Judgment :- The petitioner challenges an order of the University of Madras (lst respondent) dated 27-1-90 by which his result in B.E. Degree Examination in April, 1989 is treated as cancelled. 2. The petitioner joined the second respondent college in 1985 in Civil Engineering. Due to shortage in attendance, he was not allowed to appear for the Examination, and the petitioner came by way of writ petition No. 5252 of 1989 before this Court, and by order in W.M.P. No. 7702 of 1989, the petitioner was alleged to write the Final Examination commencing on 17-4-89, and it was made clear in that order that the results of the Examination should await the decision of the lst respondent on the representation to be made by the petitioner to the lst respondent explaining certain facts. In pursuance of that, the petitioner made representation on 2-5-89 and 13-7-89. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was really attending to the project work, and if those days are taken into account, he will not be lacking in attendance. The petitioner received a letter on 30-9-89 that his representation was considered by the Syndicate and it was decided not to condone the shortage of attendance, and his results will be withheld. The petitioner preferred another writ petition, in writ petition No. 14693 of 1989 challenging the above order. Srinivasan J., by order dated 17-11-89, permitted the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the first respondent-University and directed the University to reconsider the representation without reference to the earlier orders. Accordingly the petitioner made a further representation on 18-11-89 and the substance of this representation was that nearly 20 days had been spent by the petitioner and some other classmates for working in the project of planning the Designing of Hospital Buildings, and as such, if those 20 days were included, he would not be lacking in attendance. However, the University (lst respondent) sent a communication dated 27-1-90 rejecting his representation, holding that the examination written by the petitioner in April, 1989 will be treated as cancelled, against which the petitioner has come up to this Court with the present writ petition. 3. However, the University (lst respondent) sent a communication dated 27-1-90 rejecting his representation, holding that the examination written by the petitioner in April, 1989 will be treated as cancelled, against which the petitioner has come up to this Court with the present writ petition. 3. The lst respondent --- University has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is clearly stated that the lst respondent-University has taken into consideration the 20 days the petitioner had spent on project work when arriving at the decision that the petitioner is lacking in attendance. It is stated that the resolution by the University not to condone the lack of attendance was passed only after taking into consideration all the facts placed before it and based on the merits of the representation of the petitioner, and not in the manner as alleged by the petitioner in the affidavit. It is true that the principal of the college can recommend condonation for shortage of attendance from 62.5% to 75% of the total number of working days. But in this case, the petitioner had only 49% which is far below 62.5%. 4. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the resolution was with reference to the Regulations, and the University had no power at all to condone the lack of attendance under such circumstances. 5. Mr. R. Thyagarajan Ramaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that if the attendance is perused, it will be seen that 20 days have not been included by the University in arriving at the number of days attended by the petitioner. In view of this representation, I called for the Attendance Register, and it has been produced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the college today. Though the college did not turn up so far before the court, today the Attendance Register has been produced before the court. After making an actual calculation, Mr. K. R. Thamizhamani, learned counsel appearing for the lst respondent-University and Mr. G. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent college states that the petitioner is lacking in attendance. A verification of the Attendance Register has been made. It reveals that what the petitioner alleges in his affidavit is factually incorrect. A cursory look at the Attendance Register shows that the petitioner is absent from the college almost on all the days and only very rarely the petitioner has attended the college. A verification of the Attendance Register has been made. It reveals that what the petitioner alleges in his affidavit is factually incorrect. A cursory look at the Attendance Register shows that the petitioner is absent from the college almost on all the days and only very rarely the petitioner has attended the college. The University is the Authority to take decision in matters of this nature. In the instant case the University (lst respondent) has decided that the result of the examination written by the petitioner should be cancelled. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the courts should as far as possible, refrain from issuing writs against any regulation or statute, the decisions taken by Education authorities should not be lightly disturbed, and that the discretion of taking decisions on matters of Regulations of schools and colleges should be left with the Authorities concerned. In this case, the Madras University Act prescribes a minimum number of days of attendance, which the petitioner has failed to achieve. It is unfortunate that the petitioner should have spent these two years in appearing for the Examination and finished the Examination. But somehow the petitioner has thought it fit to file series of writ petitions to achieve his object. Unfortunately, it could not be granted due to the limited jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. S. Ramalingam, J. has passed the interim order that he will be permitted to appear for the Examination only, subject to the result of the Representation made by the petitioner to the University. When the University has rejected the representation, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. 6. If the project work done by the petitioner can be taken into account according to Regulations, the University will take into consideration the project work done by the petitioner if the petitioner appears for Examinations in future. Petition dismissed.