Judgment The action of the respondents in not issuing LL.M Provisional Certificate to the petitioner is questioned in this writ petition. The petitioner who retired as Deputy Executive Engineer appeared in PGLCET-2007 and qualified for being admitted into LL.M (Two Year) Course. Accordingly, he has joined LL.M (Business Law) in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam in the year 2008 and has completed the Course. When he applied for Provisional Certificate, he was denied the same by the respondents on the ground that in two subjects, namely, Legal Education & Research Methodology and Law of Export Import Regulations, in II Semester, he did not get 40% of marks in the theory components of the said two papers. Questioning this action, he has filed this writ petition. I have heard Sri P. Bala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra University appearing for the respondents. On a careful perusal of the respective pleadings of the parties, the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is under obligation to secure 40% of marks in each component of the papers. The learned Standing Counsel placed before the Court the Regulations and Syllabi relating to LL.M Degree Course. Regulation 12 thereof which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: “12. The results of the candidates for the M.L. Degree shall be declared in two classes – First Class and Second Class. A candidate who obtains in the written examination not less than 50% in the aggregate and not less than 40% in each paper and obtains in the Essays or Thesis not less than 50% of the marks, shall be declared to have passed in the Examination. Such of those candidates who obtain not less than 60% of the marks on the whole shall be declared to have passed in the First Class and the rest in the Second Class.” A plain reading of the above re-produced Regulation reveals that in order to pass LL.M Course, a candidate must inter alia obtain in the written examination not less than 50% of the aggregate and not less than 40% in each paper. The Regulation as such does not prescribe a candidate obtaining minimum 40% marks in each component of the paper. The Regulation as such does not prescribe a candidate obtaining minimum 40% marks in each component of the paper. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on letter, dated 03.03.2004, of the Assistant Registrar (Academic) addressed to Professor H.C.M. Patro, the Chairman, Board of Studies in Law, Andhra University, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar P.G. Centre, Etcherla, Srikakulam, wherein with reference to the issue in question, he has stated as under: “L.L.M. Course: “The results of the LL.M Degree shall be declared in two classes First class and Second class. A candidate who obtains in the written examination not less than 50% in the aggregate and not less than 40% in each paper (subject to secure 40% in each component of the paper) shall be declared to have passed the examination. Such of those candidate who obtains not less than 60% marks on the whole should be declared to have passed in first class and the rest in Second Class.” Placing emphasis on this letter, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that unless the Regulation existed requiring a candidate to secure 40% in each component of the paper, there would have been no occasion for the Assistant Registrar (Academic) to write such a letter. The petitioner has filed a copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Studies in Law, dated 02.11.2010, wherein it is inter alia resolved as under: “Calculation of 40 marks minimum per paper in LL.M examination is out of 100 marks and not minimum 40% in each component (i.e. 32 out of 80 in theory and 8 out of 20 in internal assessment separately) as LL.M. rules do not authorize such calculation. Calculation of 50% in the aggregate is to be done only at the end of the course. The board further resolved that these rules apply from admitted batches 2003-04 onwards until they are changed.” From the above-noted Minutes of the Board of Studies in Law, it is quite evident that while the LL.M Regulations do not authorize calculation of 40% in each component of the paper, the University appears to be insisting on this requirement for a student to pass the Course. The Board of Studies has accordingly resolved to change this procedure from 2003-04 batch onwards. The Board of Studies has accordingly resolved to change this procedure from 2003-04 batch onwards. The Academic Senate of respondent No.1-University in its meeting held on 02.11.2010 has approved the said resolution as evident from letter, dated 27.12.2010, addressed to the Chairman of Board of Studies in Law; the Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam and other Members of Faculty from the academic year 2010-11. Thus, from the academic year 2010-11, the requirement of the candidates securing 40% minimum marks in each component of the subjects is done away with. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents cannot introduce a procedure which is not authorized by the Regulations made by the competent authority. As noted above, Regulation 12 of the Regulations which governs the issue does not either expressly or by necessary implication prescribe 40% minimum marks in each component of the paper. The Board of Studies in Law, in its resolution noted above has taken note of the fact that the Regulations do not lay down any such requirement. The respondents failed to show the basis on which the Assistant Registrar (Academic) addressed his letter, dated 03.03.2004, when the purported Regulation he has quoted is not found in the Regulations. The University, therefore, cannot enforce on its students a requirement which is not prescribed by it by way of statutes or Regulations and the same cannot stand scrutiny of the Courts. The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the footnotes on the Marks Memos indicating that the students must secure 40% marks in each component of the subject. In the absence of a Regulation, such notes have no legal sanctity and a fortiori thing is not enforceable. Admittedly, if the minimum marks for each component of the two subjects – Legal Education & Research Methodology and Law of Export -Import Regulations, are not insisted, the petitioner passed both the subjects as he has got aggregate of 43% and 46% respectively in the said subjects. On a careful consideration of the case in its entirety, I am of the considered view that the respondents are not justified in treating the petitioner as not having passed the two subjects. As noted above, from the academic year 2010-11, the University itself has done away with the said requirement. On a careful consideration of the case in its entirety, I am of the considered view that the respondents are not justified in treating the petitioner as not having passed the two subjects. As noted above, from the academic year 2010-11, the University itself has done away with the said requirement. On the analysis as above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as having passed LL.M Course and issue necessary certificates in respect thereof within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2667of 2011 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.