Judgment :- The petitioner joined five years B.L. Course in the Government Law College, Coimbatore during the academic year 2000-2001. In the academic year 2003-2004, the petitioner was doing her 4th year course. Petitioner has to travel from Tiruppur to Coimbatore every day to attend the college. Because of that she was suffering from low back pain and therefore she could not attend the college during the period from August 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003. The petitioner therefore submitted medical certificate to the first respondent, obtained from Roopa Nursing Home, Tiruppur. After 30.9.2003, the petitioner attended the college regularly. 2. As the petitioner was not permitted to write her 4th year examinations on the ground of shortage in attendance, she filed W.P.No.15770 of 2004 seeking for a direction to sit for the examinations. By means of an interim order, this Court directed the petitioner to write her examinations, pending disposal of the writ petition. However, the petitioner was not permitted to write her 4th year examinations. The writ petition itself was disposed of by an order dated 13.8.2004. The relevant portion of the order reads as under, "3. The respondent is directed to calculate the attendance of each student as per the directions given above. If the student has 75% attendance calculated on the basis of the number of working days after he was admitted he shall be permitted to write his examination/move to the next semester. If the student has 66% attendance calculated as above the respondents shall receive the condonation fee and thereafter permit the student to write the examination/move to the next class. 4. In many of the cases, the students have been allowed to write the examinations pursuance to the directions of this Court and therefore, those students shall be permitted to move to the next semester. In cases where the students do not have the requisite attendance even if the calculation is made as above then the respondents shall consider any medical certificate, that has been already produced by the students and take a decision accordingly. 5. With the above directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. The results of the students, whoever has written the examinations and who has the necessary attendance as indicated above, shall be published. 5. With the above directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. The results of the students, whoever has written the examinations and who has the necessary attendance as indicated above, shall be published. If any of the petitioners was prevented by the respondent from attending the next semester classes, only on the ground that they had calculated the attendance on the aggregate number of working days for the entire academic year and not as per the calculation as indicated above, condonation of the lack of attendance shall be considered upon a request made by each of the student giving the number of the writ petition and a copy of the order of this Court." 3. As the petitioner did not take the examinations in spite of the interim orders of this Court, as per the orders in the above writ petition, she is entitled for consideration of medical certificate produced by her for condonation of attendance. Hence, she made a representation to the first respondent on 30.8.2004 and sought for permission to attend 5th year course. However, she was not allowed to undergo 5th year course, as the petitioner did not complete her 4th year course. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to move to 5th year B.L. Course. 4. Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per the latter portion of paragraph 4 of the order in W.P.No.15770 of 2004 dated 13.8.2004, the first respondent ought to have considered the medical certificate that has already been produced by the petitioner and take a decision and as no decision was taken and communicated, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. 5. Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader however submitted that the petitioner's request was considered and the same was rejected by the order dated 3.9.2004 wherein similar request of nine other candidates was also rejected. This order was communicated to the address given by the petitioner in the application form for admission. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was informed that she should re-do the course, she did not attend the classes. In these circumstances, a direction for permitting the petitioner to do her 5th year course cannot be in order. 6. This order was communicated to the address given by the petitioner in the application form for admission. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was informed that she should re-do the course, she did not attend the classes. In these circumstances, a direction for permitting the petitioner to do her 5th year course cannot be in order. 6. Mr.T.D.Vasu, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University submitted that the minimum required attendance to take the examination is 75%. The Principal of the College is empowered to condone the shortage in attendance upto 66%. As the petitioner has secured only 55% of attendance, she is not entitled to write the examinations. In the absence of completion of 4th year examinations, petitioner is not entitled to move to 5th year course. 7. I gave my anxious consideration to the above submissions. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not secured minimum attendance required so as to enable her to sit for the examinations, i.e, 75% attendance. It is also admitted position that the petitioner has not secured 66% attendance even for the Principal of the College to condone the shortage of attendance. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.15770 of 2004 that the medical certificate produced by the petitioner ought to have been considered. Secondly, though the petitioner had approached the Principal of the college on 30.8.2004 along with copy of the order to consider her claim for permitting her to move to the 5th year course, she was not allowed to join. The order said to have been passed on 3.9.2004 was not communicated to the petitioner. Had the said order was communicated, the petitioner could have attended the 4th year classes. In the absence of communication of the order, this Court would consider the petitioner to move to the 5th year course. 8. Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader produced the file. The application for admission submitted by the petitioner for admission into 4th year dated 28.7.2003 refers to her permanent address as, "No.30, Ponkovil Nagar, Tiruppur". She has also mentioned the address of her parents as, "No.30, Ponkovil Nagar, Tiruppur". The local address was also furnished as, "No.30, Ponkovil Nagar, Tiruppur". 8. Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader produced the file. The application for admission submitted by the petitioner for admission into 4th year dated 28.7.2003 refers to her permanent address as, "No.30, Ponkovil Nagar, Tiruppur". She has also mentioned the address of her parents as, "No.30, Ponkovil Nagar, Tiruppur". The local address was also furnished as, "No.30, Ponkovil Nagar, Tiruppur". The same address was given by the petitioner in the application for admission to the third year course dated 7.8.2002 as well as for second year course dated 7.8.2001. The admission card issued to the petitioner for the first year was also communicated only to the above address. In these circumstances, the communication dated 3.9.2004 was addressed by the respondent to the petitioner only to the above address. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however would submit that when the petitioner applied for the 4th year examinations, she had furnished her change of address and the order dated 3.9.2004 was not communicated to the said address. In the absence of such communication, petitioner was not aware of the order and hence the said order should not be put against the petitioner. 10. I do not find any merits to accept the said submission. The Principal of the College is duty bound to communicate the proceedings to the candidates in the address given in the application form. The petitioner has, right from the beginning, viz., in the application for the first year onwards has given her address as "No.30 Ponkovil Nagar, Tiruppur". Though different address is given in the application for examinations, for the purpose of communication, the address given in the application for admission alone is relevant. As the petitioner was already communicated with the order as could be seen from the files produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader, it cannot be now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been issued with the order dated 3.9.2004. It is also to be noted that the said order directs not only the petitioner to re-do her 4th year course, but also nine other candidates. The said order was not issued individually to the petitioner alone. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not communicated with the order cannot be accepted. 11. The said order was not issued individually to the petitioner alone. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not communicated with the order cannot be accepted. 11. Though the learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that for the purpose of taking the examinations, a candidate should have put in 75% of attendance and in case of condonation of lack of attendance by the Principal upto 66%, the right of the petitioner to move to the 5th year course should be considered with reference to the earlier order of this Court made in W.P.No.15770 of 2004. 12. This Court directed the Principal of the Coimbatore Government Law College to calculate that if a student has 75% attendance calculated on the basis of number of working days, he/she shall be permitted to take the next semester examinations. The shortage of attendance was also calculated only on the same basis. In paragraph 4 of the order it has been directed that in the event of students who were allowed to write examinations pursuant to the directions of this Court, those students shall be permitted to move to the next semester. This Court also directed that wherever students do not have the required attendance even if the calculation is made as above, the respondents shall consider medical certificate, if any produced by those students and take a decision. 13. In this case, petitioner has produced medical certificate for her treatment from 1.8.2003 to 30.9.2003. Though the petitioner has secured an interim order on 10.6.2004 for writing 4th year examinations, she was not allowed to take the examinations held on 18.6.2004 for reasons not known to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner as she was not permitted to take the examinations, is entitled for consideration of her medical certificate for condonation of lack of attendance in terms of the second portion of paragraph 4 of the order in W.P.No.15770 of 2004. From the order dated 3.9.2004, I do not find any such consideration with regard to medical certificate as the said order simply directs ten students including the petitioner to re-do their 4th year course again. From the order dated 3.9.2004, I do not find any such consideration with regard to medical certificate as the said order simply directs ten students including the petitioner to re-do their 4th year course again. In the absence of consideration of medical certificate and a decision arrived on the same, the respondents cannot rely upon the order dated 3.9.2004 to non-suit the petitioner even for being considered for condonation of lack of attendance, in terms of order in W.P.No.15770 of 2004. Though the learned counsel for the University is right in arguing that without minimum required attendance the candidates are not entitled to sit for examinations and consequently move to the next year course, as already pointed out, the present case has to be decided only on the basis of the earlier decision on the same issue as the said order has not been assailed by way of any appeal. 14. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the first respondent to consider the medical certificate of the petitioner and pass orders within a period of three days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Such consideration should be only in conformity with the directions contained in W.P.No.15770 of 2004 dated 13.8.2004. 15. Though the petitioner said to have been communicated with the order dated 3.9.2004, for the reasons of change in the address as pleaded by the petitioner, which I have not accepted, factually the petitioner did not attend the classes from 3.9.2004 i.e, for the period of nearly three months. Even if the petitioner is permitted to join now, she may not put in the required attendance for the 4th year. While considering the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, the above aspect also shall be kept in mind by the Principal. This observation is made taking into consideration the peculiar position in which the petitioner is now placed. 16. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected WPMP No.31498 of 2004 is closed.