ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a law student. He had enrolled in a 5 year integrated law course for BBA LL.B (Hon) with the first respondent University. The petitioner had completed the first year (2 semesters). The petitioner had continued his second year and appeared for the third semester. But since the respondent University had raised objections regarding shortage of attendance for the fourth semester, they did not permit him to take the examination. Therefore, he was constrained to take re-admission for the second year for the academic year 2019–2020. Thereafter, the petitioner met with an accident and was unable to attend classes, and again he was not permitted to appear for the third semester examination. 2. Being not satisfied with the respondents College and University, the petitioner applied for transfer to R.L. Law College, Belagavi from Karnataka State Law University’s Law School, Navanagar, Hubballi. The admission to respondent No.4, R.L. Law College, was given with a condition that the petitioner had to pass two subjects, namely Managerial Economics and English. In compliance with the said condition imposed by respondent No.4, the petitioner cleared the two subjects. 3. The petitioner has now cleared all the semesters up to 10 th semester. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the respondent University to issue the degree certificate. However, to his shock and surprise, the respondent University refused to give the degree certificate on the ground that the petitioner has not cleared/passed three subjects, namely Economic Development in India, Entrepreneurship Development, and the Law of Torts, which are second semester subjects for the 5-year integrated BBA LL.B programme. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent University, which was not considered. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the following reasons: 4.1. The respondent University is functioning in the most undisciplined manner, without giving proper instructions to the students, so also not providing proper guidance and procedure to appear in the examination and not reverting to the petitioner whenever any query is raised for addressing their issues. 4.2. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the following reasons: 4.1. The respondent University is functioning in the most undisciplined manner, without giving proper instructions to the students, so also not providing proper guidance and procedure to appear in the examination and not reverting to the petitioner whenever any query is raised for addressing their issues. 4.2. Respondent No. 4, R.L.Law College, is also acted negligently and irresponsibly in permitting the petitioner to take up the admission, during which time it imposed a condition that the petitioner had to take up only two subjects, namely Managerial Economics and English, but did not whisper anything about the three other subjects, namely, Economic Development in India, Entrepreneurship Development, and Law of Torts. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is a student. He was not aware of the requirements in the integrated programme. He was under the impression that, in the previous college, he must have completed the subjects while taking admission in respondent No.4, R.L. Law College. Since the University or College did not mention anything about the three subjects, which were asked to be taken subsequently, he was clueless. Had it been a situation where respondent No.4 College had insisted that the petitioner should take these three subjects along with the two subjects, which are insisted at the initial time, the petitioner would have taken the subjects and would have cleared them. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, had the University made this clear at the time of transfer from one college to another, namely respondent No.4, the petitioner would have undertaken these three subjects. 6. Therefore it is contended that, there is a great obligation, responsibility, and higher degree of care that ought to have been taken by the University while admitting students transferring from one college to another, requiring them to complete any subjects not yet cleared by the student. The University plays a very important role in the legal education process and in guiding students to complete their course. So also, if the University had mentioned this at the earlier stage, the petitioner would have cleared the same, which is not the case on hand. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue degree certificate and to resolve the matter. 7. So also, if the University had mentioned this at the earlier stage, the petitioner would have cleared the same, which is not the case on hand. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue degree certificate and to resolve the matter. 7. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent University vehemently contends that the respondent University has set certain rules, regulations, and guidelines, and as per the Bar Council of India and the Legal Education Rules of 2008, there are totally 45 subjects, which are required to be cleared by the students, and only on clearing these 45 subjects, the University will recognize the course, and a degree certificate would be issued. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has not cleared three subjects, namely, Economic Development in India, Entrepreneurship Development, and Law of Torts. Therefore, when the petitioner has not cleared these three subjects, it is not permissible for the University to issue degree certificate, as the petitioner has not cleared the required mandatory 45 subjects as prescribed in the Rules and Regulations. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent University also relies upon the subjects prescribed in the Integrated Programme of BBA LL.B and BBA LL.B (Hon). He submits that the three subjects, Economic Development in India, Entrepreneurship Development, and Law of Torts, are the subjects which are taught in the second semester, which the petitioner should have completed in the previous law course. Since he has not completed those subjects, he is liable to complete those subjects and only then he will be entitled to a degree from the University. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 College submits that, since respondent No.1 University had granted the petitioner permission to join respondent No.4 College from the previous Law College, respondent No.4 was under the impression that the petitioner was otherwise eligible to complete the course for the next semester, which he was undertaking in respondent No.4 College. Therefore, they could not insist the petitioner to write any other subjects. He subscribes to the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the University and seeks dismissal of the petition. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Apparently, it is a classic case of irresponsibility, carelessness and non-application of mind by the University and respondent No.4 College. He subscribes to the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the University and seeks dismissal of the petition. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Apparently, it is a classic case of irresponsibility, carelessness and non-application of mind by the University and respondent No.4 College. Whenever a student seeks transfer from one college to the other midway, it is the responsibility of the University, which gives permission to shift from one college to the other, to see which are all the subjects that have been taught and completed by the student in the previous college till the semester he completes, and which are the subjects he requires to study in the new college. If there are any subjects which are not undertaken by the student, they are duty-bound to apprise and make a note and put it as a condition before the student is permitted transfer to the transferee college. 12. In the present case on hand, at the time of the transfer from the previous college to R.L.Law College, the respondent University had made it very clear that the student has to study two subjects, namely, Managerial Economics and English, but did not mention about the three other subjects which the petitioner ought to have taken mandatorily. Had this been communicated to the petitioner, he would have taken them and cleared the subjects within the time specified. Therefore, there is lack of proper coordination, application of mind, and there is carelessness on the part of the University in not informing this aspect to the petitioner student, leading to this anomaly and the situation that has been created for the petitioner. 13. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent University, that the University has laid down certain rules and regulations under 15A, which says that a student is required to successfully complete the entire course within 7 years, that is, 5 years of normal duration plus 2 years of extended duration from the admission to the course. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has completed 7 years. 14. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has completed 7 years. 14. Therefore, though there is a bar provided by the changed regulations of the University, in view of the fact that the student was not apprised and informed earlier by the University and the transferee College, this Court would have to show indulgence to permit the student to complete the three subjects which are due, by providing an opportunity to the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that there is carelessness on the part of respondent No.1 University in not bringing to the notice of the student the necessity to clear these three subjects, which are mandatory in nature to secure a degree certificate. 15. Under the circumstances, the respondent University shall provide, by way of an opportunity, either in the form of a one time scheme or a golden opportunity, as a one-time measure to the petitioner to complete these three subjects. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while providing the golden opportunity, respondent No.1 shall give the petitioner two chances to clear the examination, as he had not been informed and not provided this opportunity from the time of joining respondent No.4 College. This shall not be held as a precedent for other cases, considering the peculiar facts of the case. 16. The petitioner shall approach respondent No.4 to fill up the necessary application for writing the examination of these three subjects by paying the necessary fees, if any, and for securing the hall ticket. Respondent No.4 shall permit the petitioner to take the said examination and shall provide the internal assessment marks as well, by requiring the petitioner to submit projects or assignments for internal assessments for 20 marks, and for written exam of 80 marks and shall facilitate the petitioner to take exam by issuing the hall ticket. 17. The petitioner shall undertake the upcoming examination scheduled to commence during December 2025. The petitioner shall make all communications to the respondent University as well as respondent No.4 College for issuance of hall ticket for writing the examination. Upon successful completion of these three subjects by the petitioner, the petitioner shall be provided with the degree certificate from the University. 18. This Court deems it appropriate to mention that the right to education is a fundamental right of every citizen in this country. Upon successful completion of these three subjects by the petitioner, the petitioner shall be provided with the degree certificate from the University. 18. This Court deems it appropriate to mention that the right to education is a fundamental right of every citizen in this country. Once the student has enrolled in any College or University, the responsibility is higher on the College and the University to apprise the student of any shortcomings in the subjects not having been taken, or for that matter, shortage of attendance etc. Unless these are informed to the student in advance, it may not be possible for the student to know where he is lacking and what he is supposed to do. This Court hopes that the respondent University and the College takes proactive role and give better service in the form of education to the students. 19. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed in part. ii. A writ of mandamus is issued, directing the respondent University and the College to permit the petitioner to write the examination for the three subjects, namely, Economic Development in India, Entrepreneurship Development, and Law of Torts, in the upcoming examination during December 2025. iii. The petitioner shall fill up the exam forms by paying the necessary fees, and respondent No.4 shall issue the hall ticket. iv. The respondents shall provide two chances to the petitioner to write the exam. v. Upon successful completion, the respondent University shall issue a degree certificate.