JUDGMENT A J DESAI, J. 1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a student of Gujarat National Law University (hereinafter referred to "the respondent university" for short), has prayed as under: "[A] Your Lordships be pleased to hold and declare that the notice at Annexure A is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and the filling up the form of the petitioner at Annexure G may not be construed as the petitioner accepting the case as 1st detention after readmission; [B] Your Lordships be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner should be given a chance to appear in the "100 mark paper" for the subject of "Legal Methods" as per regulation 27(b)(vi) of the Regulations of the respondent university; [C] During pendency and/final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner is facing "double detention" and not "first detention" after "re-admission " as envisaged by the respondent university; [D] Any other and further relief, this Hon'ble Court so deems fit in the interest of justice." 2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondent university has appeared through Mr. Udyayan Vyas, learned advocate and has filed affidavit-in-reply opposing grant of any relief, as prayed for, by the petitioner. 3. The short facts put forward by the petitioner are as under: 3.1 That the respondent University is imparting education and offering various type of law degree for five years integrated course and there are two semesters in each year, which begins with from June / July of every year. 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th semesters are being taught by the respondent university from the month of June/July to October/November of each year and 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th semesters are being taught by the respondent university from the month of January to May of each year. 3.2 The respondent university has framed regulations with regard to the examinations, mooting, internship, examinations, hostel and other matter), which are known as The Gujarat National Law University (Academic, Examination, Moots, Internship, Hostel and Other Matters) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations, 2015" for short). 3.2 The respondent university has framed regulations with regard to the examinations, mooting, internship, examinations, hostel and other matter), which are known as The Gujarat National Law University (Academic, Examination, Moots, Internship, Hostel and Other Matters) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations, 2015" for short). 3.3 The petitioner got admission for law degree for five years integrated course in the year 2014 and there are six subjects in each semester, which are required to be cleared by every student. In ordinary course, the petitioner could have passed out all the semesters in May, 2019. 3.4 As far as the petitioner is concerned, in the first semester, taught of six subjects, he could clear five subjects, but could not clear one subject i.e. "Legal Methods". Therefore, as per Regulation 24(c) of the Regulations, 2015, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" in the 3rd semester, however, he could not clear the same. Similarly, in the 5th semester also, the petitioner was again permitted to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods", however, again, he could not clear the same. Meanwhile, the petitioner had cleared all the subjects of 2nd, 3rd, 4thand 5th semesters but had not cleared the subject of "Legal Methods". Meanwhile, disciplinary action taken by the respondent university pursuant to a Disciplinary Committee was formed and a report was submitted. Meanwhile, by a communication dated 15.02.2017, the petitioner was put under suspension by the respondent university with immediate effect. However, by a communication dated 20.03.2017, the conduct of the petitioner was found gross indiscipline and therefore, the petitioner was rusticated from the respondent university for a period of six months and the effect of the said rustication of the petitioner was given from 14.02.2017, since the incident had taken place on the same date, which ends in the month of August, 2017 and the semester was likely to begin from June / July, 2017. 3.5 The petitioner got re-admission in the month of June / July, 2017 for 3rd year since he had not cleared the backlog of passing the examination of "Legal Methods". Such admission was granted by the respondent university. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examinations of all the subjects of 5th semester and again, cleared all the subjects of the 5th semester; however, he could not clear the examination of "Legal Methods". Such admission was granted by the respondent university. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examinations of all the subjects of 5th semester and again, cleared all the subjects of the 5th semester; however, he could not clear the examination of "Legal Methods". Therefore, the petitioner was again permitted to pursue his study of 6th semester from January, 2018 to May, 2018 and the petitioner had cleared all the subjects of 6th Semester of January - June, 2018, but was not permitted to appear in the examination of paper of "Legal Methods" as per the provisions of Regulation 24(c) of the Regulations, 2015. Therefore, the petitioner appeared in the examination of "Legal Methods" having 50 marks in the month of October, 2018 and had cleared the same. But as per Regulation of 27(b)(v) of the Regulations, 2015, the petitioner would not be eligible to be promoted to 4th year due to non-clearance of all subjects in time. 3.6 Hence, this petition. 4. The petition was listed for hearing on 05.10.2018 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H.Vora) and notice came to be issued, which was made returnable on 09.10.2018. On 09.10.2018, the respondent university requested for time and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 15.10.2018. 5. It is pertinent to note that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner had cleared the examination of "Legal Methods" having 50 marks in October, 2018. 