Judgment : 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21. 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 15624 of 1995. At the stage of admission 1st respondent University is represented through learned counsel Shri Chandru and learned Special Government Pleader for Education takes notice for 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent is also represented through a counsel. 2. In the writ petition, the order dated 13th October, 1995 passed by the Principal, Noorul Islam College of Engineering was challenged. Learned single Judge has issued the following directions in the light of the provisions contained in Regulation 9(c) of Chapter 17 of the Statutes of the University:- “In the result, I pass the following order: The first respondent is directed to intimate the university about the impugned order in terms of Regulation 9(c) referred to above, with the reasons and connected records within a period of two weeks from today. The second respondent University in terms of the said regulation, shall examine the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order within a period of two weeks thereafter. It is open to the petitioner to make necessary representation before the second respondent. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Although the second respondent is represented by the Controller of Examinations in this writ petition, learned counsel for the university states that the university is effectively represented and that the competent authority of the university shall examine the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order in terms of the regulation aforementioned. The same is recorded.” 3. The Principal of the College passed the following order:- “Mr. J. Jagan, 93 ECE, is expelled from the College for the rest of the academic year 1995-96 with effect from 19. 1995 as he was proved to be the main culprit in ragging first year students on 19. 1995.” 4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the College is that the aforesaid order did not attract the provisions contained in Regulation 9(c) of Chapter 17 of the statutes of the University, in as much as in effect, there was no expulsion, but it was only debarring of the student from attending the rest of the academic year 1995-1996 with effect from 18th September, 1995. Learned single Judge has not accepted this submission. 5. Learned single Judge has not accepted this submission. 5. We are also of the view that the contention cannot at all be accepted, having regard to the very wording contained in the order of the Principal, which specifically says that the 3rd respondent herein has been expelled from the college. The contention is that expulsion cannot be for the rest of the academic year, and expulsion can be from the College itself, therefore though the Principal has used the expression “expelled” in his order very loosely. That the sum and substance of the order does not permit an interpretation to be placed on it that it is an order of expulsion. 6. It may be pointed out here that the student in question was not permitted from attending the College from 19. 1995. The fact that the requirements of Regulation 9(c) of Chapter 17 of the statutes of the University were not complied with, will not take away the order from the category of being the one to expel the student from the College. As a result of the order, the student will not be permitted to enter into the College and will not be able to participate in any of the activities of the College. Therefore, we are of the view that the effect of the order of the Principal being one of expulsion, depriving the student from the teaching benefit and all other activities of the College. The Principal was required to follow Regulation 9(c) of Chapter 17 of the statutes of the University. The same having not been followed, learned single Judge was justified in issuing the direction as extracted above. 7. We may also point out here that Regulation 9(c) of Chapter 17 of the statutes is intended to serve a great purpose, viz., to ensure that the Principal of the College or the Authorities of the College affiliated to the University does not or do not act arbitrarily and take vindictive actions against a student and no student is put is any undue hardship or injustice. The University having been vested with the authority of controlling the functioning of the College, is entitled to have such a control over the affiliated College as otherwise, the possibility of the students being harshly dealt with by the College and its Authorities cannot be controlled. Hence, we see no reason to admit the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The University having been vested with the authority of controlling the functioning of the College, is entitled to have such a control over the affiliated College as otherwise, the possibility of the students being harshly dealt with by the College and its Authorities cannot be controlled. Hence, we see no reason to admit the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. As requested by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is granted 2 weeks to comply with the direction contained in the order of the learned single Judge and the University to decide the matter in 3 weeks from the date of receipt of records from the College. The C.M.P. is also disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.