Appeals Nos 565 566 of 1963
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos 940 and 1056 of 1961
GS Pathak and Ms Rajinder Narain and Co for the appellants
R Gopalakrishnan for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
These appeals raise the question whether the Academic Council of the Mysore University was competent in exercise 230 of the powers conferred by sections 22 23 and 43 of the Mysore University Act 23 of 1956 to frame cl 3c of the Regulations relating to the grant of the degree for Bachelor of Veterinary Science BVSc
The Mysore University Act 23 of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act  was enacted to provide for the reorganisation of the University of Mysore and other incidental matters
The powers of the University are described in section 4
Section 21 provides for the constitution of the Academic Council which is one of the authorities of the University designated under section 13 and section 22 sets out the powers of the Academic Council
It provides The Academic Council shall subject to the provisions of this Act have the control and general regulation of teaching courses of studies to be pursued and maintenance of the standards thereof and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed By section 23 other powers of the Academic Council are prescribed
Insofar as it is material the section provides In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the powers specified in section 22 the Academic Council shall have subject to the provisions of this Act the following powers namely a x x x x b x x x x c to make Regulations relating to courses schemes of examinations and conditions on which students shall be admitted to the examinations degrees diplomas certificates and other academic distinctions Section 43 of the Act sets out the scope of the Regulations
enacts Subject to the provisions of this Act the Regulations may provide for the exercise of all or any of the powers enumerated in sections 22 and 23 of this Act and for the following matters namely i the admission of students to the University ii the recognition of the examinations and degrees of other Universities as equivalent to the examinations and degrees of the University iii the University courses and examinations and the conditions on which students of the University and affiliated colleges and other University institutions shall be admitted to examinations for the degrees diplomas and certificates of the University and 231 iv the granting of exemptions
 In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 22 23 and 43 Academic Council made Regulations relating to the grant of a degree for Bachelor of Veterinary Science
Clause 3c of the Regulations is as follows No candidate who fails four times shall be permitted to continue the course
 The Mysore Veterinary College Hebbal Bangalore is one of the colleges affiliated to the University of Mysore for training students for the degree course in Bachelor of Veterinary Science BVSc
These two appeals arise on facts which are closely parallel
Gopala Gowda respondent in CA No 565 of 1963 was admitted in the year 1958 as a student in the First Year Course in the Mysore Veterinary College
Gopala Gowda was declared unsuccessful in four successive First Year Course examinations
The Controller of Examinations Mysore University then informed Gopala Gowda by letter dated August 2 1961 that he had lost his right to continue studies for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science BVSc course under Regulation 3c of the Regulations governing the course of study framed by the University leading to the degree of the Bachelor of Veterinary Science BVSc
Gopala Gowda then presented a petition in the High Court of Mysore praying that for reasons set out in his affidavit the High Court do issue a writ quashing the order communicated by the Controller of Examinations in his letter dated August 2 1961 and do further direct the University of Mysore and the Controller of Examinations to permit him to appear for the subsequent examinations and to prosecute his training for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science Course
The other respondent Bheemappa Reddy had also failed to satisfy the examiners in four successive First Year Course examinations commencing from April 1959 and on being intimated by the Controller of Examinations that he will not be permitted to continue his training for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science BV Sc course under Regulation 3c he flied a similar writ petition in the High Court
The High Court of Mysore held that Regulation 3c of the Regulations governing the course of study leading to conferment of the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science of the Mysore University could not be said to subserve the purpose of maintaining the standards mentioned in section 22 of the Mysore University Act and on that account was beyond the competence of the Academic Council or the University and those bodies had no power to prevent Gopala Gowda and Bheemappa from prosecuting their studies and from appearing at the subsequent examinations
With special leave
the University of Mysore the Controller of Examinations and the Principal of the Mysore Veterinary College have appealed
In the view of the High Court under section 22 of the Act the Academic Council could prescribe minimum qualifications for 232 admission to a degree course in an affiliated college and also could prescribe standards which qualify a candidate for admission to the degree or academic distinction but the Council had not the power to prescribe a condition on the satisfaction of which a studentadmitted to the Course could prosecute his study in the course to which he had been admitted
Power to frame Regulations for maintenance of standards within the meaning of section 22 and prescribing conditions on which a student shall be admitted to an examination within the meaning of section 233 cdid not
in the opinion
of the High Court import power to make Regulation preventing a student admitted to a course from prosecuting his study for the only consequence of failure in an examination is that the student does not qualify himself for admission to the degree sought by him
and the University would be entitled to withhold conferment of the degree
but not to obstruct the prosecution of the course of study
The expression maintenance of standards in the view of the High Court could only take in considerations such as undergoing a course of study and keeping a prescribed minimum attendance to an institution maintained or recognised by the University but it does not and cannot be taken to mean that by reason only of the fact that a student has not attained the standard of knowledge or proficiency required for passing the examination within that period he can be said to be for all times incapable of attaining that standard
 The High Court proceeded to observe The power to maintain certain standards before a degree or other academic distinction is conferred upon a person involves the power to withhold the conferment of that degree unless a person attains the necessary standard but it cannot either in logic or in justice involve the power to refuse to permit a person to attain that standard
