JUDGMENT P.C. Verma, J. This Special Appeal has been filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.01.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 1099 (M/S) of 2003 - Bharat Bhushan Vs. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge issued a writ of mandamus to permit the petitioner Bharat Bhushan of Writ Petition No. 1099 (M/S) of 2003, who IS respondent In this Special appeal to prosecute his studies in B.Sc. (Agriculture). 2. The petitioner appeared in entrance test conducted by the University for admission in B.Sc. (Ag.) for the first academic year 2000-2001. He was granted admission in B.Sc. (Ag.) for academic year 2000-2001 in the second semester on 19.01.2001, which commenced from January 2001. 3. The respondent/petitioner appeared in the examination of second semester of academic year 2000-2001. He secured 3.684 G.P.A. (Grade Point Average). He was registered in the first semester of academic year 2001-2002. He secured G.P.A. 5.512. The report card was issued to him after calculating the total credit offered during the second semester of 2000-2001 and first semester of 2001-2002 with 21 + 18 i.e. 39 credits. Thereafter, the respondent/petitioner was admitted to second semester of 2002-2003. He was given credit of 20 points and his G.P.A. was 5.849. 4. The respondent/petitioner was dropped for his poor academic record taking recourse of the provisions contained in Chapter III of Regulation 44 of the Regulations on Admission, Enrolment and Continuance of Students of the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar. Thereupon, the respondent/petitioner filed writ petition no. 324 of 2002 in which he was permitted provisionally to be allowed to continue and to prosecute his studies. This order was subject to decision of the writ petition. Writ petition no. 324 of 2002 was finally allowed by the learned Single Judge with direction to the University Authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of his judgment dated 25.08.2003 passed in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the petitioner (respondent) to continue his studies further. Against this judgment, Special Leave Petition bearing no. 18804 of 2002 was filed in the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the same on 09.01.2003. The learned Single Judge allowed the petitioner (respondent) to continue his studies further. Against this judgment, Special Leave Petition bearing no. 18804 of 2002 was filed in the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the same on 09.01.2003. Thereafter, petitioner's (respondent in this appeal) case was considered by the University in compliance of the judgment dated 25.08.2003 and the appellant maintained their order of dropping of the petitioner from University Roll and rejected the representation of the respondent vide order dated 6.10.2003 passed under Regulation 46 of Chapter III of the Regulations on Admission, Enrolment and Continuance of Students. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/petitioner filed writ petition no. 1099 (M/S) of 2003 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and mandamus has been issued to the respondent/appellant to permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies in B.Sc. (Ag.), which is impugned in this Special Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued Regulation 44(a)( 1) of the Academic Regulations contained in Chapter III; Cumulative Grade Point Average (C.G.P.A.) is to be calculated considering the grade point secured in all the three semesters; the respondent (petitioner) failed to secure above 5 cumulative grade point average out of 10 at the end of total three semesters, in which respondent/petitioner appeared and the provisions of Regulation 46 were not attracted as the petitioner was not entitled to petition under Regulation 44. Thus, the interpretation of Regulation 44 is called for in this Special appeal. 6. Regulation 44 reads as under: "Dropping from the University 44.(a) If any under-graduate student fails to attain CGPA of 6.000 out of 10.000 at the end of academic year he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with the right to petition for the readmission. The following categories of the first-degree students shall, however, be finally dropped from the University with no right to petition for admission, (I) If any under graduate student fails to attain a CGPA of 5.000 out of 10.000 at the end of the first academic year. In case a student has been permitted to drop I or II semester of his I academic year, his CGPA at the end of first two semesters of his stay in the University will be counted for this purpose. In case a student has been permitted to drop I or II semester of his I academic year, his CGPA at the end of first two semesters of his stay in the University will be counted for this purpose. (II) If any under graduate student fails to attain CGPA of 5.000 in the second year onwards. (b) Any undergraduate student failing in the same course thrice shall be dropped from the University. In exceptional circumstances, however, the Vice Chancellor may permit a fourth chance on the recommendation of the Advisor and Dean concerned. (c) No under-graduate student shall register again a course, which he/she has already cleared with a passing grade. If he/she registers again a course already passed, subsequent grade shall be ignored." 7. Academic year has been defied in Regulation 4 which reads as under: "4 a) The academic year shall be from July to June. b) The academic year shall be divided into two academic terms, roughly of 21 weeks duration each, known as semester, Specific dates for advisement, registration of students, commencement of instructions and semester final examination for each semester shall be fixed by the Registrar in advance." 8. Regulation 44(a) provides that if an Under-graduate student fails to attain the CGPA of 6.000 out of 10.000 at the end of academic year he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with the right to petition for readmission. 9. The procedure for calculating GPA, CGPA and OGPA, are provided in Regulation 31 of Chapter IV of the Regulations which reads as under: "31 (1) For Calculation of GPA/ CGPA/ OGPA, the following shall be the formula/procedure: A) The points earned in a course will be total marks obtained by a student out of 100, divided by 10. B) Points secured in a course will be "Points earned in a Course x Credits of the Course" C) The following shall be formula for calculating the GPA/ CGPA/ OGPA : GPA= Total Points Secured/Total Credits (For 1 semester only) CGPA= Total Points Secured/Total Credits OGPA= Total Points Earned (after excluding Failure Points)/Total Credits. B) Points secured in a course will be "Points earned in a Course x Credits of the Course" C) The following shall be formula for calculating the GPA/ CGPA/ OGPA : GPA= Total Points Secured/Total Credits (For 1 semester only) CGPA= Total Points Secured/Total Credits OGPA= Total Points Earned (after excluding Failure Points)/Total Credits. D) While converting the credits of the course from Semester to Trimester system anyone of the following alternatives may be followed without any disadvantage to the students: (i) OGPA shall be calculated without any conversion i.e. trimester credits and points and Semester credit & Point shall be taken as such for calculating the OGPA. OR (ii) The Semester credits may be converted into Trimester credits and OGPA may be worked out. OR (iii) Trimester credits may be converted into Semester credits. (2) For purpose of Academic Probation, Dropping, readmission CGPA will be taken into account." 10. A reading of definition of academic year, Regulation 31 (Chapter IV) and Regulation 44 (Chapter III) together makes it clear that CGPA has to be calculated for every academic year independently. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the end of second semester, the cumulative grade point has to be calculated considering the credit points secured in all the three semesters and calculating as such the respondent (petitioner) did not secure 5.000 out of 10.000 Cumulative Grade Point Average at the end of the academic year 2001-2002. Therefore, the respondent was rightly dropped and his representation has rightly been rejected. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. 11. Sub clause (I) of clause (a) of Regulation 44 clearly provides that if any undergraduate student fails to attain a CGPA of 5.000 out of 10.000 at the end of the first academic year, he shall be dropped with no right of petition for readmission. It further provides that in case the petitioner has been permitted to drop I or II semester of his I academic year, his CGPA at the end of first two semesters of his stay in the University will be counted for this purpose. Admittedly, the petitioner was not admitted in the first semester and was given admission in the second semester of 2000-2001. He was not permitted to drop in first semester of 2000-2001. Admittedly, the petitioner was not admitted in the first semester and was given admission in the second semester of 2000-2001. He was not permitted to drop in first semester of 2000-2001. Therefore, first two semesters of his stay in the University could be counted for the purpose of clause (I). Permitted to be dropped clearly means that he is permitted to break the continuity. Permission could be accorded only after the admission and continuity could be broken only after his dropping after admission. Therefore, interpretation put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. The said interpretation is not attracted in the facts of this case as admittedly the respondent was admitted in the second semester of first year, therefore, his G.P.A. could be counted for the first year and C.G.P.A. is required more than half out of ten. The petitioner has secured in the second semester of first year 3.684 GPA that comes to more than 3.6 and if CGPA on this average is calculated it comes more than 6. Therefore, dropping of the respondent by counting the first two semesters of his stay in the University is not permissible in view of the facts of this case and the respondent could not be dropped. The reason for dropping of the respondent is contrary to provisions of Regulation 44 (a) and sub clause (I) of 4 (a). The points secured by the petitioner are being reproduced as under:- 2nd Semester Academic year 2000-01 3.684 G.P.A. 1st Semester Academic year 2001-02 5.512 G.P.A. 2nd Semester Academic year 2002-03 5.849 G.P.A. 12. From the above figures also, the respondent could not be dropped in view of the Regulation 44. Therefore, as per clause (a) of Regulation 44, the CGPA has to be calculated for each academic year and the respondent's case does not fall in sub-clause (I) of clause (a) as he has not been permitted to drop in the first semester. As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly issued mandamus to permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies. The Special appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 13. The Special appeal is dismissed accordingly.