JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. 1. These two writ petitions raise a few questions which are common and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Petitioners of both the petitions claimed postponement of the supplementary examination for Post Graduate Degrees King George's Medical College, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical College') from December, 1988 to February, 1989, otherwise, to direct the Principal to allow the petitioners to appear in the same examination treating the petitioners, as having completed the requisite duration of their Post Graduate Courses. 2. First of all Writ Petition No 8103 of 1988 filed by Dr. Bandana Mehray and thereafter Writ Petition No. 8870 of 1988 filed by Dr. Mukesh Swarup Johri will be taken up. Writ Petition No. 8103 of 1988. Petitioner Bandana Mehray joined two years' Post Graduate (M.D.) Course in Pathology commencing from June, 1986 at the Medical College, Lucknow. 3. On refusal by the Principal of the Medical College, to issue admit card to the petitioner for appearing at M. D. (Pathology) Final Examination commencing from 2-8-88 on the ground that she had not completed the requisite attendance, the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 5821 of 1988 challenging the shortage of her attendance and claiming that she was entitled to get the admit card for appearance in the examination. In that case, under the interim order of this Court dated 1-8-88 the petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in the said examination subject to the final orders passed in the writ petition. Declaration of her result was also stayed till further orders. That writ petition was finally dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28-9-88 and the interim order was discharged It was also ordered that the result of the petitioner for the examination which commenced on 2-8-88 need not be declared. It is informed that the petitioner's Special Leave to appeal filed before Honourable Supreme Court against that judgment is pending and has not been admitted so far. 4. It is informed that the petitioner's Special Leave to appeal filed before Honourable Supreme Court against that judgment is pending and has not been admitted so far. 4. As the supplementary examination for the same course was due to be held a few months after the Final Examination, the petitioner through her letter dated 12-9-88 (contained in Annexure-3) applied to the Principal of the Medical College for recording her attendance from 12-9-88 claiming that she was attending the Court from that day so that in case there was found shortage in her attendance she would be able to make good the deficiency for qualifying to appear in the supplementary examination on her attendance being recorded from 12-9-88. Through her letter dated 23-9-88 the petitioner reminded the Principal insisting that her attendance be recorded. Through his letter dated 24-9-88 contained in Annexure-5 the Principal turned down the request of the petitioner stating that the Statute of Lucknow University did not permit the attendance to be allowed with retrospective effect. The petitioner through her letter dated 29-9-88 contained in Annexure-7 protested against the Principal's reply and insisted that as she was regularly attending the Department since 12-9-88, though she was not permitted to sign attendance register, so her attendance be recorded with effect from 12-9-88. The Principal through his letter dated 29-9-88 contained in Annexure No. 8 again informed the petitioner that her attendance in the Department would be recorded only after the result of her Writ Petition (No. 5821 of 1988) was communicated to him. As already mentioned, the earlier Writ Petition (No. 5821 of 1988) was decided against the petitioner on 28-9-88. Holding the supplementary Examination from 2-12-88 was announced but the petitioner was not given admit card to appear in the same on the ground that her attendance in the Department still remained short. In this connection reference is made to the letter dated 26/28-11-1988 contained to Annexure-A3 filed with the supplementary counter affidavit sworn by the Principal of the Medical College. In this letter of the Medical College detailed calculation of the attendance of the petitioner during the period starting from the date of her joining the Department in 1986 up to 28-11-1988, is noted by the Head of the concerned Department together with the days of the absence of the petitioner in the Department due to various reasons. In this letter of the Medical College detailed calculation of the attendance of the petitioner during the period starting from the date of her joining the Department in 1986 up to 28-11-1988, is noted by the Head of the concerned Department together with the days of the absence of the petitioner in the Department due to various reasons. According to this letter (Annexure- A3) the petitioner had not completed the period of "22 months' stay in the Department" and hence, she was found not eligible for appearing in the supplementary examination- The same letter is to the effect that the period of "22 months' stay in the Department was required in the Department. But in this chart attendance (after the final examination of August, 1988) was counted from 13-10-1988 while she was attending the Department from 12-9-88 and as such, was entitled to her attendance from the later date. Further, the supplementary examination commenced on 2-12-88 so the petitioner's attendance in the department should have been calculated not up to 28-11-1988 but till the date of commencement of the supplementary examination. In the earlier writ petition No. 5821 of 1988 there was found three months and 16 days' shortage of attendance of the petitioner till the final examination which commenced on 2-8-88. On the ground that "she has not completed at least 22 months' stay in the Department," it was held by the authorities of the Medical College that she was not eligible to appear in the supplementary examination commencing from 2-12-1988. This led to the filing of the present writ petition by the petitioner on 11-10-88 claiming that the supplementary examination be postponed and directed to be held in February, 1989 i.e. six months after the Final Examination of August, 1988 in accordance with the Clause 4 of Lucknow University Ordinances and Regulations which provides for holding supplementary examination for the Post Graduate Courses of the Medical College. Clause 4 says : "M. D. and M.S/M.C.H Examination will be held twice each year ordinarliy in December and July". Holding of supplementary examination in February, 1989 would have entitled the petitioner to make good the deficiency in attendance whatever found by the authorities of the Medical College to qualify for appearance in the supplementary examination. 5. Clause 4 says : "M. D. and M.S/M.C.H Examination will be held twice each year ordinarliy in December and July". Holding of supplementary examination in February, 1989 would have entitled the petitioner to make good the deficiency in attendance whatever found by the authorities of the Medical College to qualify for appearance in the supplementary examination. 5. In this writ petition apart from claiming her attendance from 12-9- 1988 the petitioner has pressed and claimed that the following periods should be included while counting the total attendance of the petitioner and on doing so the petitioner's attendance would not be found short for either of the two examinations. (i) Period of the petitioner's absence of 71 days during the strike period (from 20-11-1986 to 29-1-1987) in the Medical College. (ii) 89 days' period of absence of the petitioner on maternity leave availed of by the petitioner. 6. These claims of the petitioner were raised and also taken note of and considered by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 28-9-1988 in her Writ Petition No. 5821 of 1988 but they were not at all accepted by the Court. At page 9 of the judgment it was held : "Writ Petition No. 5821 of 1988 "This petition is by Dr. Bandana Mehray (Mehrotra) and Dr. Anju Kakkar who had been admitted to M. D. (Pathology and Bacteriology now Pathology and Micro Biology) course in the year 1986. They were also refused admit card for the examination on the ground of shortage of attendance which landed them in this Court with the instant petition. On admitted facts their shortage also goes beyond two months. Both of them had availed of maternity leave for three months and they remained absent from classes/training on account of strike for (sic) days. Thus, their total shortage of attendance comes to about five months. This shortage, as already noticed, the Principal, was competent to condone. Accordingly this petition is also liable to be dismissed." After repelling the claims of the petitioner it was further held in the same judgment "Thus, even after allowing the petitioners all the leave available to them they would remain absent for two months, and forty-six days, or three months and sixteen days. Accordingly this petition is also liable to be dismissed." After repelling the claims of the petitioner it was further held in the same judgment "Thus, even after allowing the petitioners all the leave available to them they would remain absent for two months, and forty-six days, or three months and sixteen days. This absence, the Principal had no jurisdiction to condone." The contention that the period in which the examination was held should be counted towards attendance of the examinee was also repelled in the earlier judgment dated 28-y-1988. The judgment of this Court, so far, remains intact and this Bench will neither review nor sit in judgment over the findings and conclusions arrived at in the judgment dated 28-9-1988 refusing to accept the petitioner's claim for counting the period of her absence due to strike and maternity leave and the contention for counting the period of her examination from August 2, 1988 to August 25, 1988 for the purpose of her attendance in the Department. It is no more open to the petitioner to raise the same pleas in this second writ petition and agitate them for decision again. No second decision by this Court is called for on these points. 7. In this writ petition under the interim order passed by this Court on 1-12-1988 the petitioner was allowed to appear in the supplementary examination commencing from 2-12-1988 subject to the final decision in the case. Result of the supplementary examination in which the petitioner has appeared by virtue of the interim order of this Court, has been announced by Lucknow University on 31-12-1988 declaring the petitioner as successful in the M. D. Examination (Supplementary). The photostat copy of the result declared by the University under Notice No. 306 has been filed by the petitioner. A provisional Certificate for the degree of M. D. (Pathology and Bacteriology) was issued to the petitioner on 3-1-1989 by Lucknow University. Its photostat copy is on the record. Writ Petition No. 8870 of 1988 8. Petitioner Dr. Mukesh Swarup Johri has filed this writ petition on 12-11-1988. The petitioner applied for admission in the Post Graduate (M.D.) Course in Neurology at the Medical College, Lucknow in the academic session of 1986-87. The petitioner could be admitted in the Course on 3-3-1987. He was to complete the Course of teaching and training of 24 months in the Department of Neurology. The petitioner applied for admission in the Post Graduate (M.D.) Course in Neurology at the Medical College, Lucknow in the academic session of 1986-87. The petitioner could be admitted in the Course on 3-3-1987. He was to complete the Course of teaching and training of 24 months in the Department of Neurology. This period of 24 months could be reduced by two months on relaxation being granted by the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine in consultation with the Principal of the Medical College and Head of Department concerned. But the petitioner was refused such relaxation. According to him, the Principal was annoyed with him for the reason that he had approached this Court and in any case the refusal was unwarranted. The petitioner could submit his thesis on 8-8-1988 because of his late admission. He, therefore, could not appear in the final examination for the degree of D. M- (Neurology) which commenced on 3-8-1988 and finally ended on 10-8-1988. It was announced that the supplementary examination would commence from 3rd December, 1988. According to the petitioner, supplementary examination could legally be held after a gap of six months from the final examination hence it was wrong to hold it just four months after final examination. On holding the supplementary examination at its due time i.e. February, 1989 in the petitioner's attendance in the Department there would not have remained any shortage. According to the petitioner, in case the supplementary examination is held from 3-12-1988 which means earlier than due. the petitioner should be allowed to appear in the supplementary examination treating his duration of Course having been completed. 