Judgment :- The petitioner in W. P. No. 4695 of 1997 is the self-financing institution by name "S. R. M. College of Pharmacy". The petitioner in W.P. No. 4749 of 1997 is an Association of Managements of Pharmacy Colleges in Tamil Nadu, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The grievances of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are common. The admissions in professional colleges have been regulated under the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case 1993 (1) SCR 594 , 1993 AIR(SC) 2178, 1993 (1) SCC 645 , 1993 (1) Scale 290 , 1993 (1) UJ 721 , 1993 (1) SLR 743, 1993 AIR(SCW) 863, 1993 (1) JT(SC) 474, 1993 (2) RSJ 1). The admissions are being done in self-financing professional colleges only according to that scheme. According to that scheme, admission for 50% of the seats are made for the candidates allotted by the Government from the merit list. 35% payment seats are also allotted by the Government from the merit list of candidates. The balance 15% seats could be filled up by the management from the N.R.I. quota. After the Government completes its allotment of candidates for free and payment seats before 31-10-1996, any seat which remains vacant after 31-10-1996 is deemed to be lapsed seat which has to be filled up by the management candidates. The self-financing colleges have filled up their own candidates in the lapsed seats after 31-10-1996. In the normal course they have to write examination in April of every year. It is the case of the petitioners that the application of the candidates and the fees for the examination had been sent to the first respondent in the month of November and December, 1996 so as to enable them to write the examination in April 1997, and, only at the last moment, the university informed the colleges that the candidates who have joined the colleges after 30th September cannot be allowed to write the examination in April, 1997 as per Regulation 6 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. University, Madras. In view of the above, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions. The students have filed W.M.P. No. 9428 of 1997 to implead them as party-respondents in W.P. No. 4749 of 1997. 2. M.G.R. University, Madras. In view of the above, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions. The students have filed W.M.P. No. 9428 of 1997 to implead them as party-respondents in W.P. No. 4749 of 1997. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the fault is not either on the students or the college in admitting them after 30-9-1996. The Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case (supra) has given time to the Government to fill up the seats till 31-10-1996 and thereafter only the college could fill up the seat if any. That being so, if otherwise the students are eligible to write the examinations, the University cannot rely on the Regulation 6 of the University to prevent the students from writing the examination in April, 1997. They can get admission only after 31-10-1996. The learned counsel appearing for the students who have been impleaded as party to the writ petition in W.P. No. 4749 of 1997 has submitted that even the students admitted after 31-10-1996 have been treated on par with the students admitted according to the allocation made by the Government before 31-10-1996. In view of the continuous practice of the university extending the cut-off date mentioned in Regulation 6, such relaxation cannot be refused to the students who are affected now. The students have had the legitimate expectation of writing the examination in April, 1997 in view of the valid admission in colleges, along with the other students already admitted. According to the learned counsel, the discrimination is not created by law but the discrimination is only due to the conduct of the university. On behalf of the proposed parties, an additional affidavit is filed to show that the university relaxed the cut-off date with respect to atleast six students during the year 1995-96. In para 3 of the affidavit the names have been specifically mentioned. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-university has submitted that the Regulation 6 has to be followed and the university cannot be blamed for admitting the students after 30-9-1996. According to him, that Regulation having been followed uniformly for all the students, there cannot be any discrimination as alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-university has submitted that the Regulation 6 has to be followed and the university cannot be blamed for admitting the students after 30-9-1996. According to him, that Regulation having been followed uniformly for all the students, there cannot be any discrimination as alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. According to him, in some cases, the students have been allowed to write the examination in spite of the fact that they have been admitted after the cut-off date, only in obedience to the orders of the Court. 4. The dispute in the above writ petitions is only relating to Regulation 6 of the third respondent-University. Regulation 6 reads as follows :- "The candidates admitted from 1st July to 30th September be registered to take up their I year examination in April of the next year. The candidates admitted from 1st October to February 18th will be registered to take up their I year examination during the October of the next year. The candidates admitted on or after 1st March to 31st March will be registered to the academic year concerned but they have to undergo the courses and appear for the examination along with the subsequent year batch of students." * It cannot be denied that in W.A. Nos. 3049 to 3052 of 1994 (Vice-Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University v. Vasanthi Selvaraju and others), the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 14-12-1994 after elaborate consideration held that Regulation 6 of the third respondent-university is valid as it has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 44 of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Madras, Act 1987 by Standing Academic Board of the University with regard to the determination of course, duration of course and studies and all other matters relating to the courses in the university. The Division Bench has further held as follows :- "It is also relevant to notice that academic matters specially relating to course of study and the eligibility for examination and all other matters relating thereto, would lie within the prerogative of the University. In such matters, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 should be very much reluctant to interfere." 5. In such matters, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 should be very much reluctant to interfere." 