6. Mr. Ishan Joshi, learned advocate for Mr. A.J.Yagnik learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner had cleared all the six semesters and had also cleared the examination of "Legal Methods", the respondent university did not promote the petitioner to 4th year and did not admit for studies of 7th semester. He would further submit that as per Regulation 24(c) of the Regulations, 2015, the students would be entitled for repeat examination only when the said subject is next scheduled to be offered in regular course. He would further submit that the petitioner has already cleared all the papers of 6th semester including the paper of "Legal Methods", in which, he failed and therefore, the respondent university should have permitted to the petitioner to attend the classes, which are, at present, going on. He would further submit that the petitioner has already cleared all the papers of 6th semester including the paper of "Legal Methods", in which, he failed and therefore, the respondent university should have permitted to the petitioner to attend the classes, which are, at present, going on. By relying upon the Regulation 27(b)(iv) of the Regulations, 2015, he would submit that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to 7th semester i.e. 4th year in view of the clearance of all the examinations. He would further submit that the respondent university is imparting education to those students, who are regular students for 8th semester and the petitioner may be permitted for 8th semester and may be permitted to appear in the examination of all the subjects of 7th semester so that his one year can be saved. He would further submit that if the petitioner is not permitted to appear in the examination, which is scheduled in the month of April/May, 2019, he would loose two years of his important career, though he was punished only for a period of six months. 7. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that as per Regulation 27(b)(vi) of the Regulations, 2015, the respondent university ought to have permitted the petitioner for examination of "Legal Methods" having 100 marks since detention period is of one year and the respondent university can permit the petitioner to 4th year. 8. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, would further submit that it has been specifically contended before the respondent university by the petitioner that he may be permitted to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" having 100 marks, but the same was refused only on misinterpretation by the respondent university that there is no detention of one year. In alternative, he would further submit that the petitioner may be permitted to promote in the 8th semester and may be permitted to attend the class of 7th semester, so that he can save at least six months. 9. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, would further submit that there is no detention of one year and there is difference between the academic detention or disciplinary detention and therefore, under Regulation 27(b) (iv) of the Regulations, 2015, the petition be allowed and appropriate direction may be given. 10. On the other hand, Mr. 9. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, would further submit that there is no detention of one year and there is difference between the academic detention or disciplinary detention and therefore, under Regulation 27(b) (iv) of the Regulations, 2015, the petition be allowed and appropriate direction may be given. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Udayan Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent university, would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as prayed for. He would further submit that the petitioner did not clear examination of "Legal Methods" though he has cleared all the subjects of all the semesters upto 5th semester in the month of October, 2016, however, did not clear the examination of "Legal Methods". Meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was rusticated from the respondent university for a period of six months from February, 2017. He would further submit that as per the regulations of the respondent university, the petitioner could have started his further study only from the month of June, 2018, however, keeping in mind the welfare of the petitioner, the respondent university agreed for re-admission to the petitioner from June, 2017, so that one year of the petitioner can be saved and accordingly, the petitioner took readmission from June, 2017. He would further submit that again, the petitioner appeared in the 5th semester and cleared the same in the month of October, 2017, however, the petitioner again failed in the examination of paper of "Legal Methods". He would further submit that subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the examination of 6th semester and cleared all the subjects of the 6th semester, however, as per Regulation 24(c) of the Regulations, 2015, the petitioner would be entitled to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" only in the 7th semester. 11. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent university, would further submit that the petitioner approached the respondent university requesting to permit him to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" having 100 marks, however, such request was not accepted by the respondent university in view of the Regulation 27(b)(vi) of the Regulations, 2015. Since there was no detention of one year and in view of the fact that the petitioner had taken readmission in the month of June, 2017, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the examination. Since there was no detention of one year and in view of the fact that the petitioner had taken readmission in the month of June, 2017, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the examination. The petitioner was fully aware about the regulations of the respondent university and accordingly, he appeared in the examination of "Legal Methods" when such subject was available for repeat examination as provided under Rule24(c) of the Regulations, 2015. 12. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent university, would further submit since there was re-admission and the petitioner had not raised any objections for re-admission and subsequently, he appeared in the 5th and 6th semester and his detention period was not completed as provided, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" having 100 marks and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent university is legal and no interference of this Hon'ble Court is required to call for. He would further submit that the petitioner has not challenged the regulations of the respondent university, by which, the case of the petitioner is covered. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. 14. The respondent university is established by the Government of Gujarat under the Gujarat National Law University Act, 2003. The respondent university is recognized by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the University Grants Commission (UGC)(2f & 12B). 15. The Executive Council of the Gujarat National Law University has framed Gujarat National Law University Regulations, 2009. The Academic Council of the Gujarat National Law University has recommended to make separate regulations for regulating academic, mooting, internship, examination and hostel matters of the Gujarat National Law University and accordingly, Regulations, 2015 have been framed. Academic year is defined under Regulation 2(a)(i) of the Regulations, 2015, which reads as under: "2(a)(i) "Academic year" shall normally mean the duration beginning from 1st July every year to 30th June of the following year, based on the Academic Calendar of the University. 