been earlier accepted, and hence it would be highly desirable and very much in the academic interest, that these ambiguities be eliminated and that the purpose behind promulgation of the rule will be achieved by amending it. The University shall seriously look into this aspect of the matter. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons set-out in the earlier part of this judgment,this petition succeeds. Rule is accordingly made absolute. The annexure-J, dated 16-12-1995 is accordingly quashed. Though the petitioner has prayed for a relief to the effect that he should be permitted to prosecute his post-graduate course, the only relief which this Court can grant is that the petitioner shall be treated as being eligible to compete for the post-graduate courses in question. It necessarily follows that as far as the eligibility to the post-graduate course is concerned, that it will be subject to the other regulations that govern such eligibility. ( 9 ) WITH these directions, the rule is made absolute to this extent. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .