SATYABRATA SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) WHETHER Ordinance 1/1996 is prospective in operation or retrospective, is the question that falls for consideration in this writ appeal. ( 2 ) THE appellant was admitted to bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and surgery in respondent No. 2 College. He joined the course during the academic year 1994-95. He completed three years by 1997-98. According to him, in 1996 he had been suffering from chronic gastritis , and has undergone treatment at Apple Hospital, warangal. Again in 1998 while studying the third year he suffered severe stomach pain and was admitted in a Hospital at hyderabad, and since the pain subsisted, he left to his native place, and was hospitalized in Rohini Hospital, Hanumakonda. The appellant appeared for the III year examination and successfully completed the same. He, however, could not attend the classes of IV year because he suffered stomach pain again and was admitted in rohini Hospital, Hanumakonda. ( 3 ) ON 12-7-1999, the appellant submitted an application to respondent No. 2 College for allowing him to join the IV year. The same was forwarded to respondent No. 1 university. Respondent No. 1 University, by order dated 1-9-99 rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that the absence of the appellant from the college was for more than one year. ( 4 ) THE said amendment reads thus:"every student shall attend his/her classes (Theory, Practical and Clinical) on all working days unless he/she is granted leave of absence by the principal. If a student absents continuously for a period of 91 days or more and seeks permission to attend the course before one year after discontinuation, his/her application shall be forwarded to the Vice- chancellor, who if satisfied with the reasons may grant leave of absence attaching such conditions as he may deem necessary. Candidates who are absent for a continuous period of one year or more without permission shall be deemed to have forfeited the admission into the course and his/her studentship stands cancelled without any further notice". ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 University is entitled to issue such an ordinance. Though, the virus of the said ordinance had been challenged, the same has not seriously been pressed before us. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 University is entitled to issue such an ordinance. Though, the virus of the said ordinance had been challenged, the same has not seriously been pressed before us. The learned Counsel for the appellant only contends that since the appellant has joined the course during the academic year 1994-95, the aforementioned ordinance 1/1996 does not apply to the case of the appellant. ( 6 ) IT is true that the aforementioned ordinance is prospective in operation, but that does not mean that it has no application to the case of the appellant. The appellant having been admitted during 1994-95 for the four-year BHMS course, is still continuing in the course, and as such, ordinance 1 of 1996, issued by respondent no. 1 University, cannot be said to have no application to the case of the appellant, and the appellant cannot be allowed to say that he having been admitted in 1994-95 should be governed by the Rules and Regulations that prevailed them. ( 7 ) THE University in exercise of its statutory power is entitled to see that the students attend the classes regularly, and in that regard it can make such Rules and regulations that are necessary for maintaining the academic discipline. If the said Ordinance was issued taking away the power of relaxation from the competent authority to condone attendance of a student who does not attend the classes for more than one year, it cannot be said that the same is unreasonable or arbitrary. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case where sympathetic view should be taken for the appellant has completed three years of the four-years course successfully. We agree. But sympathy can neither be a ground to declare the statute ultra vires nor can it confer a jurisdiction upon this Court to issue directions contrary to law. Sympathy, having regard to the various decisions of the apex Court as well as this Court, should not be misplaced. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in the writ appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.