Judgment 1. After having had obtained his Graduation, the petitioner got himself admitted in the Respondent College for pursuing the Bachelor in Fine Arts course, having a duration of five years. At about the same time, the petitioner got himself admitted for pursuing Diploma in Library course. There is no dispute that the Bachelor in Fine Arts course is a whole time course, whereas Diploma in Library course is a part time one year course. After having had completed Diploma in Library course, he was permitted to appear at the examination conducted by the University and he succeeded therein. His result was published. The petitioner, in the meantime, was also permitted to appear at various examinations conducted by the University in respect of his Bachelor in Fine Arts Course and he succeeded in those examinations also. His results were published. In 1999 the petitioner got himself registered for One Year Diploma Course in Management. He completed the said course and in the meantime also completed Bachelor in Fine Arts Course. The result of One Year Management Course was duly published and the petitioner was given his result. The result for Bachelor in Fine Arts Course was also published and were given to others. The petitioner was not given his result. The petitioner thus approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2. In the writ petition the petitioner contended that inasmuch as the petitioner has filed a first information report against the Principal of the College, his result has been unjustly withheld and not published. Prompt thereafter by the impugned order, which has been challenged by amending the writ petition, the very admission of the petitioner in Bachelor in Fine Arts Course has been cancelled for the petitioner got himself admitted to pursue Diploma Course in Library. It has been contended that it was not permissible for the petitioner to pursue two courses of the University simultaneously and accordingly since the petitioner has pursued Diploma Course in Library for the Session 1995-1996, he could be admitted in the Bachelor in Fine Course for the Session 1995-2000. 3. The one and the only question is whether the University has taken such a decision or not and whether any legislative law debars a student from pursuing two curses simultaneously. Admittedly, the State Legislature has not yet propounded any such law. 3. The one and the only question is whether the University has taken such a decision or not and whether any legislative law debars a student from pursuing two curses simultaneously. Admittedly, the State Legislature has not yet propounded any such law. In accordance with the legislative mandate issued while establishing Universities, including Patna University, the Senate has been granted power to make laws and regulations, which on being made takes effect as law governing the field. As yet, the Senate has not made any such law. Legislature has empowered the Syndicate to take administrative decisions. When a legislative law is silent as regards a particular matter, it is permissible for the Executive to fill up the vacuum. Accordingly, if neither the State Legislature, nor the Senate has made a law debarring a student from pursuing two courses, it was well within the competence of the Syndicate to issue administrative directions to that effect. It does not appear that the Senate has taken any such decision. 4. The respondents have purported to bring on record a decision to that effect emanating from the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar of the University, which intended to communicate to the Dean of the Faculties and the Principals of different College that no student shall be permitted to offer double courses in any form. This decision is dated 14th October, 1976. This decision specifically directs notification. There is no evidence of notification. Furthermore, neither the Registrar nor the Deputy Registrar of Patna University has power to make executive rules. Such power vests only in the Syndicate. It is upto the Syndicate to delegate such power to the Registrar or to the Deputy Registrar. There is nothing on record, at least the respondents have not brought on record of this writ petition, any such decision to delegate any power to the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar so that either of them could take such a drastic decision. 5. In those circumstances, there being no bar and the University having had permitted the petitioner to appear in the concluding examination of Bachelor in Fine Arte i.e. the Fifth Year Examination on being recommended and sponsored by the Principal of the College, it was unjust on the part of the Patna University or the College concerned or its Principal to deny the result of the petitioner. In those circumstances, the decision impugned by amending the writ petition that the admission of the petitioner in Bachelor in Fine Arts course stand cancelled is quashed with a direction upon the Patna University and the College to forthwith but not later than 15 days from today publish the result of the petitioner. 6. This disposes of the writ petition.