JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - After arguments concluded today at 3.15 P.M. the dictation of judgment commenced. After some time it was felt that it cannot finish today. And even if it finished it could not be signed tomorrow. Nor copy could be issued. Examinations are going to commence from 1st August, 1986. Therefore, we consider it expedient to dictate operative portion of the order, copy of which may be issued today on payment of usual charges. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the order the dictation of which shall continue, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties acted arbitrarily in not permitting the petitioners to take up examinations in respective courses of which they were students. We accordingly direct the opposite parties to permit the petitioners to appear in the Supplementary Examination of the respective years which are going to commence from 1-8-1986. 3. Petitioners are of three categories some who have approached this Court before commencement of examinations. Others are those who had approached after commencement of examinations and were permitted to appear in remaining papers to enable them to appear in case of success of those petitions in supplementary examination. Last are those in whose favour no interim order was granted but it was made clear that in case petitions were allowed, they shall be permitted to appear in all papers in supplementary examination. The University is, therefore, directed to declare results of these petitioners who are covered in categories one and two and permit them to appear in those papers in which they could not appear earlier and also in those papers in which they appeared but shall be eligible to appear in supplementary examination. As regards last category they shall be permitted to appear in all papers. 4. Students of Faculty of Engineering of Aligarh Muslim University approached this Court by these petitions for direction to opposite parties to permit them to appear in final examination commencing for some classes in May, others in June and still others, in July. Some of the petitions were filed immediately after the list of detained candidates was announced. Others came after commencement of examinations. In all such petitions interim orders were passed directing opposite parties to permit them to appear in examinations either from beginning or from the stage they approached this Court. Some of the petitions were filed immediately after the list of detained candidates was announced. Others came after commencement of examinations. In all such petitions interim orders were passed directing opposite parties to permit them to appear in examinations either from beginning or from the stage they approached this Court. That is in those classes in which examinations had commenced petitioners were permitted to appear in remaining papers to enable them to appear in other papers in supplementary examination. Last batch of petitioners are those to whom after hearing learned counsel for University no interim orders were granted but it was made clear that in case petitioners succeeded then such students who could not appear even in one paper in any subject shall also be entitled to appear at supplementary examination. 5. Various submissions have been advanced both legal and factual namely, failure of the faculty to hold extra classes to enable them to complete their attendance as was done in others, closure of University even below the minimum number of days, absence of any reason for condoning delay of few without proof of their being sportsmen, lack of consideration of petitioners' representation for condonation because of illness and other reasons etc. But it appears unnecessary to advert to them as fate of these petitions hinges on if the authorities acted arbitrarily in condoning shortage in attendance of some and were guilty of picking and choosing which resulted in benefit to few and denial to others who were similarly situated. It stands admitted that one Fasahat Husain or Ali whose attendance was 40% much below the minimum namely 75%, was permitted to appear and shortage in his attendance was condoned. It is not denied that except one Mohd. Haron whose physical attendance was 48% the attendance of each petitioner is above 50%. To demonstrate pick and choose by opposite parties it is pointed out that shortage in attendance of Kuldeep Singh, one of the petitioners, was not condoned, even though he stood on much better footing than Fasahat Husain. Stand in the counter-affidavit is that attendance in classes being of prime importance University had laid great stress on it and has framed regulations from time to time. Last regulation was framed in June, 1985. Stand in the counter-affidavit is that attendance in classes being of prime importance University had laid great stress on it and has framed regulations from time to time. Last regulation was framed in June, 1985. But in 1986-87 on recommendation of Games committee that new rules were not in their knowledge and sportsmen could not be informed of it the Vice-Chancellor agreed that their cases may be considered in accordance with old rule. In support of it a letter issued by Controller of Examinations to Principal of Women's College has been filed. Original and complete letter of the Vice-Chancellor has, however, neither been filed nor it has been produced at time of hearing. 6. Regulations are framed under S. 29 of Aligarh Muslim University Act. In exercise of this power rules regarding shortage of attendance were amended. Prior to it, the rules did not restrict the power of Admission Committee to condone shortage in attendance of a student who took part in sports or cultural activities etc. But from 1985 ceiling of 10% has been provided. Relevant proviso reads as under : "Provided that the condonation committees may take into consideration cases of students deputed by permission of the Dean concerned to go out of Station (for purposes of games and sports, study tours etc. or to perform a duty which prevents them from attending classes), in such cases, the attendance in all classes held on such days of absence shall be added to the total attendance so calculated comes up to 65% or above (or 70% or above in the case of the Faculty of Engineering & Technology), the condonation committee concerned may recommend the condonation of shortage in attendance". If this rule is applied Fasahat Husain would have got 50% only. Since it would have been below 65% or 70% the Condonation Committee could not have recommended for condonation of shortage in attendance. But by giving him benefit for the days he participated in tournaments multiplying it with number of lectures held per day his total attendance was worked out at 89.5%. It is explained to have been done under old rules. It is doubtful if the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his powers under S. 19(3) which, can be exercised in urgent matters decide to do away with rules framed by the Academic Council. That would