JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

(1) THE question is whether the action of the Principal in prohibiting the petitioner from taking the October, 1965 examination is in accord with the true interpretation of Regulation 3 of the Regulations and Syllabuses relating to "the Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (M. B. B. S.) of the Andhra university published in 1964. Regulation 3 is as follows:-"3 Conditions of admission to examination. A candidate shall appear for the Part I Examination at the end of the first year. A candidate failing in the examination shall be permitted to appear and pass the examination in the subjects in which he/she has failed and complete the Part I examination thereat within the next two University examinations Or before the completion of two years after he/she has been admitted to the Medical Course. Such candidates shall be exempted from re-examination in the subjects in which they have passed. "

(2) IN order to determine whether the petitioners case falls within the ambit of this Regulation, it may be stated that he was admitted to the Medical College from out of the II list, the scheduled castes, on 25 -10-1963. He fell seriously ill with typhoid in December, 1963 and therefore could not take his examination in May, 1964 as he could not get the requisite attendance To begin with, his got late admission and with this serious illness, which is not denied, technically he could not take the examination. In September 1964, he sat for his Part 1 examination and passed in two subjects, viz. , Physics and Chemistry, but failed in English and Biology. In April, 1965, he passed in English but failed in biology. For the October, 1965, examination, he was refused admission.

(3) MR. Krishana Raos contention is that on a proper interpretation of the regulation "next two University examinations" within which he has to pass are the next two from the examination in which he has failed. The petitioner having failed in September, 1964 examination, the next two examinations Would be April and October 1965 examinations so that he should have been permitted to take the examination in October, 1965. His second contention is that on a reading of the second limb of the Regulation, since he has been admitted on 25-10-1963t the completion of two years from the date of his admission to the medical Course would be on the 25th of October, 1965 so that he should have been permitted to appear for the examination in October, 1965. It is unnecessary to consider the second point because there may be some difficulty in accepting the contention in as much as the interpretation which is urged by the learned advocate for the University, Mr. Ramanujulu Naidu, is that the two years referred to therein are academic years as indicated in Regulation 1 (v) of the Regulations were academic years has been defined to consist of two term, one from 1st June to 15th October, and the other from 16th November to 31st March.

(4) BE that as it may, I am impressed with the first argument viz. that the next two examinations, which are permissible, must be counted from the day of the examination in which he has failed. Otherwise, as continually contended by be learned Advocate for the University, the word "chance" would have been. used if it will so intended, at was intended by a similar rule in the Osmania university where that word was used. But since the Regulation says that a candidate failing in the examination has two more chances subsequent there to, the petitioner must have been given his chance in October, 1965. A rule cannot strictly be construed against the student. It should be construed liberally in favour of the student if such an interpretation can be given. Otherwise, serious frustration is likely to occur which should be avoided, if possible.

(5) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs payable by the 2nd respondent. The respondents arc directed to permit the petitioner to take the examination in April or May, 1966 (which will be the first examination to be held next year), and to receive his application and examination fees, Mr. Krishna rao, for the petitioner, does not press for Advocatess fee. Hence no advocates fee. Petition allowed.