JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The writ Petitioner was duly admitted in the course for Diploma in Personal Management in Rourkela Institute of Management Studies, Rourkela. The said course of Post Graduate Diploma in Personal Management (hereinafter referred to as the "PGDM") is two years course divided into Part-I & Part-II. After completion of one year's study a student is entitled to appear at the Part-I of.the Examination consisting of six papers. Under the Regulations meant for the said PGDPM Course a student may continue his study in Part II, without appearing at the Part-I Examination at the end of the first year and may appear at both Part-I & Part-II Examinations at the end of the 2nd year. The Petitioner appeared in, Part-I of the PGDPM Examination in 1996, but he failed to clear all the papers in the said Part-I of the Examination. At the end of the 2nd year i.e. 1997 the Petitioner applied for being permitted to appear in the Part-I of the Examination for the back papers and also in the Part-II of the Examination. The Petitioner was permitted to appear at the Part-I Examination for the back papers, but he was denied permission to appear at the Part-II of the Examination to the same year. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. By order dated September 30, 1977 this Court was pleased to grant interim order that- ....without prejudice to the claims involved in the writ petition, let the Petitioner he permitted to appear at the examinations. The results of examinations so far as Petitioner is concerned, shall not be published without leave of this Court. Accordingly, although the Petitioner, appeared at the Part-II of the Examination, 1997 his result of Part-II of the Examination has not been published. 2. The results of examinations so far as Petitioner is concerned, shall not be published without leave of this Court. Accordingly, although the Petitioner, appeared at the Part-II of the Examination, 1997 his result of Part-II of the Examination has not been published. 2. Under Clause 3(b) of the Regulation framed by the Sambalpur University for PGDPM Examination a candidate- may - at his option appear only in Part-I of the Examination or only at the Part-II of the Examination, if He has already passed Part-II or both in Part-I or Part-II together According to the University authorities a student can appear both; in, Part-Land Part-II of the Examination together, if he has riot at all appeared at Part-I of the Examination, but if a candidate, has appeared in the Part-I of the Examination and become unsuccessful, he is not entitled to appear at the Part-II of the Examination before clearing the part-I of the Examination. 3. We have already referred to the relevant Clause 3(b). The interpretation sought to be put by the University on the 3rd Part of Clause 3(b) cannot be accepted in review of the clear language of Clause 3(b). Second part of Clause 3(b) contains a restriction that a student can appear only in Part-II of the Examination if he has already passed Part-I of the Examination. There is no restriction in 3rd part which permits a student to appear both in Part-I and Part-II of the Examination together in the same year. Acceptance of University's construction requires addition of words at the- end of Clause 3(b) like " if he has not appeared at the Part-I of the Examination in the previous years." It is a settled rule of construction that where language is clear and unambiguous no words can be added or substracted or substituted to give it a different meaning. 4. That apart we also do not find any rationale behind the restrictive construction sought to be put by the University. When a student who has not appeared in Part-lot the Examination is permitted to appear at the Part-l and Part-II of the Examination together, there cannot be any conceivable reason for not permitting a student who has failed, to clear the Part-I of the Examination in the previous years to appear both in part-I and Part-II of the Examination in the same year. A student who has not appeared in the Part-I Examination and a student who has appeared at the Part-I of the Examination, but failed to clear the same on the same footing inasmuch as both of them have not passed Part-I of the Examination. Accordingly, we do not find justification for making' any distinction between the two situations. 5. Learned Advocate for the Sambalpur University has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly and Others Vs. University of Lucknow and Others, to argue that, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the interpretation given by the University as, academic body. The said decision does not apply to a situation like the present case. In Krishna Priya Ganguly's case the High Court introduced a criterion different from that prescribed b the University and in that context Supreme Court observed that the High Court could not devise its own criterion for admission. In the present case the Regulation framed by the University itself is being interpreted and given effect to. Moreover, as a proposition, it is also not correct that the High Court is bound to accept whatever construction is put b}' the University on its Regulation. Such proposition militates against the basic principle of judicial review and concept of reasonableness as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to us, the clear language of the 3rd Part of clause-3(b) of the Regulations does not permit such restriction as sought to be put by the University. 6. For foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition and direct the opposite parties to immediately publish the result of the Petitioner of the Part-II of the PGDPM. Examination within a period of two weeks from to-day. If the Petitioner is found to have failed in the Part-II of the Examination, he would be permitted to appear at the next Part-II of the Examination. L. Mohapatra, J. 7. I agree. Writ petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed