As per case facts, a petitioner challenged certain Regulations framed by a University's Board of Management, contending they were invalid because the subject matter (like admissions, courses, and academic distinctions) ... should have been covered by Ordinances under a specific Act, not Regulations. The petitioner argued these Regulations were void ab initio for lacking prior government approval, publication in the Official Gazette, and presentation to the State Legislature, requirements typically for Ordinances. The question arose whether these impugned Regulations could be validly framed under the Act's provisions for Regulations, particularly when no Ordinances existed for those subjects and given the Act's different requirements for Ordinances versus Regulations. Finally, the Court ruled that if no Ordinances were in place for subjects listed under the Ordinance-making power, the University was permitted to frame Regulations for those matters. It clarified that the Regulations concerned the *manner* of conducting training and teaching for academic qualifications, which can be provided for by Regulations, not the curriculum itself, which is typically prescribed by Ordinances. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition, finding the Regulations to be valid.