That power can and should be exercised at the time of admission into the course of study if the University is of the opinion that the applicant for admission into the course does not even possess the minimum suitability for taking that course of study
Once it admits him into the course of study it must be held to have entertained the opinion that he does have the minimum suitability to take that course which means that he has the capacity by undergoing the course of study to attain the standard necessary for receiving the degree
 We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the high Court
The Academic Council is invested with the power of controlling and generally regulating teaching
courses of studies to be pursued
and maintenance of the standards thereof
and for those purposes the Academic Council is competent to make regulations
amongst others relating to the courses schemes of examination and conditions on which students shall be admitted to the examinations
degrees
diplomas
certificates and other academic distinctions
The Academic Council is thereby invested with power to control the entire academic life of the student from the stage of 233 admission
to a course of study to the
ultimate conferment of a degree or academic distinction
Admission to a course or branch of study depending upon possession of the minimum qualifications prescribed does not divest the Academic
Council of its control over the  academic career of the student for the Council has for maintaining standards the power to prescribe schemes of examinations arid also to prescribe conditions on which students
Shall be admitted to the examinations
Power to prescribe conditions On which a student may be admitted to the examinations in our opinion necessarily implies the power to refuse to admit a student in certain contingencies for the power to admit to an examination implies the power to weed out students who have on the application of a reasonable test proved themselves to be unfit to continue the course or persecute training in that course
If on account of general inaptitude for being trained in a course or on account of supervening disability to prosecute a course of study a student admitted to that course is found by the Academic Council to be unfit to prosecute his training it would in our judgment be within the power of the Academic Council in exercise of its authority to control and maintain standards and also of its authority to prescribe conditions on which students may be admitted to examinations to direct that the student shall discontinue training in that course
And failure by a student to qualify for promotion or degree in four examinations is certainly a reasonable Lest of such inaptitude or supervening disability
If after securing admission to an institution imparting training for professional courses a student may be held entitled to continue indefinitely to attend the institution without adequate application and to continue to offer himself for successive examinations a lowering of academic standards would inevitably result
Power to maintain standards in the course of studies
in our judgment confers authority not merely to prescribe minimum qualifications for admission courses of study and minimum attendance at an institution which may qualify the student for admission to the examination but also authority to refuse to grant a degree diploma certificate or other academic distinction to students who fail to satisfy the examiners at the final examination and to direct that a student who is proved not to have the ability or the aptitude to complete the course within a reasonable time to discontinue the course
There is no warrant for restricting the expression maintenance of the standards only to matters such as minimum attendance length of the course and prescription of minimum academic attainments
The High Court was therefore in error in holding that the Academic Council had no power to prescribe Regulation 3c
We are informed at the Bar however that since the High Court decided
the case on January 31 1962 the two respondents were permitted to continue their courses of study and they have appeared for the subsequent examinations and they were declared to have duly 234 passed their second and third year examination and have been permitted to keep terms for the degree examination
Even though the view taken by the High Court was erroneous we do not think
having regard to the fact that the respondents were permitted to continue their course of study the University not having applied for any interim orders pending disposal of these appeals that any order should be passed in these appeals so as to deprive the respondents of the training they have received
These appeals are filed with special leave and in the exceptional circumstances of the case we do not think we would be justified merely because we disagree with the interpretation of the High Court of the relevant regulation in making an effective order against the respondents so as to nullify the results declared by the University concerning them in respect of the second and third year examinations
The appeals are therefore dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Under Sections 22 23 and 43 of the Mysore University Act the Academic Council of the University was empowered inter alia to control and operate the teaching courses of study to secure maintenance of standards etc and to make necessary regulations including those relating to examinations and conditions on which students may be admitted to examinations degrees diplomas etc
In exercise of these powers the Academic Council made certain Regulations relating to the grant of a degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and by clause 3c of these Regulations it was provided that no candidate who failed an examination four times would permitted to continue the course
The respondents were declared unsuccessful in four successive First Year Course examinations and the Controller of Examinations informed each respondent that he had lost their right to continue studying for the degree
The respondents thereupon filed petitions in the High Court praying for the issue of writs quashing the orders communicated to them and directing the University to permit them to appear for the subsequent examinations and to continue their studies
The High Court held that Regulation 3c was beyond the competence of the Academic Council and the University
On appeal to this Court HELD that power to maintain standards in the course of studies confers authority not merely to prescribe minimum qualifications for admission courses of study minimum attendance at an institution which may qualify the student for admission to the examination etcbut also authority to refuse to grant a degree diploma or other academic distinction to students who fail at the final examination and to direct that a student who is proved not to have the ability or the aptitude to complete the course within a reasonable timediscontinue the course
There is no warrant for restricting the expression maintenance of standards only to matters such as minimum attendance length of the course and prescription of minimum academic attainments
233F H