CYRIAC JOSEPH C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 12th September 2005 passed by the Learned Single judge in W. P. No. 16433/2005. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE appellant had been admitted to ph. D programme in the respondent University in the year 1992 - 93. Since he could not complete his Ph. D programme even within the maximum stipulated period of 12 semesters, his admission was cancelled in september 1998. Thereafter the appellant took readmission for the Ph. D programme on 5 - 10 - 2001 during the academic year 2001 - 2002. As per Regulation No. 8 (vi) of the university of agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Academic information and regulations 1998 - 99 for Post Graduate Studies, the appellant ought to have submitted the thesis within three years from the date of readmission and if he failed to submit the thesis within the said period his admission was liable to be cancelled. As per the above mentioned regulation, the appellant ought to have submitted the thesis on or before 5 - 10 - 2004. The appellant submitted the thesis on 24 - 9 - 2004, but, on the very next day he took it back with a plea that he had to make some minor corrections and that it would be resubmitted at the earliest. The appellant resubmitted the thesis only on 4 - 1 - 2005. Since the thesis was resubmitted belatedly the appellant submitted Annexure - 'd' representation dated 4 - 1 - 2005 to the Director of Instructions (PGS)requesting that the delay may be condoned and the thesis may be accepted. Even though the Director of Research and the Professor and the Head of the Department of Agricultural entomology appeared to have opined that the appellant's request could be considered in view of the reasons stated in the representation without making it a precedent, the Committee constituted for the purpose of examining the academic records of the appellant and relevant documents, recommended cancellation of the admission of the appellant in view of Regulat ion 8 (vi)referred to above. The said recommendation of the Committee has been produced as Annexure - 'f'. The said recommendation of the Committee has been produced as Annexure - 'f'. The recommendation of the committee was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the university and Annexure - 'a' notification dated 24 - 2 - 2005 was issued by the University cancelling the admission of the appellant. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the admission the appellant filed the writ petition praying for quashing Annexure - ' A' - notification. ( 3 ) THE respondent - University filed Statement of objections and opposed the prayer in the writ petition. The respondent contended that the cancellation of the admission of the appellant was strictly in accordance with the Regulations of the University. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the respondent - University and refused to quash annexure - 'a'. However, the learned Single Judge observed that in the light of the amended Regulation, the petitioner can seek readmission and the University has been directed to give him the benefit of transfer of credits in terms of the Regulation. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the learned single Judge the appellant has filed this appeal. ( 6 ) WE have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and have also considered the materials placed on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the appellant was admitted in terms of Regulation 8 (vi)and that the provisions of Regulation 8 (vi) are applicable to the appellant. However, learned Counsel contended that since the appellant had in fact submitted the thesis on 24 - 9 - 2004 (i. e. , before the last date of 5 - 10 - 2004) the appellant's admission was not liable to be cancelled in terms of Regulation 8 (vi ). In other words, the contention of the appellant is that, even though the appellant had taken back the thesis for making corrections and the corrected thesis was resubmitted only on 4 - 1 - 2005, the thesis should be deemed to have been submitted on 24 - 9 - 2004, the date of first submission of the thesis. The respondent - University has rightly declined to accept the above contention. In the normal course, submission of thesis means submission of thesis in its final form and shape. All corrections and modifications have to be made before the submission of the thesis. The respondent - University has rightly declined to accept the above contention. In the normal course, submission of thesis means submission of thesis in its final form and shape. All corrections and modifications have to be made before the submission of the thesis. Even if the student wants to make any corrections or modifications in the thesis as per the advice or directions of the guide, he will have to do so before the last date fixed for submission of the thesis. Though the appellant submitted the thesis on 24 - 9 - 2004, he took it back on 25 - 9 - 2004. If the appellant had resubmitted the thesis on or before 5 - 10 - 2004 there would not have been any cancellation of the admission. Learned counsel pointed out that considering the circumstances of the case, the University could have condoned the delay in submitting the thesis as requested in Annexure - 'd' representation. If the authorities of the University had condoned the delay, this Court would not have said anything against it. But, unfortunately for the appellant, the authorities of the university did not think that the appellant's case was a fit case for condoning the delay. The committee constituted for the purpose of considering the request of the appellant with reference to the relevant documents and academic records of the appellant, did not recommend condonation of the delay. On the other hand, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the admission in terms of regulation 8 (vi ). The recommendation of the committee was approved by the Vice Chancellor and accordingly the admission of the appellant was cancelled as per annexure - 'a'. We do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision taken by the university. Since the decision of the University is in accordance with the Regulations of the University this court cannot compel the University to ignore the Regulation and condone the delay. In such academic matters this Court has no right to overrule the opinion of the authorities of the University. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure - 'a'. The writ appeal is dismissed. In such academic matters this Court has no right to overrule the opinion of the authorities of the University. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure - 'a'. The writ appeal is dismissed. ( 7 ) AT the same time, we make it clear that it will be open to the appellant to make further representations to the respondent - University and notwithstanding the decision in the writ petition and the writ appeal, it will be open to the University to reconsider the case of the appellant sympathetically. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.