16. The respondent university is imparting education of five year integrated course of law decree i.e. B.A.LL.B, B.com LL.B. B.Sc. LL.B, B.B.A.LL.B and B.S.W. (Bachelor of Social Work) LL.B. 17. 16. The respondent university is imparting education of five year integrated course of law decree i.e. B.A.LL.B, B.com LL.B. B.Sc. LL.B, B.B.A.LL.B and B.S.W. (Bachelor of Social Work) LL.B. 17. Regulation 19 of the Regulations, 2015 deals with the examination arranged at the end of each semester, wherein, special / repeat examination is arranged under Regulation 24(c) of the Regulations, 2015, which reads as under: "24(c) The repeat examination / evaluation in a subject shall be conducted only when the said subject is next scheduled to be offered in regular course. 18. From the above provisions, it is an undisputed fact that the academic year starts from 1st July of each year to 30th June of the following year. Whereas, in Regulation 19(a) of the Regulations, 2015, it has been mentioned that there shall be a written examination at the end of a semester for each subject. In the present case, the petitioner took admission in the five year integrated course of B.B.A.LL.B. law degree from 1st July, 2014 and in the 1st semester and out of six subjects, he cleared five subjects but could not clear the examination of "Legal Methods". Now, as per Regulation 24(c) of the Regulation, 2015, subject of "Legal Methods" is being imparted only in the 1st semester and if any student fails in one subject of the 1st semester, then, he would be entitled to clear the same subject only when he would be in 3rd and 5th semester and accordingly, the petitioner would be entitle to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" only when the petitioner would be either in 3rd or 5th semester. It is also an undisputed fact that though the petitioner had cleared all the subjects of 3rd and 5th semester in the month of October, 2015 and October, 2016 respectively, he could not clear that examination of "Legal Methods' and therefore, he could not have entitled to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" in the month of October, 2017. 19. Meanwhile, the petitioner was subjected to the disciplinary inquiry with regard to his misconduct and accordingly, he was imposed punishment of rustication for a period of six months from 14.02.2017. 20. 19. Meanwhile, the petitioner was subjected to the disciplinary inquiry with regard to his misconduct and accordingly, he was imposed punishment of rustication for a period of six months from 14.02.2017. 20. Prima-Facie, it appears that the petitioner accepted that if he is re-admitted in the in the respondent university and subsequently, he is permitted him to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods", so that he can save his one year and therefore, the petitioner got re-admission in the respondent university and started study in the 5th semester though earlier, he had cleared the examination of "Legal Methods" 21. Re-Admission is defined under Regulation 2(a)(iii) of the Regulations, 2015, which are as under: "2(a)(iii) Re-admission" shall mean seeking of an admission into an academic year, afresh, on payment of the yearly fees according to the Fee Structure excluding the deposit amount of the year." 22. So, as per the provisions of the above-referred regulation, it is to be held that it was a fresh re-admission in the respondent university though he might in the 3rd year. It is unfortunate that the petitioner is imparting education and he was permitted to study in the 5th semester, after readmission, he had not cleared the examination of "Legal Method". Meanwhile, the petitioner requested the respondent university to take examination of "Legal Methods" having 100 marks as provided under 27(b)(vi) of the Regulations, 2015, however, the same was refused by the respondent university on the ground of non-applicability of the said regulation. 23. Regulation 27(b)(iv) and (v) of the Regulations, 2015 reads as under : "(iv) A student with attendance shortage shall not be eligible for special repeat examination and can appear in the examination only when it is next scheduled to be offered in the regular course. However, if a student faces detention or is likely to loose an academic year due to attendance backlog in not more than two papers of a semester, he shall be allowed to appear in the special repeat examination. "(v) A student shall have to pass all the subjects to be promoted to the IV Year. No carry over is permitted to the IV Year." 24. It is an undisputed fact that the student of the respondent university is permitted to carry his further study upto 7th semester though he might have not cleared all the subjects. "(v) A student shall have to pass all the subjects to be promoted to the IV Year. No carry over is permitted to the IV Year." 24. It is an undisputed fact that the student of the respondent university is permitted to carry his further study upto 7th semester though he might have not cleared all the subjects. However, as per Regulation 27(b)(v) of the Regulations, 2015, if a student does not clear anyone subject, then he cannot be permitted to 4th year. 25. It is also an undisputed fact that during pendency of the present petition, now, the petitioner has cleared the examination of "Legal Methods" that too, of 50 marks. 26. As far as rejecting the request made by the petitioner for appearing in the examination of "Legal Methods" having 100 marks is concerned, when the petitioner had got readmission in the respondent university in the month of June, 2017, the same is required to be a fresh admission and since there is no detention, at all, Regulation 27(b)(vi) of the Regulations, 2015 would not be applied. Therefore, the respondent university has rightly not accepted the request made by the petitioner permitting him to appear in the examination of "Legal Methods" having 100 marks. 27. It is unfortunate that the petitioner could not complete the backlog of examination of "Legal Methods" and though, he was re-admitted for at least one year, it cannot be said that there is any breach of any regulations of Regulations, 2015 and the petitioner has to suffer on two counts i.e. not passing the examination of "Legal Methods" though leniency was shown by the respondent university as well as rustication for a period of six months during disciplinary inquiry held by the university, which has never been challenged by the petitioner. 28. Considering the above fact, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent university by exercising the powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, the present petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. 29. It is needless to say that the petitioner should be entitled to carry his further study from June, 2019 for 4th year.