( 1 ) THIS petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents, is disposed of by the following order after hearing the counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is working as Technical Assistant in Bharath Electronics Ltd. He joined the first year diploma course in the School of Engineering Studies, conducted by the L. R. D. E. , which is an establishment run by the Defence Department of the Government of India. He could not continue in the course in the said institution for domestic reasons. He, therefore, applied for admission to the two years course in Sri Jayachamarajendra polytechnic (Evening course ). The second year classes were to commence from 16-7-1979. The petitioner sent up his application through his earlier institution in June, 1979 for admission in the institution of the third respondent and was selected for admission on 11-9 1979. The petitioner joined the second year course actually on 13-9-1979. When the petitioner went to the Polytechnic to obtain his hall ticket for the examination, he was informed that the same had been withheld on account of shortage of attendance. There were other students also, whose hall tickets were withheld for the same reason. However, the petitioner approached the Administrator to represent to him that the notice of deficiency in attendance was not given to him and that as he was given late admission, in terms of the regulations, his attendance should be reckoned from the date of admission, and therefore, there was no shortage of attendance in his case. It is stated by the petitioner that the Administrator informed him and the others that only on the recommendation of the Principal would he able to be condone the shortage and not be otherwise. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has set out in detail the percentage of attendance put in by him in each of the classes. From that it is seen that his attendance varies between 67. 213 to 48. 275, depending upon the number of classes held in those subjects from the commencement of the academic year. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has taken the examination for the second year diploma course in the academic year 1979-80. From that it is seen that his attendance varies between 67. 213 to 48. 275, depending upon the number of classes held in those subjects from the commencement of the academic year. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has taken the examination for the second year diploma course in the academic year 1979-80. ( 4 ) THE short question for consideration is, whether the third respondent was correct in withholding the hall-ticket of the petitioner, and if not, whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared to have had sufficient attendance prescribed under the regulations regarding the course. ( 5 ) THOUGH no statement of objections as such his been filed by the respondents, sri B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3, has fairly submitted that the technical education in the State of Karnataka is controlled and administered by the department of Technical Education, and there is also a Board of Technical Examinations created in that behalf by an executive order of the State Government. These are referred to as the Working Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and have VII Parts. In Part-III of the Rules of the Board of Technical Examinations dealing with the procedure for the guidance of Heads of Institutions, chief Superintendent, Officer in charge of examinations, it is provided under Rule-3 thereof, that every student should possess a minimum attendance of 60 per cent in each subject, theory as well as practical, and 75 per cent in the aggregate and also 75 per cent in N. C. C. parades and camp for becoming eligible to appear for the public examinations conducted by the Board of Technical Examinations. The said Rule further provides that the heads of institutions must arrange to notify on the institution's notice board at the beginning of each academic year, the minimum attendance required in each subject, the aggregate and the minimum attendance required in the said training for becoming eligible for the examinations, for the information of the students. It further requires that the attendance must be calculated upto 31st of March of the academic year and a consolidated report be sent to the Secretary, Board of Technical Examinations before 7th April of each year. It further requires that the attendance must be calculated upto 31st of March of the academic year and a consolidated report be sent to the Secretary, Board of Technical Examinations before 7th April of each year. ( 6 ) SUB-RULE (e) of Rule-3 of the Rules provides that fractions of percentage of attendance must be rounded off to one per cent. Sub-rule (f) of Rule-3 of the rules provides that in the case of students who are permitted to join any technical institution late by the Director of Technical Education, the attendance requirements in such cases have to be calculated from the actual date of granting of admission to the institution. Sub-rule (g) of rule-3 of the Rules provides for condonation of shortage of attendance in academic subjects and NCC training upto not more than 15 per cent of the minimum required. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, this Court need not concern itself with the question whether the Rules have conferred any right on the students and whether the Rules have the force of law. It is not disputed that the Working Rules govern both the students and respondents 2 and 3 as no other source of power is attributable to the respondents for conducting the course. ( 8 ) ASSUMING that they are mere administrative instructions like any educational code, it is obvious from the provisions contained in sub-rule (f) of Rule-3 of the rules that in the case of students who have secured late admission to the institution with the permission of the Director of Technical Education, the date of reckoning for the purpose of calculating their attendance, is the date of their joining the institution. It is not disputed that the petitioner was given late admission at the instance of the Director of Technical Education. Therefore, the third respondent has not obeyed the instructions contained in sub-rule (f) of Rule-3 of the Rules when he withheld the hall-ticket of the petitioner. He could not evidently withhold the hall-ticket because the attendance put in by the petitioner, which is not in dispute, is above 60 per cent, if it is reckoned from the date of his joining the course. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was entitled to take the examination for second year diploma course in the third respondent's institution under the relevant rules without suffering any shortage of attendance. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was entitled to take the examination for second year diploma course in the third respondent's institution under the relevant rules without suffering any shortage of attendance. The third respondent was in error in withholding the hall-ticket and in not noticing the provisions contained in sub-rule (f) Rule-3 of the Rules. Sri b. B. Mandappa, learned High Court government Pleader submitted that the case of the petitioner was one of transfer from one institution to another and therefore, the provisions of sub-rule (f) of the rule 3 of the Rules were not attracted. I do not think that there is any force in his submission. Sub-rule (f) of Rule-3 of Part-III of the Rules does not make a distinction between fresh admission and admission by transfer permitted late. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have his results of the second year diploma course declared, having taken the examination by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons given above, Rule will issue and respodents 1 end 3 are directed to declare the results of the petitioner in the examination he has taken. There will be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) SRI B. B. Mandappa, learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from to-day. --- *** --- .