JUDGMENT - W.M. SAMBRE, J.:---The petitioner is a student of 1st year M.B.B.S. having completed his 3 terms and was eligible for appearing at the First M.B.B.S. Examination in October, 1986. The petitioner was given Roll No. 220 and his University Enrolment No. is V/18043. Petitioner appeared for First M.B.B.S. Examination in three subjects. He failed in two subjects and could clear only one subject i.e. Anatomy. Petitioner claims that he was eligible to appear in the supplementary Examination and clear that two subjects in which he failed. It is the case of the petitioner that once he has completed the terms, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent, Dean to permit him to appear for M.B.B.S. Examination only in two subjects in next terms for which he took admission in the College but did not attend the classes as it was not obligatory for him to attend the classes once he has completed the term in the beginning. The petitions forwarded the examination form in the Summer 1987 for having second chance after six months according to the procedure and his application form was forwarded to the University and was also allotted admission card for appearing in the examination. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that his admission card is withheld and he is not permitted to appear on account of short fall of attendance. The Dean of Indira Gandhi Medical College informed the petitioner that he cannot be issued admission card because of short fall of attendance and he cannot appear for the First M.B.B.S. Examination to be held from 15-4-87. The petitioner moved this Court on 21-4-87 challenging the action of the Dean and seeking permission to appear for examination in Physiology and Bio-Chemistry subjects which were to be held on 22-4-87, 25-4-87 and 28-4-1987 and also for the orals and practicals which were likely to be conducted thereafter. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that without any reason and without giving him any opportunity his admission card has been withheld. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for re-admission to the examination in the subjects in which he failed without reattendance for the reason that he has already completed his three terms and his attendance was more than 75%. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for re-admission to the examination in the subjects in which he failed without reattendance for the reason that he has already completed his three terms and his attendance was more than 75%. 3. The respondent has filed return where in it is submitted that the petitioner appeared for First M.B.B.S. Examination held in November, 1986 and has cleared only one subject and failed in Physiology and Bio-Chemistry. It is further stated that after having failed in the examination it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to attend the classes conducted by the College and should have attended not less than 75% lectures delivered in these two subjects and also in practical in the subject. However, the attendance of the petitioner was zero percent i.e. he did not attend any lectures practical in two subjects during the period of six months. Respondent Dean has placed on record at Annexes. R.I. and R.II, the extracts of attendance register. The Head Department of both the subjects have intimated by their letters dated 18-3-87 and 21-3-87 that the petitioner was absent from the classes and a meeting of the Attendance Committee was held on 19-3-87 which considered the case of the petitioner and it was unanimously decided that this petitioner should be detained and restrained from appearing in the Summer 87 examination as his attendance was wholly unsatisfactory. From the facts stated above, it will be seen that factually the petitioner did not attend the classes in the second terms in the subjects of Physiology and Bio-Chemistry, which is an undisputed fact. 4. Now the question arise as to whether the petitioner is requires to attend the classes in the second term in the subjects in which he failed. Ordinance No. 8 of Nagpur University prescribes Rules to readmission to examinations. 4. Now the question arise as to whether the petitioner is requires to attend the classes in the second term in the subjects in which he failed. Ordinance No. 8 of Nagpur University prescribes Rules to readmission to examinations. In fact petitioner's case is governed by the said Ordinance No. 8 Rule, 3 which reads as under : “An applicant who is eligible for admission to examination under the provision of this Ordinance and is admitted to a College, shall be required to comply with the provisions prescribed for students of Colleges applying for admission to the examination; Provided that he shall not be refused admission to the examination merely by reason of a shortage in his attendance at lectures or at practical work where prescribed, if the Principal of the College certifies that such shortage is not a result of persistent idleness or a deficiency of character.” Similarly Ordinance No. 6 makes it compulsory for a student to attend the classes minimum to the extent of 75%. A deficiency in the attendance to the extent of 15% can be condoned by the Principal and his case can be recommended to the Executive Council under Ordinance 55, Rule 17. Ordinance 55 Rule reads as under : “An unsuccessful examinee in any subject who for reasons considered adequate by the Executive Council may be exempted from attending a further course or regular instruction in the subject concerned”. This will show that the powers to exempt from attending further course rest with the Executive Council. In this case, the petitioner chose to remain absent from the classes and in fact there was zero attendance on the part of the petitioner for appearing in the re-examination in two subjects. Ordinance 8 Rule 3 reads as under :- “Except as hereinafter laid down, the ordinance relating to first admission to examination shall, as far as may be, apply to the applicants under this ordinance,” This rule speaks about certificate to be issued by the authorities which has not been issued in respect of the petitioner as neither he applied for the same nor there was a case for issuance of such certificate. This shows that in Ordinance 8, Rule 2 and 3 Ordinance No. 6 of Nagpur University, the petitioner was disqualified from appearing in the re-examination for short attendance or no attendance. 5. This shows that in Ordinance 8, Rule 2 and 3 Ordinance No. 6 of Nagpur University, the petitioner was disqualified from appearing in the re-examination for short attendance or no attendance. 5. It has been stated by the Dean respondent No. 1 that the students are on the College roll continuously and they are charges tuition fee etc. for the period till they finally pass M.B.B.S. Degree course. A time table for lectures and practical in each subjects are prepared separately for the repeater students. It is also clearly mentioned in the certificate specified in the examination form that the students should have attended further course of attendance in the subject for which he is to be examined. As such certificate is prescribed in the application form for admission itself, which is meant only for repeaters. A copy of the said examination form is also annexed to the petition and the same is marked as Annex. R-V. It is the case of the respondent Dean that the petitioner does not have 75% attendance in the lectures and practical and, therefore, he was detained from appearing in the examination and was not issued admission card. 6. The stand of the respondent -Dean was supported by the respondent No. 2, Nagpur University. It is the case of Nagpur University that the power to condone attendance vests in the Executive Council of the Nagpur University. The Principal or the Dean of the College is permitted to condone the short attendance to the extent of 15% on certain grounds which he is required to certify and forward it to University for its approval. 7. This will show that the petitioner's contention that he is not required to attend the classes as repeater for appearing in re-examination for 2 subjects is absolutely incorrect. Under various provisions of the Ordinances, petitioner is bound to take readmission to the College, attend minimum 75% of the classes in the subject in which he failed and thereafter he can be permitted to appear for re-examination. From the facts stated above, it will be seen that there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner and the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----