MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the refusal of respondent No. 1 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka ('respondent-University' in short) to permit them to appear for II B. D. S. Course Examination held at the end of second academic year of the course, the petitioners have filed these petitions praying grant of the following reliefs :"a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the II year BDS examinations scheduled from 29- 10-1998 onwards, further directing them not to treat the petitioners as ineligible on account of any shortage of attendance. B) issue a writ of direction or other suitable writ directing the II respondent to exercise the power under the Ordinance to condone the shortage of attendance, if any if called for, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances leading to belated admissions ;c) issue suitable writ or direction to the respondents to take into account the course of study undergone by the petitioners in pursuance to interim orders of this Hon'ble Court based on which the College authorities of their respective colleges had permitted the students to appear for the classes and treat the study so undergone as study in accordance with the prescribed regulations; ANDD) issue such other writ, order or directions as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. " ( 2 ) ). Evidently due to lapse of time the relief prayed at Sub Para 'a' above has become infructuous. ( 3 ) THE circumstances which are not in dispute and which have driven these petitioners to approach this Court are as stated hereunder :the petitioners were admitted to the First Year B. D. S. Course in the academic year 1996-97 in various colleges who are also made respondents in these respective petitions. The examination for that academic year of the course i. e. First B. D. S. was conducted by the respondent University during Sept. 1997. All the petitioners also appeared for the said examination. The result of that examination was announced by the University on 25-10-1977. These petitioners together with their other batchmates were declared as failed in the examination. The examination for that academic year of the course i. e. First B. D. S. was conducted by the respondent University during Sept. 1997. All the petitioners also appeared for the said examination. The result of that examination was announced by the University on 25-10-1977. These petitioners together with their other batchmates were declared as failed in the examination. To their shock and surprise they found that the calculation of the aggregate marks scored by them in each of the examination subjects of First Year B. D. S. course made by the respondent-University in their statement of marks was erroneous. When their repeated representations to the University to rectify its grave mistake made in aggregation and totalling of the marks scored by them in each of the subject and declare them as passed went fruitless the petitioners and few others (in all 22 students), on 23-12-1997 and 1-1-1998, filed W. P. No. 37915 to 37929/97 and W. P. Nos. 38198 to 38204/97 challenging the correctness of their results announced by the respondent University and seeking directions to the University to make correct calculation of the aggregate marks secured by each of them in each of the subjects of their course and declare them as all passed in the said examination. ( 4 ) THE said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge by his order dated 27-1-1998 after hearing both parties. On 11-2-1998 some of the writ petitioners filed writ appeal Nos. 491 to 505/98 challenging the said order of the learned single Judge. The said appeals were heard by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Justice Mohammed Anwar) was a member and they were allowed on their merits by its considered judgment dated 13-3-1998. The objections of appellants - petitioners therein raised against erroneous manner of aggregation and totalling done by the respondent University of the marks scored by them in each of their examination subjects was found acceptable by the Division Bench and the said appeals came to be disposed of with the following directions to the respondent University. The objections of appellants - petitioners therein raised against erroneous manner of aggregation and totalling done by the respondent University of the marks scored by them in each of their examination subjects was found acceptable by the Division Bench and the said appeals came to be disposed of with the following directions to the respondent University. "the respondent University is directed to determine the results of the appellants/students afresh in the examination subject/subjects in which they are shown as failed, by computing their aggregate marks secured in "university Theory" i. e. in University conducted written Theory Paper and Viva combined together; in "theory aggregate" i. e. University Theory + Internal Assessment; in "university Practical", and in "practical aggregate" i. e. Practical keeping in view the observations made in paras 23 and 27 hereinabove; + Internal Assessment combined together ; and it shall declare them passed in the said subjects if they are found to have scored 50% in University Theory, 50% in Theory aggregate , 50% in University Practical and 50% in Practical aggregate on their marks being computed in the said manner. The University shall declare their results afresh after complying with the above directions by end of 31st March, 1998 and such of the appellants students who will be found to have passed the examination subject in which they are shown as failed in their statement or marks are entitled to and shall be allowed to prosecute their studies in the next higher class i. e. II BDS course when they are not disqualified by reasons of any other provision of the Scheme of Examination. " ( 5 ) THE above judgment of Division Bench was accepted by the respondent University and accordingly the aggregate marks obtained by each of the aggregate students of First B. D. S. Course was re-calculated by it in the light of the directions given in the said judgment, and modified results of those students were announced by it on 2-4-1998 on the basis of their revised mark sheets prepared and sent to their respective colleges. As disclosed by the additional affidavits filed by the Registrar of respondent University that when the modified results were announced on 2-4-1998 on the basis of the said revised marks sheets of the students of the First B. D. S. Course, in all 184 students, including the petitioners, of this course of the various dental colleges affiliated to the University were declared passed who had been earlier declared as failed on account of wrong aggregation of the marks secured by them in the concerned examination subjects. All those 184 students were found eligible to attend the second year B. D. S. course in their respective colleges and they were allowed to attend the II B. D. S. Course. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the Second Year B. D. S. Course of respondent University commenced from 3-11-1997 and was concluded on 20-12-1998 with a break of vacation to the dental colleges from 1-4-1998 to 1-5-1998 which vacation is called as mid term vacation. On account of the wrong declaration of the results of these petitioners and other students in the first instance they could not attend the classes for second year B. D. S. course conducted by the colleges from 3-11-1997 till they obtained the interim orders on 23-12-1997 and 1-1 -1998, in their said W. P. Nos. 37915 to 37929 and 38193 to 38204 of 1998, respectively, from the learned single Judge directing the respondent University to permit them to attend second year B. D. S. classes. Under the said interim orders they attended their classes till 27-1-1998 when their writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Thereafter, only 15 of the writ petitioners filed appeals in W. A. Nos. 491 to 501/98 which came to be allowed by the said judgment dated 13-3-1998 of the Division Bench with the afore-quoted directions to the respondent University. Thereafter, only 15 of the writ petitioners filed appeals in W. A. Nos. 491 to 501/98 which came to be allowed by the said judgment dated 13-3-1998 of the Division Bench with the afore-quoted directions to the respondent University. In the process all the said students who were earlier declared by the University as failed in their first B. D. S. examination and were subsequently declared as passed on 2-4-1998 in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench given in its said judgment could not attend their classes for second B. D. S. course from 3-11-1997 till 23-12-1997, and 1-1-1998; and their attendance to the classes from 27-1-1998 to 13-3-1998 after the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge, was not under any order of this Court. As a result, according to the University, each of the said students had fallen far short of requisite percentage of attendance to acquire eligibility for taking examination of Second Year B. D. S. Course held from 29-10-1998. Therefore, it was contended for the respondent University (that) the petitioners were rightly denied permission by it to appear for the Second B. D. S. Course examination on the ground of shortage of attendance. ( 7 ) IT was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Madhusudhan R. Naik that the petitioners' attendance to the classes in each of these subjects of Second B. D. S. Course conducted by their colleges was satisfying the limit of percentage of attendance prescribed by the relevant Regulations of the Dental Council of India as also by the Regulations of the respondent University. It was, therefore, contended for the petitioners that the petitioners having credited their examination fees to the University and they having fulfilled the requisite norm of attendance to the classes in each of the subjects, there was no justification whatever for the University to prevent them from taking their said Second Year B. D. S. examination. ( 8 ) WE have bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival contentions canvassed before us. For their proper appreciation and consideration it is necessary to have a look at the relevant Regulations of the Dental Council of India and of the respondent University. The "b. D. S. Course Regulations" as modified by order dated 27-6-1983, are framed by the Dental Council of India under the Dentists Act, 1945. For their proper appreciation and consideration it is necessary to have a look at the relevant Regulations of the Dental Council of India and of the respondent University. The "b. D. S. Course Regulations" as modified by order dated 27-6-1983, are framed by the Dental Council of India under the Dentists Act, 1945. They have the statutory force and are mandatory vide AIR 1 998 SC 2423 (Medical Counsel of India v. State of Karnataka ). Regulation (i) relating to requirement of attendance therein prescribed the requisite percentage of attendance as "75% in theory and 75% in practical/clinical in each subject in each year" for B. D. S. Course. The relevant provision of the regulations pertaining to the scheme of examination for "b. D. S. Course" contained therein states, "the examination shall be open to a candidate who satisfies the requirement of attendance, progress and conduct as stipulated by the respective University. " The same requirement of the percentage of attendance was adopted at sub. regulation (a) of Regulation III of the respondent University's Regulations styled "b. D. S. New Regulations" Subsequently, by notification No. ACA/ord-4-/98-99 dated 11-6-1998 vide Annexure-E, an ordinance was notified by the Vice Chancellor of respondent University as in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 35 (2) of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 governing the attendance and condonation of shortage of attendance. Its clause No. 1 stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in ordinance, rules pertaining to under-graduate courses in health sciences courses regular candidates are required to attend 80% of the total number of classes conducted in the year in all subjects prescribed for that year separately in theory and practicals so as to become eligible to appear for the respective University examination. Clause 5 of this ordinance which pertains to condonation of shortage of attendance states that it lies within the discretionary powers of Vice-Chancellor to condone shortage of attendance upto maximum of 10% in the prescribed eligible attendance for valid reason for admission of a candidate to an examination. However, it was submitted at the Bar that this power reserved for the Vice-Chancellor under clause 5 of the ordinance has been withdrawn as it was not within the scope of this power under Section 35 (2) of the Act of 1994 under which the said ordinance Annexure E was notified. There is no dispute about this proposition. However, it was submitted at the Bar that this power reserved for the Vice-Chancellor under clause 5 of the ordinance has been withdrawn as it was not within the scope of this power under Section 35 (2) of the Act of 1994 under which the said ordinance Annexure E was notified. There is no dispute about this proposition. Therefore, it is clear that while under the regulations of the Dental Council of India the