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the belated admission is not due to the fault of the students and so they should not be deprived of writing the examination along with other students who have been admitted before 30th September, 1996. The students who are aggrieved, have been admitted to the courses on the basis of the Scheme framed by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case (supra). In the said Scheme, the Apex Court has fixed 31st of October of that year as the last date for admission of the students allotted. If any seat exists thereafter, the institutions can admit their own candidates subject to the other relevant conditions. The petitioners are now aggrieved over the students who got admission on the vacancy arose after 31-10-1996. The petitioners cannot claim any right to write the examination along with other students who were admitted before 31st September. The university has nothing to do with the admission of the students or allotment of students by the Government to the institutions. It cannot be said that the university is in any way responsible for the belated admission. As held by the Division Bench, it is the prerogative of the university to fix the cut-off date for writing the examination and in the academic policy relating to the above matter, interference by the High Court is not warranted. In similar circumstances, Shivaraj Patil, J. in W.P. No. 4021 of 1995 dated 14-9-1995 has held that the candidates who joined after the cut-off date, viz., 30th September in a year, would not be permitted to take up the examination contrary to the said Regulation 6 of the third respondent-university. In view of the same, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel that on the basis of the cut-off date prescribed by the Apex Court, the university should be directed to permit the students to write the examination in April along with the other students who had been admitted before 30th September, 1996. 6. 6. It is the further case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are instance to show that the university itself has permitted some students who have been admitted after 30th September of that year, to write the examination in April itself. One Miss Divya Ramji has filed an affidavit to show that in the year 1995-96 in Jain Metha College, six candidates admitted on 31-10-1995 were allowed to write the examination in April, 1996. According to them, this incident will indicate that the Regulation 6 of the third respondents university is flexible and the university has power to extend the cut-off date, and the university cannot act indifferently in respect of the students now aggrieved. The learned counsel appearing for the university has submitted that the students are permitted to write the examination, only pursuant to the orders of the Court. With respect to the six students mentioned in the affidavit, the learned counsel has submitted that in view of the suggestion made by the Secretary to the Government, a resolution was passed on 16-10-1995 to the following effect :- "Resolved that the cut-off date be changed to 31st of October instead of 30th September, in amending the Regulation, all the first year examinations will be postponed for one year." According to the learned counsel, this incident cannot be taken in support of the case of the petitioners as the entire students admitted in the course were allowed to write the examination only on the postponed date and there is no special concession to any other students. While dealing with similar submission, Shivaraj Patil, J. in the judgment referred to above has held that "assuming that the university gave such concession against its own Regulation in respect of candidates, for one year, it cannot be said that the university should perpetuate the same for all the years to come. Further, the university cannot be blamed for the belated admission of the petitioners. The Regulations of the university are intended to serve some genuine purpose, namely, to maintain the standard of professional education." In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 7. Further, the university cannot be blamed for the belated admission of the petitioners. The Regulations of the university are intended to serve some genuine purpose, namely, to maintain the standard of professional education." In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the students has submitted that the discrimination between the students, who were admitted before 31st October, 1996 and thereafter, is not created by law but it is only by practice and since the university is having the continuous practice of allowing the students to write the examination, ignoring the Regulation 6 of the third respondent-university, now the university cannot take a different stand with respect to the petitioners. As stated earlier, the third respondent-university has nothing to do with the admission, and it cannot be blamed for belated admission of the students, and, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a writ, directing the third respondent-university not to obey or act according to its own Regulation. If such an order is passed, it will seriously effect the discipline and the standard of education in professional courses. Looked at in any point of view, I am not in a position to accept the case of the petitioners, in view of the admitted fact that they were admitted in the courses only after 30th September, 1996. Hence the abovesaid writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. Before parting with the judgment, I want to mention about the necessity for amending the Regulation 6 of the third respondent-university. The scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishan's case (supra) has become a permanent feature. In that, the Apex Court has fixed the time-limit for allotting the students till 31st of October of the concerned year. Thus, this is happening since 1994. It cannot be said that even the students admitted after 31st of October of the concerned year cannot get necessary attendance so as to enable them to write the examination along with other students admitted before 31st of October. Thus, this is happening since 1994. It cannot be said that even the students admitted after 31st of October of the concerned year cannot get necessary attendance so as to enable them to write the examination along with other students admitted before 31st of October. While so, the third respondent-university should have taken into consideration of these factors in mind, especially when the Supreme Court has formulated a scheme, which has become a permanent feature, and it should take steps to amend the Regulation 6 of the University, so as to enable the students who were admitted after 31st of October to write the examinations in April of subsequent year. The rules and regulations regarding the examination are only to facilitate the students to write the examinations at the earliest possible dates, of course, after complying with the other requirements, regarding attendance, etc. Further, the Regulations should not be extraneous or unconnected with the educational policy. I hope the third respondent-university will take into consideration of this suggestion and take serious steps to amend the Regulation 6 so as to enable the students who have been admitted after 31st October also, to write the examinations along with the other students who have been admitted before 31st of October of the concerned year. 9. With the above observations, the above mentioned writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, in W. M. P. Nos. 7831 and 9263 of 1997 in W. P. No. 4695 of 1997 and in W.M.P. Nos. 7906 and 9262 of 1997 in W. P. No. 4749 of 1997, no further orders are necessary, and they are closed. Petitions dismissed.