Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward to file this Writ Petition, seeking to challenge the order passed by the third respondent, viz., the Tamil Nadu MGR Medical University, dated 20.08.2007. 2. By the impugned communication, the third respondent-University informed the Director of Medical Education that the petitioner's request to rejoin the course cannot be considered, as it is contrary to the requirements framed by the University, more particularly, Rule 17 (a), relating to the MBBS Course (Semester Pattern). 3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 2.1.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner's request for grant of interim direction was dismissed on 05.8.2008. On notice, from by this Court, the third respondent-University has filed a counter affidavit, on 3.07.2008. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mrs.Narmada Sampath, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-University produced a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Committee, held on 24.11.2011 & 25.11.2011, to consider and decide various representations received from the candidates as well as the resolution passed by the Standing Academic Board, with reference to the discharge of the candidates, who have crossed the double the duration of the concerned course of study. As per the Scheme envisaged by the Academic Board, in terms of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Medical Universities Act, the scheme reads as follows:- (For Those candidates, who have crossed double duration of their concerned course of study till the end of academic year April, 2012, for PG and August, 2012 for UG) UNDER Graduate Course Course Duration Double the duration MBBS4 = years + 1 year internship 11 years 5. In the counter affidavit filed, it is stated that the petitioner joined the First Year MBBS course at the Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore, for the academic year 1987and 1988, and thereafter, he discontinued the said course. Subsequently, he was permitted by the University, by a letter dated 30.09.1993, to rejoin the first year MBBS Course, as per the semester pattern, starting for the year 1993-94. The petitioner joined the MBBS course on 28.10.1993 and also passed first year MBBS in 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner did not attend the Course from November, 2002. Subsequently, he was permitted by the University, by a letter dated 30.09.1993, to rejoin the first year MBBS Course, as per the semester pattern, starting for the year 1993-94. The petitioner joined the MBBS course on 28.10.1993 and also passed first year MBBS in 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner did not attend the Course from November, 2002. A letter was received from the Director of Medical Education, dated 8.10.2003, forwarding necessary proposals for readmission of the petitioner and also to condone the break in study on the ground of ill health and that his father and mother were met with some road accident. The period of break was from November, 2002 to 3.3.2004. The University by a letter dated 3.3.2004, given consent for his re-admission to join second year MBBS Course at the beginning of the Preclinical (Phase -I) in his own vacancy, with a condition that he has to undergo full prescribed period of study in the Preclinical course, on re-admission. It was also informed that the petitioner has joined the second year MBBS Course, non semester pattern, on 21.04.2004. Again there was a break of study for the third spell and proposals were sent from the Director of Medical Education on 27.04.2007. However, it is found that the petitioner, having joined the MBBS Course as early as on 1987-88 and once permitted to join again, already 20 years have elapsed, since the date of his original entry. Therefore, it was informed that under Regulation 17 (a) of the Regulations for the MBBS Course (Semester Pattern), if a candidate having break of study of five years and above from the date of admission and also having more than two spells of break, will not be considered for re-admission. It is this impugned order which is under challenge before this Court. 6. The contention raised by the petitioner was that there was no break of study, for more than five years, on the two occasions. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can contend that there was no break of study, for five years. In fact, even in the revised Regulations, the entire period of 4 = years + 1 year internship for MBBS Course has to be completed within the period specified therein viz., Double the duration of 11 years. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can contend that there was no break of study, for five years. In fact, even in the revised Regulations, the entire period of 4 = years + 1 year internship for MBBS Course has to be completed within the period specified therein viz., Double the duration of 11 years. In the present case, the duration was more than 20 years and hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The impugned communication is not pursuant to the Regulations framed by the University, which is once again revised by the Academic Board, vide its meeting, dated 24.11.2011, 25.11.2011. In the matter of this nature, it is for the Academic Bodies to consider the matter and the Court cannot have any say, in directing the University to act in a particular fashion. Ultimately, it is open to the University to decide as to the period within which a Course has to be completed. In the absence of such regulations being complied with, this Court cannot issue any direction contrary to those Regulations. Hence, there is no case made out by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is misconceived and bereft of any legal reasonings. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.