requisite percentage of attendance is 75% in theory and 75% in practical/clinical in each subject in each year for a student of B. D. S. Course to become eligible to appear for the B. D. S. examination of a particular year, it is 80% under the regulations framed by the respondent University in exercise of the powers under Section 35 (2) of the Act of 1994. But the limit of attendance prescribed under the Regulations of the Dental Council of India is made subject to the satisfaction of the requirement of attendance as stipulated by the respective University. Therefore, it could be safely held that the petitioners and other students of various colleges affiliated to respondent University who were declared passed in the modified result of their examination will have to satisfy the requirement of 80% of the attendance prescribed by the aforesaid regulations of respondent University. The abstracts of attendance of petitioners 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 are produced of the paper book, giving the detailed particulars of their attendance in theory and practicals of each of the subjects of Second B. D. S. Course. These abstracts disclose that invariably in one or the other of their examination subjects the attendance of these petitioners is far below this requirement of 80%. Similar is the case of other petitioners as well. It is, therefore, beyond dispute that petitioners did not fulfil the prescribed requirement of attendance for gaining eligibility to appear for the said second B. D. S. examination conducted by the respondent University from 29-10-1998. It is also not in dispute that none of the authorities of respondent University or of respondents colleges is empowered and competent to condone the shortage of attendance suffered by any student of B. D. S. course for any reason whatsoever. It is also not in dispute that none of the authorities of respondent University or of respondents colleges is empowered and competent to condone the shortage of attendance suffered by any student of B. D. S. course for any reason whatsoever. ( 9 ) THEREFORE the material question which arises for our consideration is that whether in the peculiar circumstances and in view of the fact that when none of the petitioners or for that matter the students who were declared passed on announcement of the modified result is at fault for the shortage of attendance and also that the respondent University is solely responsible to place them in such a predicament, whether this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction could direct the respondent authorities to condone the shortage of attendance and hold special Second B. D. S. examination for the petitioner and the said other students to undo the mischief that was done by it so as to restitute them to the position of their regular batch mates and without causing them any loss in their academic career. ( 10 ) SUCH a situation finds its complete answer in the pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. University of H. P. , AIR 1973 SC 221 . At para 5 of its judgment it has held :"considering that this case concerns the career of a young student we tried to look at the matter with all possible sympathy and consideration but we do no see how we can direct or compel an authority to do something which is beyond its legal competence to do. Since the Principal is the only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not see how we can intervene in favour of the petitioner even if the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for condonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of his academic life we are in law bound to confirm the decision of the High Court , and dismiss the petitioner's appeal. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of his academic life we are in law bound to confirm the decision of the High Court , and dismiss the petitioner's appeal. "therefore, as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar, supra, the respondents cannot be directed by this Court to do a particular act which they are legally not competent to perform. In that view of the proposition we are unable to provide the said relief to the petitioners. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, due regard being had to the peculiar circumstances of the case we find that the proposed measures that are assured by the respondent University towards redressal of the legitimate grievances of the petitioners and similar other students in the second additional affidavit of the respondent University dated 2-11-1998 calls, for acceptance. At para 5 of this affidavit of the Registrar of respondent University it is submitted :"i further submit that the annual examinations for first and second years B. D. S. were conducted from 26-10-1998 and 29-10-1998 and the practical/clinical examination would terminate around 10th Nov. 1998. Thereafter, Dental Teachers who were drafted for the purpose of valuation of answer scripts etc. will be engaged in confidential work relating to valuation of answer scripts, tabulation of marks thereon, which would last for at least 6 weeks. As such full compliment of teachers will not be available for comprehensive teaching of theory and practical, immediately after the second year B. D. S. examination. In these circumstances University will be able to conduct exam after successful completion of training to the said students only during March 1999, when the supplementary exam for regular batch of students are scheduled. " (Emphasis supplied)Therefore, we feel and are of the considered view that, in the circumstances, it is just and proper to dispose of these writ petitions by recording the above assurance of the respondent University as an undertaking given to the Court, while leaving it open to the aggrieved petitioners/students to proceed against respondent University for damages, if legally permissible, for corresponding loss in their academic career. ( 12 ) HENCE, for the reasons aforesaid we pass the following :orderthe respondent University shall conduct second year B. D. S. Course examination during March 1999 for the petitioners and other similar placed students of Second B. D. S. Course of the various dental colleges in the State of Karnataka affiliated with it after successful completion of their training strictly adhering to the undertaking given by it at para 5 of the affidavit dated 2-11-1998 filed by its Registrar. For any loss in their academic career the petitioners/students are at liberty to proceed against the respondent University for damages, if so advised, and permissible in law. The petitions are disposed of in terms of this order. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .