ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the Notification No. CUJ/126 dated 26.05.2017 to the extent that no exit option shall be allowed to the students admitted in the year 2014 and subsequent years as per the Gazette of India notification dated 05.07.2014 (Part III Section 4). Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioners to avail the exit option, as has already been allowed to the students of previous batches. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioners are the students of Integrated M. Tech Degree Programme in the Central University of Jharkhand (in short CUJ) of 2014 batch. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 15 are the students of Integrated M. Tech (Nanotechnology) Course, whereas the petitioner No. 16 is the student of Integrated M. Tech (Energy Engineering) Course. Although all the petitioners had taken admission in their respective courses by 30.07.2014 and their courses had commenced in the month of August, 2014, the prospectuses were given to them in the month of December, 2014 which did not provide anything regarding exit option. In the meantime, the CUJ had come out with a notification having Reference No. CUJ/2082 dated 04.09.2014 wherein it was stipulated that the exit option in the Engineering Courses after 8th semester had already been approved and the students availing such exit options would be awarded B. Tech Degree in the subject concerned provided they had the requisite credits. However, in the year 2017, the respondent-CUJ vide Notification No. CUJ/126 dated 26.05.2017, informed that the exit option shall not be allowed to the students admitted in the year 2014 and subsequent years as per the Gazette notification dated 05.07.2014 (Part III Section 4). Thereafter, the petitioners met the Dean and the Registrar of the respondent-CUJ and submitted their representation whereupon the respondents assured that the said notification was not final and thus their representation would be acted upon. In the meantime, the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering-2018 was announced in the year 2017. Thereafter, the petitioners met the Dean and the Registrar of the respondent-CUJ and submitted their representation whereupon the respondents assured that the said notification was not final and thus their representation would be acted upon. In the meantime, the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering-2018 was announced in the year 2017. The petitioners participated in the said examination and were declared successful and thus they again represented the Vice Chancellor of CUJ on 19.03.2018 for considering their request for exit option, but no order was taken on the representation of the petitioners, which ultimately gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Integrated M. Tech Courses offer M. Tech Degree after completion of 5 years i.e. 10 semesters with an exit option after completion of 8 semesters. The reason behind the same is that the regular B. Tech Programme is of 8 semesters and M. Tech programme is of 4 semesters. However, the Integrated M. Tech Course is of 10 semesters i.e. 5 years, which clearly saves one year time of the students in obtaining M. Tech Degree. Moreover, if any student gets an offer from any other premier institute for M. Tech programme, then by way of availing the exit option, he/she would be able to pursue his/her M. Tech programme from other premier institute. At the time of advertisement/counselling/admission/commencement of M. Tech Integrated courses, it was not specified by the respondent-CUJ that there would not be any exit option available to the students of 2014 batch and onwards. Since very inception, the petitioners were under the impression that they would have the exit option to be exercised after their 8th semester. The Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2014 did not prohibit the exit option, rather the same was prepared for nomenclature of the Degree programmes, minimum entry level qualifications and the duration of the such programmes. The issue of not granting exit option was discussed in the Executive Council Meeting of the CUJ held in the year 2016 only. It is further submitted that the prospectus of 2015 batch specifically provides that there would no exit option in Five-Year Integrated M. Tech Courses whereas the prospectus of 2014 batch is silent on the issue of exit option. It is further submitted that the prospectus of 2015 batch specifically provides that there would no exit option in Five-Year Integrated M. Tech Courses whereas the prospectus of 2014 batch is silent on the issue of exit option. When the petitioners came to know that a meeting of Academic Council was scheduled to be held on 13.04.2018, they sent their representation vide e. mail on 12.04.2018, but till date no decision has been taken on this issue due to which the petitioners are deprived of taking admission in premier institutes like IIT and IISC. 4. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that before the students took admission in their respective courses, the University Grant Commission (in short UGC) had already issued a guideline vide Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2014, and as such, the same would apply to the petitioners also. The Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2014 strictly lays down that the University has to award specified Degrees. The duration of B. Tech course would be of 4 years and M. Tech course would be of 2 years. The said notification further provides that a University may introduce Integrated and Dual Degree Programmes judiciously and with caution. A dual Degree Programme combines more than one subject mostly in a horizontal spread, whereas an Integrated Programme is progressive and culminative. The total duration of Integrated/Dual Degree M. Tech Programme would be thus 6 years. On perusal of Clause (b) & (c) of the guiding principles, it would transpire that if the university provides an option for an interim exit or lateral entry, the duration of the integrated/dual Degree Programme must not be less than the duration equal to the sum total of the prescribed duration of the two Degrees that are being combined in the Integrated/Dual Degree Programme. However, the CUJ only offers Integrated Degree Progamme of M. Tech in Nanotechnology, Energy Engineering as well as Water Engineering, and the said integrated M. Tech Degree Programme is a combination of B. Tech and M. Tech Degree Programmes with a total duration of 5 years. Since the University is offering a single Degree i.e. integrated M. Tech Degree in Nanotechnology, Energy Engineering as well as Water Engineering, it cannot provide exit option in terms with Clause (c) of the guiding principles. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Since the University is offering a single Degree i.e. integrated M. Tech Degree in Nanotechnology, Energy Engineering as well as Water Engineering, it cannot provide exit option in terms with Clause (c) of the guiding principles. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners are pursuing 5 years Integrated M. Tech Courses and are seeking exit from their courses after completing 8th semester as they have been selected for M. Tech Courses in other premier institutes. The learned counsel for the respondent-CUJ has contended that the exit option as claimed by the petitioners cannot be allowed in view of Part III Section 4 of the Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2014 for the batch 2014 onwards. I have perused Part III Section 4 of the said Gazette Notification. It transpires that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, the UGC specified the nomenclature of the Degree Programmes for the purpose of the said Section. In the said notification dated 05.07.2017, the guiding principles have also been provided. The relevant part of the said guiding principles read as under:- "Universities/institutions may introduce Integrated and Dual Degree Programmes judiciously and with caution. A dual degree programme combines more than one subject, mostly in a horizontal spread, whereas an Integrated Programme is progressive and culminative. The academic philosophy/rationale behind offering such integrated programme should not be for economising on course requirements or award of double degree in a fast track; on the contrary, an integrated approach should involve a vertical/inter-disciplinary discourse. A dual degree should aim for a better comprehension of the related subject of study from a multi-dimensional perspective. This would necessary entail an equal, if not more, course duration and a newer approach of curricular transaction and additional interactive courses. Thus, an Integrated/Dual Degree Programme combining two or more discipline shall be permissible only if there is no compromise of any of the course requirements viz duration, number of papers and intensity of courses, teaching/learning hours, credits etc. Integrated and Dual Degree Programmes are therefore, be introduced by the university/institutions subject to the following conditions. a. The Integrated/Dual Degree Programmes must not dilute the standards as prescribed under the Regulations made by the UGC and other statutory authorities concerned in terms of syllabi, programme duration and examination requirements. Integrated and Dual Degree Programmes are therefore, be introduced by the university/institutions subject to the following conditions. a. The Integrated/Dual Degree Programmes must not dilute the standards as prescribed under the Regulations made by the UGC and other statutory authorities concerned in terms of syllabi, programme duration and examination requirements. b. If the integrated/Dual Degree Programmes intend to offer two separate degree with an option for an interim exit or lateral entry, the duration of the Integrated/Dual Degree Programme must not be less than the duration equal to the sum of total of the prescribed duration of the two degree that are being combined in the Integrated/dual Degree Programme. Provided that all such programmes would carry the nomenclature of "Integrated/Dual Degree (name of first degree)-(name of the final degree)". Provided further that both the degrees awarded under the Integrated/Dual Degree programme shall be individually and separately recognised as equivalent to corresponding degrees and no as one single integrated degree. c. If the Integrated Programme intends to offer a single degree without permission to exit and lateral entry, the programme duration may be relaxed by not more than 20% of the of total of the prescribed duration of the two degrees that are being combined to make the single integrated degree." 6. On perusal of the aforesaid guidelines, it appears that the UGC has permitted the Universities to introduce Integrated Degree/Dual Degree Programmes. However, the programmes are divided into two types. One is the Integrated/Dual Degree Programme which intends to offer two separate Degrees with an option for an interim exit or lateral entry, and in that programme the total duration is the sum total of the prescribed durations of both the Degrees (i.e. B. Tech & M. Tech) and the course shall be named as "Integrated/Dual Degree (name of the first Degree)-(name of the second Degree)". It is further provided that both the Degrees shall be individually and separately recognized. The other programme is the Integrated Programme which intends to offer single Degree without permission of exit or lateral entry and, in that course the duration may be relaxed by not more than 20% of the sum total of the duration prescribed for the two Degrees. Thus, in view of notification dated 05.07.2014, the relaxation of duration is permissible only for Single Integrated Degree Programme with no provision for interim exit or lateral entry. 7. Thus, in view of notification dated 05.07.2014, the relaxation of duration is permissible only for Single Integrated Degree Programme with no provision for interim exit or lateral entry. 7. The introduction at the aforesaid guidelines by the UGC reflects certain purpose. Since, in the Dual Degree Courses, the duration of the courses is not relaxed and the Degrees are recognized individually, the students are permitted to exit after completion of the duration of the first Degree. However, if the programmes are intermingled with each other by relaxing the total duration of the courses in such a manner that they can''t be separated, the students would not be permitted to exit in the mid terms of the courses. The guiding principles provided in the aforesaid notification make it mandatory for all the Universities to adhere to the approved nomenclature of the Degree(s) and ensure the observance of the minimum standards as prescribed by the U.G.C before awarding the Degree(s). 8. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the prospectus of the petitioners did not provide any stipulation to the effect that they would not be allowed exit option, rather the notification dated 04.09.2014 explicitly provided that they were entitled to exit from the course after 8th semester and if they exit from their course accordingly, they would be awarded B. Tech Degree provided they had the requisite credits. 9. Admittedly, till the year 2013, there was a provision for exit option for the students of M. Tech Integrated course after 8th semester. In the year 2014, the online applications for admission in Central Universities were invited from 01.03.2014 to 08.04.2014 and the entrance test was held on 26.04.2014 and 27.04.2014, but till that time, the prospectus of the courses was not published by the CUJ. In the meantime, the U.G.C came up with the notification dated 05.07.2014 specifying the nomenclature of various Degree Programmes with the general instructions and principles. 1st and 2nd counselling for admission in M. Tech Integrated courses were held on 15.07.2014 and 30.07.2014 respectively. All the petitioners took admission in 5 year Integrated M. Tech Degree course by 30.07.2014 and the courses commenced in the month of August, 2014. 1st and 2nd counselling for admission in M. Tech Integrated courses were held on 15.07.2014 and 30.07.2014 respectively. All the petitioners took admission in 5 year Integrated M. Tech Degree course by 30.07.2014 and the courses commenced in the month of August, 2014. It was only in the month of December, 2014 the prospectus for such courses was issued by the CUJ, however, the same did not incorporate any provision dealing with the exit option. In the meantime, the CUJ came up with the notification No. CUJ/2082 dated 04.09.2014 notifying that, in the engineering courses, the exit option exercisable after 8th semester had already been approved and the students who exercise such exit options, would be awarded B. Tech Degree in the subject concerned provided they had requisite credits. However, in the subsequent year i.e. in the year 2015, the CUJ quite specifically provided in its prospectus itself that there would be no exit option in the M. Tech Integrated course. Nonetheless, it is significant to note that till April 2017, the CUJ kept mum with regard to the availability of exit option for the batch 2014 and as late as on 26.05.2017 vide Notification No. CUJ/126, informed that the exit option shall not be allowed to the students admitted in the year 2014 in view of the Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2014. 10. The entire course of action of the CUJ indicate that either it had no knowledge of issuance of the notification dated 05.07.2014 issued by the UGC in course of admission process of the petitioners (i.e. 2014 batch) or it had interpreted the same to mean that the same would be applicable from the subsequent batches i.e. 2015 onwards and due to that reason, the CUJ came up with the notification dated 04.09.2014 providing exit option for the students of batch 2014 and making further stipulation in the prospectus of 2015 regarding non-availability of exit option to the students admitted in the year 2015. Thus, it is not the relevant aspect before this Court that the notification dated 05.07.2014 was applicable to the students of 2014 batch (i.e. the petitioners), rather the vital issue before this Court is as to whether the petitioners being the students of 2014 batch could be deprived of the exit option after their 8th semester due to inaction on the part of the respondent-CUJ. 11. 11. The fact situation of the present case is quite peculiar as even after issuance of notification dated 05.07.2014 by the UGC, the petitioners were not intimated by the CUJ that they would not be given any exit option, rather on the contrary, the University subsequently vide notification dated 04.09.2014, clearly stipulated that the exit option would be given after 8th semester. Thus, the petitioners were under the legitimate expectation that the exit option would be provided to them at relevant time. For such lapses on the part of the respondent-CUJ, the petitioners should not be made to suffer. 12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent-Central Law University to provide the exit option to the petitioners (i.e. the students of 2014 batch) from their courses after 8th semester with B. Tech Degree, if they are otherwise eligible.