Judgment B.D.Singh, J. 1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the 27 petitioners is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish the results of the petitioners of teachers training school examination, held from 22nd to 26th July, 1969. 2. In order to appreciate the points involved in the application, it will be necessary to state certain facts which have been stated by the petitioners in their application as well as the supplementary affidavit and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners were the students of the Teachers Training School, Madhopatti, in the District of Darbhanga, and they had undergone a course of two years of training for the purpose of obtaining certificates of training. The aforesaid school is controlled by the Bihar Examination Board, Patna (respondent No. 1), hereinafter to be referred to as the "Board". After completing the two years course, the petitioners along with several other students appeared at the final examination on the dates mentioned above. According to the petitioners, they had completed 75 per cent of the lectures during the course of the two years training and were entitled to appear at the said examination. They filled up the examination forms and deposited the examination fees, which were accepted by the principal of the school and the Board. They also received their admit cards duly issued by the Board for appearing at the said examination and they appeared at the said examination. The results of some of the students who had appeared at the said examination were published on 12-1-1970 and a second list of successful students was published on 30-1-1970. The results of the petitioners, however, were not published. The principal of the school (Respondent No. 4) orally informed the petitioners that their results were withheld by the Board on the ground that their attendance in the classes was less than 90 per cent, although they had passed the said examination. 3. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioners further stated that they were informed by the principal of the school (Respondent No. 4) that he had received letter No. 251 dated 19-5-1969 from the Board by which the Board had permitted the students, including the petitioners, who had completed 75 per cent of the lectures to appear at the said annual examination. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioners further stated that they were informed by the principal of the school (Respondent No. 4) that he had received letter No. 251 dated 19-5-1969 from the Board by which the Board had permitted the students, including the petitioners, who had completed 75 per cent of the lectures to appear at the said annual examination. The petitioners also enclosed a copy of the admit cards Annexure "1" to the supplementary affidavit. In paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit they further stated that the principal neither informed them that they had to complete 90 per cent of the lectures nor made any arrangement for classes to enable them to complete 90 per cent of the lectures. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it has been stated that the total number of working days in each session, according to the syllabus, is not less than 225 days and the minimum percentage of attendance required is 90 per cent. Deficiency in attendance due to illness etc. has to be made up during holidays, if necessary. They also enclosed an extract from the syllabus for teachers training school in Bihar, as Annexure "A" to the counter-affidavit. It was further stated that by circular letter dated 19-5-1969, the Board had conveyed to all the principals of Teachers Training Schools that the candidates with shortage of attendance up to 15 per cent intending to appear at the annual examination 1969 might be sent up. But such candidates having less than the prescribed 90 per cent of the attendance but having 75 per cent or more might be allowed to fill up the forms and deposit the fees by the 30th of May 1969 on the condition that they would make up the deficiency by attending the classes between the date of filling in the forms and the commencement of the examination. The principals were also instructed to make arrangements for holding special classes for such candidates, and to ensure that there was a reasonable probability of the concerned candidates recouping and that the principals would also certify that the reasons for the shortage were valid. A true copy of the letter dated 19-5-1969 was annexed as Annexure "B" to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it is categorically stated that the petitioners did not fulfil the instructions contained in Annexure "B". A true copy of the letter dated 19-5-1969 was annexed as Annexure "B" to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it is categorically stated that the petitioners did not fulfil the instructions contained in Annexure "B". It is further stated that the Board had repeatedly communicated to the principals that they had to follow the instructions contained in Annexure B as mentioned in letter dated 28-6-1969, which is Annexure "C" to the counter-affidavit. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that since the petitioners had deposited the examination fees and admit cards were issued to them by the Board, the latter was not justified in withholding their examination on the ground that they had not completed 90 % of the lectures. He submitted that the principal (Respondent No. 4) did not make any arrangement for the extra classes and, therefore, the petitioners were not at all responsible for not recouping the shortage. He further submitted that the petitioners had no information regarding the instruction which the principal had received from the Board. In that view of the matter, he urged that it is a fit case where this Court should direct the respondents to publish their results. In order to support his contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. V/s. Kumari Chittra Sriyastava, ( AIR 1970 SC 1039 ). In my opinion, the facts of the reported case are not identical to those of the instant case. It may be pointed out that in paragraph 4 of the reported decision it is clearly mentioned that the substance of the letter to the principal of that Institution was that the shortage in lectures was due to the lecturer taking leave. Besides, in the case which their Lordships were considering, the Board was empowered to condone the deficiency in attendance. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out if the Board has any power to condone the deficiency in attendance. Further, in that case the principal had recommended condonation of the deficiency in attendance, but in the instant case there is no such recommendation. Further, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, that they had no knowledge about the instruction which the Principal had received from the Board, does not appear to be correct. Further, in that case the principal had recommended condonation of the deficiency in attendance, but in the instant case there is no such recommendation. Further, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, that they had no knowledge about the instruction which the Principal had received from the Board, does not appear to be correct. It will be apparent from paragraph 2 of the main application of the petitioners that they were aware of letter dated 19-5-1969 as they have clearly stated that the students. Including the petitioners, were informed by the principal of the school through letter No. 251, dated 19-5-1969 received from the Board. This letter is no other letter than the one which has been enclosed as Annexure "B" to the counter-affidavit. Besides, the petitioners cannot plead ignorance of the syllabus, an extract of which has been enclosed as Annexure "A" to the counter-affidavit. The petitioners have not stated in their application that they had approached the principal for arranging extra classes for the petitioners so that they might recoup their shortage of percentage in lectures. It may further be noticed that even the deposit of fees and issuance of admit card by the Board would be of no avail to the petitioners as they were subject to the petitioners recouping the shortage in attendance. Since they had failed to do so, they had no right to appear at the examination. If they had no such right, their application for issuance of direction to the respondents to publish their results is also not entertainable. 6. In the result, there Es no merit in this application which has got to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. 7. Before I part with this application, I consider that it is desirable for the respondents to make arrangements for extra classes for the petitioners so that they may recoup their shortage in attendance and thereby they may be able to appear at the next session, if it is permissible under any of the rules or regulations of the Board.