be permitting Vice-Chancellor to be above various authorities of the University. It is explained to have been done under old rules. It is doubtful if the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his powers under S. 19(3) which, can be exercised in urgent matters decide to do away with rules framed by the Academic Council. That would be permitting Vice-Chancellor to be above various authorities of the University. Urgent powers are conferred to be exercised sparingly in consonance with Act and rules and not to by-pass the rules or regulations framed by a superior body. Even assuming he could, he should have directed suspension of rules for all students of 1986- 87. It could not apply in part. Old rules for sportsmen and new rules for others. The decision itself was improper. If ti,e rule is applied then the case of Fasaliat Husain and Kuldeep Singh were of similar nature. He too was a sportsman. If he would have been granted similar benefit of multiplying number of lectures with days on which he participated in tournament he would have become eligible. In counter-affidavit it is not denied that attendance of Kuldeep Singh, displayed on notice board was 59.5%. During argument, however, paper was produced by learned Senior Counsel for University to show that his percentage was below 40%. But nothing turns on it, as if he would have been receipent of similar benefit as Fasahat Husain he would have become eligible with less then 40% attendance. Attempt was made to suggest that Kuldeep Singh never applied for being given benefit of being sportsman. This stands negatived by the chart where his case was considered along with other sportsmen but he was detained. It may not be out of place to mention that it has been claimed by every petitioner that they had applied for condonation of shortage in attendance but the opposite parties did not consider the same. If new rule is applied then Fasahat Husain irrespective of being a sportsman could not be singled out as after 10% benefit of being sportsman he could reach 50% only and not 65%. Therefore, the distinguishing feature of being a sportsman and a different class than petitioners lost its significance. If he could not reach 65% then he and other petitioners became similarly situated. 7. Therefore, the distinguishing feature of being a sportsman and a different class than petitioners lost its significance. If he could not reach 65% then he and other petitioners became similarly situated. 7. Attempt was made by learned counsel for University to argue that petitioners and Fasahat Husain being of different class or group they were not similarly situated, therefore, the plea of discrimination founded on Article 14 was devoid of any substance. Reliance was placed on State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Das, AIR 1966 SC 1547 . It was also urged that condonation of attendance was a matter in discretion of University authorities which should not be interfered with by this Court. Action of the Vice Chancellor in applying old rule is defended both on ignorance and exercise of power u/s 19. It is also urged that even if Fasahat Husain had been granted permission illegally it could not be claimed as basis for perpetrating illegality in favour of petitioners. None of the arguments appear to have any merit. Under new rule Fasahat Husain and petitioners were similarly situated as even after grant of 10% benefit for having participated in games he could not qualify for being recommended to condonation Committee. The distinction sought to be drawn between sportsman and others vanished and from thereon everyone became similarly situated. If the old rule is applied then it was a policy of pick and choose. In Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1984 SC 1499 vice of arbitrariness was held to b e in ambit of Article 14. Even otherwise discriminating consequences arising from arbitrary action of public authorities cannot be countenanced. The wrong thus accruing can be undone by putting them in some compartment. In Vishnudas Handumal v. State of M.P. AIR 1981 SC 1636 , it was held that even unintended discrimination indulged by authorities has to be rectified by putting everyone at par. In Durga Charan's case (Supra) the plea of discrimination was rejected as the Hon'ble Court found that rule 6 of protection Rules had been misconstrued. It can have no application where discrimination arises because of pick and choose. Arbitrary or discriminatory action is destructive of rule of law and fairness. Direction to authorities to act similarly or uniformly is not perpetrating illegality but maintaining the social balance. 8. Discipline in academic institutions is of prime-importance. Physical attendance is an essential part of it. It can have no application where discrimination arises because of pick and choose. Arbitrary or discriminatory action is destructive of rule of law and fairness. Direction to authorities to act similarly or uniformly is not perpetrating illegality but maintaining the social balance. 8. Discipline in academic institutions is of prime-importance. Physical attendance is an essential part of it. Its strict enforcement is conducive both to education and discipline. But far greater than this is the disturbance in social order which may be caused by arbitrary action of authorities or the policy of pick and choose. Frustration and dissatisfaction caused for lack of resources to approach the highest erodes the concept of equality. 9. Out of the two alternatives one to permit petitioners to appear in the examinations whose physical attendance was below the minimum and the other to uphold the arbitrary action of opposite parties in respect of few, it appeared expedient and appropriate to adopt the former. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties acted arbitrarily in not permitting the petitioners to take up examinations in respective courses of which they were students. We accordingly direct the opposite parties to permit the petitioners to appear in the supplementary examinations of the respective years which are going to commence from 1st August, 1986. 11. Petitioners are of three categories; some who have approached this Court before commencement of examinations. Others are those who had approached after commencement of examinations and were permitted to appear in remaining papers to enable them to appear in case of success of those petitions in supplementary examination. Last are those in whose favour no interim order was granted but it was made clear that in case petitions were allowed, they shall be permitted to appear in all papers in supplementary examination. The University is, therefore, directed to declare results of these petitioners who are covered in category one and two and permit them to appear in those papers in which they could not appear earlier and also in those papers in which they appeared but shall be eligible to appear in supplementary examination. As regards last category they shall be permitted to appear in all papers.