JUDGMENT Randhir Singh, J. - This is a petition for a writ on behalf of a student of the Christian College, Lucknow, requiring the issue of directions to the opposite party the principal, not to detain the applicant and to permit him to appear at the ensuing Intermediate Examination. 2. The facts are practically admitted. The applicant was a regular student of the College but his attendance was short. Under the Rules of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education the head of an institution is entitled to detain a student who has not put in the required minimum attendance at the lectures. Every student has to put in at least 75 per cent attendance at the lectures under Rule 5 (iii) Chapter XII. The period for the purpose of calculating the attendance shall be two academical years. An exception, however, has been made in Rule 5 (v) in the case of failed or detained candidates and in their case attendance for one academical year only shall be taken into account in arriving at the minimum attendance. Then there is a further Rule 5 (xii) which is as follows: - "The rule regarding minimum attendance shall be strictly enforced. The head of a recognised institution may condone a deficiency in attendance of not more than (a) ten days in the case of a candidate for the High School Examination and (b) ten lectures (including periods of practical work, if any), given in each subject in the case of a candidate for the Intermediate Examination. All cases in which this privilege is exercised shall be reported to the Director of Education as the Chairman of the Board. In the cases of failed candidates whose attendance of one year will be taken into account, the shortage to be condoned shall be reduced to half." 3. Rule 5 (xii) quoted above thus shows that there is a discretion in the head of a recognised institution to condone a deficiency of not more than 10 lectures in the case of candidates for the Intermediate Examination. In the case of failed candidates, however, it appears from the rule quoted above that the shortage to be condoned shall be reduced to half. 4. The applicant was short of attendance at the lectures, by more than 5 but less than 10. In the case of failed candidates, however, it appears from the rule quoted above that the shortage to be condoned shall be reduced to half. 4. The applicant was short of attendance at the lectures, by more than 5 but less than 10. The opposite party interpreted the rules to mean that even in the case of detained candidates the last paragraph of Rule 5 (xii) would be applicable and as the applicant had been short of attendance by more than five lectures the opposite party refused to condone the shortage. 5. Notice was issued to the opposite party and the writ came up for hearing today. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. There appears to be no dispute with regard to facts and the main point pressed on behalf of the opposite party is that the rules should be so interpreted as to make the last paragraph of Rule 5 (xii) applicable to detained candidates also. There appears to be no force in this contention. The rules are very clear. The minimum attendance in the case of detained candidates has to be calculated on the basis of attendance in one academical year under the exception engrafted to Rule 5 (iii) by Rule 5 (v). The detained candidates have been treated as separate and distinct from failed candidates and the two words have been used to indicate these two classes of candidates in Rule 5 (v). A detained candidate is a candidate who was detained at an earlier examination for any reason whatsoever. It is not disputed that the applicant had been detained last year on account of shortage in attendance. When once an exception has been engrafted to Rule 5 (iii); Rule 5 (iii) will have to be read in connection with a detained student along with Rule 5 (v) and the minimum attendance required under Rule 5 (xii) in the case of a detained candidate can have reference only to one academical year. If it was the intention of the rules to include a detained candidate also within the meaning of the last paragraph of Rule 5 (xii) the word "detained" should also have been put down in that rule, but it is found that only the words "failed candidates" have been mentioned in the last paragraph of Rule 5 (xii). If it was the intention of the rules to include a detained candidate also within the meaning of the last paragraph of Rule 5 (xii) the word "detained" should also have been put down in that rule, but it is found that only the words "failed candidates" have been mentioned in the last paragraph of Rule 5 (xii). I am therefore, clearly of opinion that the percentage in the case of detained candidates has to be calculated on one academical years attendance and it is open to the head of a recognised institution to condone a deficiency in attendance of not more than 10 lectures in the case of such candidates. 6. Another point which arises for determination is whether this court can in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction issue any order to the opposite-party to exercise its discretion in a particular manner. It is not disputed and the rules also indicate that it is entirely in the discretion of the head of an institution to condone or not to condone the shortage referred to in Rule 5 (xii). The opposite party was, therefore, within his rights to refuse to condone the shortage in attendance but, if it appears to him that he exercised his discretion against the applicant only on the ground that the rules did not permit him to grant a condonation in respect of a shortage in attendance exceeding five lectures, which interpretation has not been found by this court to be correct, it is still open to the opposite-party to reconsider his decision in the light of the interpretation put on the rules by the Court. 7. The petition for a writ is, therefore, dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.