Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Principal, Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science in No. RC/A-4098/98 dated 23.12.1998, quash the same and direct the respondents to readmit the petitioner to repeat the first and second semesters in B.A. (History) to make up the lack of attendance and permit the petitioner to take up the examinations and for other consequential orders. 2. So far as the 2nd respondent is concerned, Mr.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the University represents that the University has no objection to issue a direction as prayed for as the University has already directed the first respondent College to admit the petitioner in B.A. (History) first and second semesters to make up the attendance and complete the course. As regards the first respondent College, the learned counsel appeared and contested the proceedings. 3. According to the petitioner, he joined B.A. (History) degree course in the first respondent college during the academic year 1994-95. The petitioner has to undergo six semesters within three years. The petitioner attended the classes up to 5.9.94. The petitioner could not attend the classes as he has been implicated in a criminal case along with three others, which had taken place in his native village between two groups. The petitioner could not attend the classes. However, from 4.1.95 onwards, the petitioner attended the classes regularly. 4. The petitioner sought for permission to continue the course and appear for the semester examinations. The 2nd respondent University approved the readmission of the petitioner and permitted him to continue the course and to appear for the examinations from third semester and also permitted the petitioner to repeat the first and second semester after completing the sixth and final semester to make up the lack of attendance by its proceedings dated 6.7.95. The proceedings of the University was forwarded to the first respondent College for necessary action. However, the petitioner even after his remitting the fee was not allowed to appear for the examination by the first respondent college. 5. The petitioner, therefore, moved this Court in W.P. No.15385 of 1997 seeking for a direction to the first respondent to admit the petitioner to attend the classes to secure attendance to appear for the ensuing first and second semester examination. 5. The petitioner, therefore, moved this Court in W.P. No.15385 of 1997 seeking for a direction to the first respondent to admit the petitioner to attend the classes to secure attendance to appear for the ensuing first and second semester examination. On 19.1.98 this Court directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner and decide whether he should be allowed to attend the classes to secure attendance to enable him to appear for the first and second semester examinations. 6. The first respondent did not respond, while the 2nd respondent issued direction. At this state, the petitioner moved contempt application, but the first respondent took a stand that no representation has been received and, therefore, the contempt petition was closed. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 26.9.98 to the first respondent. The first respondent replied stating that it has considered the matter as closed. In the circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction. 7. The petitioner, it is true, in the criminal case has been convicted and he has preferred an appeal, which is pending on the file of this Court. The sentence has been suspended. The petitioner has already completed III to VI semesters, but he has to repeat the first and second semester of B.A. (History) degree course. Though the University has conceded the request of the petitioner, the College took the stand that the grievance of the petitioner was placed before this Court at the time of hearing of contempt application and as this Court did not accept the same and, therefore, the first respondent considered the matter as closed. This order is being challenged. 8. On a consideration of the entire facts, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order suffers with error apparent on the face of the record as the first respondent has not chosen to consider the petitioners claim on merits. The petitioner has been allowed to complete III to VI semesters even after his being implicated in the criminal offence and when he was facing the prosecution. The petitioner has completed the last four semesters, but for reasons beyond his control, he could not complete the semesters I and II and the University has advised the petitioner to redo the said semesters as he has not put in the minimum attendance. 9. The petitioner has completed the last four semesters, but for reasons beyond his control, he could not complete the semesters I and II and the University has advised the petitioner to redo the said semesters as he has not put in the minimum attendance. 9. There is no justification at all for the first respondent to decline such a request of the petitioner. It is not as if the College has taken any steps against the petitioner for any misconduct or alleged involvement in a criminal case nor the college has expelled the petitioner for any misconduct nor the college has debarred the petitioner from attending classes nor the University has debarred the petitioner from appearing in the University examinations at any point of time. The college has not taken any action at all and has simply allowed the petitioner to continue semesters III, IV, V and VI. It is not as if the incident took place inside the college. 10. That apart, when the petitioner has not been expelled nor an action has been taken against the petitioner, there is no justification at all for the first respondent to turn down the just request of the petitioner. It is not proper and in fact it is arbitrary to the first respondent to take the stand as if the matter has been closed once and for all. No such order has been passed in the writ petition or in the earlier contempt application. The University has taken a fair stand and it has already issued directions in this respect and communicated the same to the first respondent. That being the position, it is not for the college to take such an extreme stand. 11. The petitioner, though he has been implicated in a criminal offence and convicted, but the sentence has been suspended. Hence, it cannot be said that he is disqualified or prevented from putting in the required attendance in the first and second semester and completing the course by redoing the same semesters. It is not as if there has been any change in the curriculum nor it is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner has incurred a disqualification, which would disable him from redoing the said semesters. 12. It is not as if there has been any change in the curriculum nor it is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner has incurred a disqualification, which would disable him from redoing the said semesters. 12. The counsel for the first respondent though raised objections, ultimately on this Court pointed out that though the petitioner is convicted, as he is a young man and he should be rehabilitated and he should not be condemned throughout his life in the nature of offence in which he has been implicated. That apart, the appeal is pending and conviction has been stayed. 13. The counsel for the petitioner expressed anxiety, but it has to be pointed out that the petitioner, who has joined the course as early as 1994-95, will be a stranger to other students, who are studying in the class or the semester and none of his batchmates could be attending the classes or attending the semester which may cause a certain amount of embarrassment or uneasiness, which may cause anxiety to the college administration or other students. 14. This Court suggested that the petitioner may file an affidavit of undertaking that he will behave properly and he will not cause any anxiety or he will not behave otherwise or against the interest of other students or college management by taking advantage of his being permitted to attend the college. The counsel for the petitioner readily agreed to file such an affidavit. The counsel for the respondent college after getting instructions represented that the petitioner may file an affidavit of undertaking and this Court may pass suitable orders. 15. The counsel for the petitioner readily agreed to file such an affidavit. The counsel for the respondent college after getting instructions represented that the petitioner may file an affidavit of undertaking and this Court may pass suitable orders. 15. In the foregoing circumstances, the writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned communication sent by the first respondent to the petitioner and directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to redo the I and II semester for securing the attendance and for appearance in the examinations wherever required, subject to the condition that the petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking before this Court and serve a duplicate copy of the same on the counsel for the respondents, undertaking to conduct himself properly, not to behave otherwise than as a gentleman student and not to cause any anxiety to the other students in the first respondent college or the management of the college and also undertake not to indulge in any activity, which is considered as an indiscipline as per the regulations of the first respondent college as well as the University. The petitioner shall file such an affidavit of undertaking within one week from the date of this order. The petitioner shall be liable to pay the prescribed tution fees and other fees to the first respondent college as well as other fees to the University as may be required for completing his I and II semester course in B.A. (History). 16. This Court would appreciate if the Principal of the first respondent college and other staff members closely observe and watch the petitioner and see that the petitioner successfully redo the I and II semester course by his being given encouragement, guidance and such kind of advice, which will enable the petitioner to behave properly and conduct himself as a worthy student. The petitioner shall also bear in his mind that he is being watched and he has to behave properly. 17. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.