JUDGMENT 1. - In these three petitions a common question for consideration has been raised, therefore, all the petitions are decided by one order. 2. In these petitions, all the petitioners, who are students of Senior Higher Secondary/Secondary have prayed that they be allowed to sit in the final examination and their result be declared though they have not attended 75% of the meetings in their respective schools which is the minimum requirement of the Board of Secondary Education. 3. It may be stated that all the petitioners have been allowed to sit provisionally in the final examination held in the year 1991 under the directions of this Court, but their result has been with-held as directed by this court. Briefly stated in petition No. 2203/91, the petitioner is regular student of Senior Higher Secondary in respondent No. 2 School at Jaipur. He filled up examination form in the month of August, 1990 and also deposited the necessary fees. In March, 1991 the practical examination in the Science subject was held in which, he was allowed to appear, but examination in theory papers was to start on April 18,1991. However, his permission letter from respondent No. I Board was not received. in his school respondent No. 2. On enquiry from the Principal of respondent No. 2 school, he was verbally informed that since his attendance was short, his permission-card has not been received from the Board. In the return filed on behalf of the Board, it has been mentioned that two meetings of students are held every day in the school. 4. It is submitted by Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel that the petitioner did not receive any communication from the Board regarding his shortage of attendance. It is submitted that the parents of petitioner live in rural area and petitioner has taken a room on rent for the purposes of studies. He had fallen ill from 1.12.90 to 12.12.90, hence he could not attend the classes. A medical certificate Anx. 2 of a private Registered Medical Practitioner has been filed. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Shri Krishan v. The Kurushetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 . 5. It is submitted by Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the Board that the above medical certificate was not sent to the Board in connection with illness of the petitioner. 2 of a private Registered Medical Practitioner has been filed. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Shri Krishan v. The Kurushetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 . 5. It is submitted by Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the Board that the above medical certificate was not sent to the Board in connection with illness of the petitioner. This certificate has been filed only with the writ petition. There- fore, the correctness of the certificate is doubtful. He further submits that as per the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957 (for brevity 'the Regulations 1957'), the Chairman of the Board has authority to condone shortage upto 25 meetings. Therefore, even if the full relaxation was given to the petitioner, he could not have been allowed to sit in examination. It is also pointed out that as mentioned in para 3 of the return as many as 6 communications were issued by the School-authorities to the petitioner informing him regarding his shortage of attendance. However, petitioner evidently, ignored all these communications and continued to be irregular in attending the school. 6. In writ petition No. 2208/91, it is submitted by Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel that the petitioner is student of 12th and is short by 45 meetings. She has appeared in practical examination. 7. It is submitted by Shri Rastogi, learned counsel for Board that as mentioned in para 3 of the return the petitioner and her parents were informed by several communications regarding short- fall of attendance of the petitioner, but these communications were ignored. It is, therefore, submitted that even if full relaxation of 25 meetings was given to the petitioner by the Chairman of the Board, she was not eligible to appear in final examination. 8. In petition No. 2120/91, it is submitted by Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel that the petitioner is short by 65 meetings. It is submitted that as is evident from the news published in Rajasthan Patrika (Anx.4) that most of the educational institution in Jaipur were closed from beginning of third week of August, 1990 on account of anti-reservation-agitation and the schools were opened one day before Deepawali. However, on account of disturbances due to 'Rathyatra' of B.J.P. Leader, educational institution again remained closed. On 24th October, 1990 there were riots in Jaipur City, on account of which, the educational institution again remained closed. However, on account of disturbances due to 'Rathyatra' of B.J.P. Leader, educational institution again remained closed. On 24th October, 1990 there were riots in Jaipur City, on account of which, the educational institution again remained closed. It is, therefore, submitted that the schools remained closed for quite long time, hence, it was not possible for petitioner to attend the minimum requirement of 75% of the meetings in the school. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Board that the petitioner has to attend only 75% of the meetings actually held in the school. Therefore, there is no connection of the institution having remained closed for some time for the reasons mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It (1) AIR 1976 SC 376 is submitted that the Principal of School on February 27, 1991 informed the petitioner regarding short-fall of his attendance, which communication was signed by his brother. It is also submitted that in all these schools, in which, three petitioners are studying there is regular policy of informing the parents regarding the work and the attendance of each students. Therefore, information regarding short-fall of attendance was given to each of the three petitioners from time to time. Even if petitioner is given relaxation of maximum 25 meetings allowed by the Regulations 1957, still she was not eligible to have appeared in examination. 9. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and also gone through in each of the petitions. 10. It is evident from the facts mentioned above that each of the petitioner is short in attendance of more than 25 meetings. The maximum relaxation that could be given by Chairman is 25 meetings as per the Regulation 1957. It can be said that each of the petitioners were informed from time to time regarding shortage of attendance in the school, but it seems no remedial steps can be taken to cover the shortage of attendance. The Regulation 1957 prescribed the maxi- mum limit of 25 meetings, which can be relaxed in favour of any petitioner in the special circumstances mentioned in the Regulation No. 4 (iii). Therefore, in Regulation No. 4(iii) of the Regulations 1957 even the Chairman was not authorised to condone the shortage of meetings, which is beyond 25 meetings in case of each of the petitioners. Mr. Therefore, in Regulation No. 4(iii) of the Regulations 1957 even the Chairman was not authorised to condone the shortage of meetings, which is beyond 25 meetings in case of each of the petitioners. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel in Writ Petition No. 2208/91 pointed out that somehow, the result of the petitioner has been publish- ed in the news-paper, the photostat copy of which has been placed on record. It is, therefore, submitted that since the result of petitioner has been somehow, published, the same may be officially declared as she has already been placed in Second Division. Shri Rastogi, placed on record the photostat copy of the result sheet of the school, in which, the names of the three petitioners have been shown in the list of such candidates, whose results have been withheld. Merely because, by an error the result of the petitioner has been published, the provisions contained in the- Regulations 1957 cannot be ignored. If some of the educational institutions were closed on account of various reasons pointed out in petition No. 2120/91, it cannot be said that students can remain absent even during the time the schools remained opened. More-ever only a paper cutting has been placed on record and no details of closing of the institution, in which the petitioner was studying have been given. More-over the petitioner is expected to keep 75% of the attendance of only actual working days of the school. Therefore, there is no force in this contention of the learned counsel. If such lenient view is taken the Regulations of the Board will be irrelevant and students will not care for attending the school regularly, which is necessary for sound-foundation of education at school level. 11. I am fortified in my opinion by decision of Division Bench of this Court in Suman Lata v. Board of Secondary Education, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 716/87 and Others D/d. 28.08.1987 , in which, it was held that a candidate whose short fall in attendance is more than 25 meetings is not entitled to appear in examination. The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Dheeraj Joshi and Neeraj Joshi v. The Board of Secondary Education and Anr, DB Civil Writ petition No. 750/88 D/d. 29.07. 1988(1) RLR 823 . The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Dheeraj Joshi and Neeraj Joshi v. The Board of Secondary Education and Anr, DB Civil Writ petition No. 750/88 D/d. 29.07. 1988(1) RLR 823 . In matter of Shri Krishna (supra) the Apex Court held that once the (2) DB Civil Writ Petition No. 716/87 and others decided on August 28, 1987 (3) DB Civil Writ Petition No. 750/88 decided on July 29,1988 reported in 1988 (1) RLR 823 concerned authorities allowed a candidate to appear in examination, rightly or wrongly then the statute which empowered the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity, which could have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. This authority is of no help to the petitioner, since all these petitioners were not allowed to take examination by the Board, but were directed /allowed to appear provisionally in the examination by this Court. Merely because, some of the petitioners appeared in practical examination, which was held in the month of March, 1991 they do not become entitled to be allowed to take final examination even though they may be having short-fall in attendance. In the matter of Suman Lata (supra), this Court took same view that no right is created in the petitions merely because, they were allowed to take practical examination. 12. I do not find any force in either of the writ petitions and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******