Judgment :- 1. When the miscellaneous petitions come up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “to issue a writ of mandamus or any oilier appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents herein to combine the attendance earned by the petitioner at Coimbaiore Law College and Madras Law College and determine the eligibility for appearance for the V year B L. Degree (5th year course) examination” 3. The petitioner herein who is a student studying in the fifth year in Madras Law College, has preferred this writ petition. It seems, originally he joined in the Coimbatore Law College and completed three years and then sought for transfer on health grounds and it was granted by the respondent. He joined the Madras Law College no 13-12-1988 and attended 102 days. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he was under the impression that he attended more than three months at Coimbatore Law College and that the certificate issued by the college showed that heattended for 17 days only. It is furtheralleged in the affidavit that the total number of days required for the purpose ofattendance is 114 days, that he attended Madras Law College for 102 days, that he attended the Coimbatore Law College for 17 daysand that if the attendance is clubbed together, it will be 119 days and that there will be noshortfall of attendance. It is further allegedin the affidavit that when the petitionerapproached the third respondent on 10 5-1989, the third respondent refused to issue hall-ticket informing that the attendance in the Madras Law College is 102 days and as suchthere is a shortfall of 15 days. When the third respondent refused to issue hall-ticket, thepetitioner herein preferred a writ petition before this Court and by order dated 22-5-1989 Abdul Hadi, J. issued a direction directing the authorities to issue hall-ticket and accordingly it was issued and the petitioner completed the fourth year degree examinations. When the matter came up noticeof motion was ordered by Abdul Hadi, J. on 22-5-1989. When the matter came up noticeof motion was ordered by Abdul Hadi, J. on 22-5-1989. When the matter came up beforeme for hearing on 14-8-1989, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the prayer was only to sit for the fourth year examinations commencing from 23-5-1989 and they were over by then, and nothing remains to be done. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in September 1989 and notice of motion was ordered on 25-10-1989. When the results were not published, by order dated 12-4-1990 in WMP. No. 6847 of 1990, this Court ordered to publish the results. The petitioner again preferred WMP. No. 18786 of 1980 praying to direct the respondents herein to permit him to continue the studies in the 5th year B.L. Course, pending disposal of the writ petition. By order dated 20-12-1989 this Court permitted the petitioner to continue his studies taking into account that only three months remain for the completion of the 5th year course. It seems a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 11-2-1990 in Writ Appeal No. 47 of 1990 dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of this Court in W.M.P. No. 18786 of 1989 dated 20-12-1989. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the University brings to my notice the judgment in A.D. Jagadish Chandra v. University of Madras and others 1 , in which I have held that that it is not possible to club the attendance in the law course and contends that judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case and the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. It is true that in A.D. Jagadish Chandra v. Universityof Madrasand others 1 , that I have decided the legal question and held that the attendance earned in other university cannot be taken into consideration for calculation of the total number of working days attended in another University in Law course. But taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been allowed to continue his studies for full five years now and has completed his fourth year examinations also, in my view, equity demands that the petitioner should be allowed to complete his course. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that the shortfall of attendance is only 12 days. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that the shortfall of attendance is only 12 days. I am of the view that the University could have very well condoned it as it is within the power of the University. Of course, the condonation has to be done by the first respondent, on the recommendation of the third respondent herein. As such, I am inclined to allow the writ petition. It is open to the petitioner to apply for such condonation if advised so. 6. In the result, the writ petition will stand allowed. No costs,