9. It is set out in the counter affidavit filed by the Principal of the Medical College (Oppo. Party No. 1), with which a chart of the total attendance of the petitioner in the Department contained in Annexure - A has also been filed, that the petitioner has put in 21 months and 8 days in the Department and therefore, he was not eligible to appear in the supplementary examination commencing on 3-12-1988. In case, the petitioner had been granted relaxation of two months' attendance, his attendance would have remained short by about 22 days, till the commencement of supplementary Examination from 3-12-1988. 10. Under the interim order of this Court dated 2-12-1988 the petitioner was allowed to appear in the supplementary examination which commenced on 3-12-1988. In case, the petitioner had been granted relaxation of two months' attendance, his attendance would have remained short by about 22 days, till the commencement of supplementary Examination from 3-12-1988. 10. Under the interim order of this Court dated 2-12-1988 the petitioner was allowed to appear in the supplementary examination which commenced on 3-12-1988. It was further directed by the Court that the result of the said examination of the petitioner was to be subject to the decision of the writ petition. After the petitioner's appearance in the supplementary examination it was directed by this Court on 7-2-1989 that the petitioner's result of the supplementary examination be declared. Accordingly, the result was declared on 14-2-1989 and the petitioner was declared successful in the supplementary examination. Having passed D. M. (Neurology) Examination a provisional degree certificate was issued to him on 14-2-1989 by the Opposite Party No. 2 (Lucknow University). The question of shortage of both, the petitioners' attendance for a few weeks, which is the main controversy in both the writ petitions, was relevant for the purpose of their appearance in the supplementary examinations. But, now it will be a futile exercise to enter into and make a decision scrutiny of this controversy as both the petitioner have actually appeared in and passed the supplementary examinations with the provisional certificates of the Post Graduate Degrees having been issued to them. 11. In taking this view we are supported by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Pal Singh Negi v. Vice Chancellor, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, Nainital, 1987 UP. L B. EC. 127. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 cited the case of Principal, King George's Medical College, Lucknow v. Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal 1984 UP. L.B. E.C. 90 in order to support his contention that even if the attendance of the petitioners is short by a few weeks they remained disentitled to appear in the supplementary examination with the result that their appearance in and declaration of the result of their examinations as well as their success in the examinations, and issue of provisional certificates for the post graduate degrees to them would not matter and should be ignored and set aside. But the case of Dr. But the case of Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal does not lay down that the hard facts and realities (such as exist in these cases) should be ignored and brushed aside, while passing final order in the cases. Further, that was the case in which the student (Dr. V. K. Agarwal) who had been admitted to M. D. Course in Physiology under the interim order of the High Court passed in a writ petition filed by the student, was found by Honourable Supreme Court as having not possessed all the qualifications required for admission to the post graduate course. His admission to the Post Graduate course was the basic dispute in that case. In the instant case both the petitioners were duly admitted to the post graduate courses. In that case, Supreme Court on being faced with this reality that two other graduate students of Medical Science lacking in requisite qualifications for admission to the post graduate degree courses had already been given admission to the post graduate course, did not set aside the admission of Dr. V. K. Agarwal. It needs to be emphasised that for exercise of the discretionary power of the Dean, Faculty of the Medicine, in conclutation with the Principal and Head of the concerned Department of the Medical College, Lucknow to grant relaxation of two months' attendance to the Post Graduate students out of the total period of 24 months' stay by them in the concerned department guide lines should be laid down; in the absence of which there ocur instances of abuse of this power. It will go to a great extent in minimising the exercise or non-exercise of this discretionary power on extraneous considerations which gives rise to litigation in which charges of discrimination and/or arbitrariness are levelled against the authorities of the Medical College. In fact, it will be in the interest of all those concerned. 13. Taking a realistic view in both the writ petitions we direct the Opposite Party No. 2 (Lucknow University) to issue final certificate as distinguished from the provisional certificate for the degree of M. D. (Pathology and Bacteriology) to the petitioner Dr. Bandana Mehray and for the degree of D. M. (Neurology) to the petitioner Dr. Mukesh Swarup Johri, within four weeks from today and each of the petitioners shall be deemed to have validly passed the course of the respective examination. 14. Bandana Mehray and for the degree of D. M. (Neurology) to the petitioner Dr. Mukesh Swarup Johri, within four weeks from today and each of the petitioners shall be deemed to have validly passed the course of the respective examination. 14. Both the writ petitions, accordingly succeed but no order is made as to costs. Petitions allowed.