JUDGMENT : Devi Prasad Singh, J. The question involved in the present writ petition is, as to whether a student, who had not attended the class for required working days in accordance to provisions contained in prospectus provided by the examining body shall have right to appear in the examination? 2. While approaching this Court under extraordinary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Petitioner has prayed that she may be permitted to appear in the examination of class XII conducted by the opposite party No. 3 ignoring the shortage in attendance. Petitioner has also prayed that the relevant provisions which require the fulfilment of minimum attendance to not less than 60% of the working days, be declared ultra vires and illegal. Petitioner has been a regular student of St. Dominic Savio College (in short hereinafter referred as 'College'), Indira Nagar, Lucknow. The college has been affiliated with the Council of Indian School Certificate and is bound by its rules and regulations. 3. According to Petitioner's counsel, Petitioner has passed Indian Certificate of Secondary Examination from St. Paul's School, Lucknow in the year 2004 and secured 70% marks. Thereafter she was admitted in class XI in the year 2004. She was provisionally registered with the opposite party No. 3 to appear in class XII examination, a copy of the registration certification has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. However by an order dated 17.2.2006, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the opposite party No. 3 has informed the College not to issue admit cards as Petitioner was short of attendance i.e. less than 60%. According to the Petitioner during course of studies she was not informed by the opposite party No. 3 that her attendance is short and she shall not be entitled to appear in the Board's examination. Petitioner has further pleaded that initially 24 students were not given admit cards but later on admit cards were issued to 23 students but denying the same benefit to the Petitioner. It has been submitted but the Petitioner that shortage of attendance was under compelling circumstance and for the reasons which were beyond control. Petitioner has further pleaded that initially 24 students were not given admit cards but later on admit cards were issued to 23 students but denying the same benefit to the Petitioner. It has been submitted but the Petitioner that shortage of attendance was under compelling circumstance and for the reasons which were beyond control. Though, Petitioner has submitted that a large number of students were permitted to appear in the examination in the previous year having less than 60% attendance but has been filed to establish this allegation by material evidence. A vague pleading neither can be treated as worthy evidence nor can be considered by the courts while deciding a controversy as substantive evidence to grant relief. Petitioner submitted that on account of illness in the year 2005-06 the could not attend classes, a medical certificate has been filed by the Petitioner to advance her argument relating to illness. However, learned Counsel for the opposite parties denied the argument advanced by the Petitioner. 4. According to regulation framed by ICSE, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, a student can appear in the examination only, in case, she/he has completed 75% attendance or 60% after condonation of shortage in attendance by the Competent Authority. Relevant provision is reproduced as under: Minimum Attendance Requirement.--Candidates whose attendance is below 75% of the working days are ordinarily not eligible to sit for the examination. However, the Chief Executive and Secretary has authority to condone the shortage in the case of candidates whose minimum attendance is not less than 60% of the working days. Heads of Schools may represent to the Chief Executive and Secretary cases of candidates who deserve special consideration for condonation, provided that the attendance of such candidates is not less than 60% of the working days. The last date for computing attendance at school is February 15, of the year of the examination. 5. So far the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relating to the vires of the impugned provisions is concerned does not seem to have got force. What should the minimum attendance to enable a student to appear in the examination, is a question co-relate with the standard of education. It is for the examining body to prescribe the minimum attendance as condition precedent to enable a student to appear in the examination. What should the minimum attendance to enable a student to appear in the examination, is a question co-relate with the standard of education. It is for the examining body to prescribe the minimum attendance as condition precedent to enable a student to appear in the examination. Standard of education is subject-matter which has to be decided by the competent authority i.e., the examining body and not by this Court. It is the expert of the field to take a decision and frame policy regulation the conditions for admission in the institution or to pursue studies or to enable the students to appear in the examination. These are the policy matters which should be determined by the appropriate authorities and not by this Court while exercising extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to satisfy that how the impugned provisions shall be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. A decision taken by experts of the field or an authority while regulating the standard of education by framing a policy or guideline, does not call for interference unless such decision is patently arbitrary per se irrational or capricious warranting judicial review of such policy. 6. In a case in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India and others and Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2462 the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold as under: On matters affecting policy and those that require technical expertise, we have shown deference to, and followed the recommendations of, the Committee which is more qualified to address these issues. In one other case of Raj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC the Hon'ble Supreme Court retreated the aforementioned judgment and held that in case a decision is not actuated with any malice or is not the outcome of an arbitrary and whimsical act, the same should not be interfered with by a Court of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: So long as the Government decision is not actuated with any malice or is not the outcome of an arbitrary and whimsical act, the same should not be interfered with by a court of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This being the position and on the relevant materials, the appropriate authority having considered the interest of the public at large and having allowed the shifting of the school from Mallapur to Ardahpur, the same could not have been cancelled on the pretext that the High Court issued a notice of contempt in the matter. 7. In the present writ petition, Petitioner's counsel has failed to satisfy as to how the impugned provision is arbitrary or shall affect the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution or Statutory provision. The constitutional validity of the provisions is upheld being suffered from no illegality. 8. In view of above since the validity of the impugned provision has been upheld the argument advanced by the Petitioner's counsel that the Petitioner was entitled to appear in the examination inspite of short attendance does not seem to be sustainable under law. A student does not have got right to appear in the examination in violation of rules or regulations framed by the examining body. The student who is short of required attendance shall have no right to appear in the examination. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents Sri Salabh Singh has invited attention towards the judgment passed by this Court at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 36981/98 where student having 32% of attendance was not found to be eligible to appear in the examination being short of attendance required under the rules i.e. 60; 10. One other judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Km. Renu Tiwari 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1325 where the Division Bench of this Court had held that in case writ petition is dismissed then Petitioner shall not be entitled for the benefit of interim order. 11. One other judgment relied upon by the Petitioner's counsel in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Nikhil Gulati and Another, AIR 1998 SC 1205 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the discretion exercised by the High Court causally from time to time while passing the interim order against settled provisions of law or statutory provisions is highly objectionable and High Court should desists to do so. There is no dispute regarding the aforementioned settled provision of law that no interim order should be passed unless and until a prima facie case is made out. 12. There is no dispute regarding the aforementioned settled provision of law that no interim order should be passed unless and until a prima facie case is made out. 12. In the present case this Court by an interim order had permitted the Petitioner to appear in the examination with the riders that result shall not be declared. During course of argument it was submitted by the Petitioner's counsel that this Court had restrained the Respondents to declare the result but the Petitioner's result was displayed on internet alongwith other students. According to the Petitioner's counsel Petitioner has received 72% marks and passed in first division. 13. However, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that though the result was displayed on internet at website but it was displayed with disclaimer. Accordingly, it shall not amount to declaration of result. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties relating to declaration of result. Even if, there was disclaimer on the internet but the fact is that Petitioner has received about 72% marks which has not been denied by the Respondents categorically while filing the counter affidavit. Accordingly, whether Petitioner should be deprived to taste the fruit of the examination which shows excellent academic career? 15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In a case in Dr. Ku. Nilofar Insaf Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1991 SC 1872 where the Petitioner was admitted in Medical course (MD) in pursuance to order passed by High Court. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that since the Petitioner had almost completed her course hence to deprive her from the outcome of studies shall damage her career and her admission was upheld. Relevant portion from the Apex Court judgment in the case of Dr. Km. Nilofar Insaf (supra) is reproduced as under: Though the Appellant lost in the High Court, she was permitted by this Court-though, obviously, subject to the result of this appeal to continue attending the classes for MD in Radiology. Now she has almost completed her course and, to deprive her of her seat at this stage, apart from irretrievably harming her, will not benefit Dr. Jain who cannot now be admitted against the MD seat of 1989. 16. Now she has almost completed her course and, to deprive her of her seat at this stage, apart from irretrievably harming her, will not benefit Dr. Jain who cannot now be admitted against the MD seat of 1989. 16. In an other case in Sayyad Aqueel Arif v. University of Pune 2003 (12) SCC 724 where in pursuance to interim order the student was pursuing studies of final year MBBS course. Their Lordships had held that cancellation of admission of student shall be too harsh and was directed to continue with studies. (paras 5 and 9). 17. In an other case in R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1469 where the students was admitted in Engineering College in pursuance to interim order passed by High Court, though admission was illegal on account of false and fabricated caste certificate. Their Lordships have declined to exercise power since the students have completed the course. Relevant portion from the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) is reproduced as under: 28. In this case we find that the Appellant had joined Regional Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of (sic the High) Court which were subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind. We direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service of for any other benefit flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him. 18. In view of the aforementioned judgment of Apex Court the Petitioner's submission to take a lenient view may be considered without creating a precedent and this Court may direct to make absolute the declaration of Petitioner's result by removing the disclaimer alleged to be shown on internet. 18. In view of the aforementioned judgment of Apex Court the Petitioner's submission to take a lenient view may be considered without creating a precedent and this Court may direct to make absolute the declaration of Petitioner's result by removing the disclaimer alleged to be shown on internet. I have no doubt to hold that in such matter ordinarily no interim order should be passed permitting the student to appear in the examination where the students do not fulfil the minimum attendance. However, keeping in view the fact that Petitioner has got very good career and she has secured almost 72% marks this Court may exercise discretion without creating the precedent and keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of the case directing the opposite parties to declare the Petitioner's result. 19. Their Lordships in a case in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4482 the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceded to held as under: The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit means an act of Court shall prejudice no man is an important one. The maxim “is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law”, said Cresswell, J., in Freeman v. Tranah, 12 CB 406. An unintentional mistake for the Court which may prejudice the cause of any part must and alone could be rectified. The maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gvavabit--an act of Court shall prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia-the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. [see U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Imtiaz Hussain, AIR 2006 SC 649 , Mr. Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Mr. Kumar and Others, AIR 2006 SC 396 , Mohammed Gazi v. State of M.P. (2000) 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh and others etc. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 SC 1175 . 20. [see U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Imtiaz Hussain, AIR 2006 SC 649 , Mr. Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Mr. Kumar and Others, AIR 2006 SC 396 , Mohammed Gazi v. State of M.P. (2000) 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh and others etc. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 SC 1175 . 20. It appears that during course of hearing at interim stage attention of this Court was not drawn towards the fact that no interim order should be passed because of short of attendance. However, once an interim order has been passed then whether Respondents may not be directed to declare the result, in case Petitioner is otherwise qualified. Needless to say that Petitioner has pursued her studies in a recognized institution and filled up the examination form after deposition of required fee. Her result has been declared, may be with a disclaimer. No useful purpose may be solved by depriving the Petitioner to avail the benefit from the outcome of the examination in question. In case Petitioner does not get the benefit of the examination in question then she shall lose one more year of her academic career. It shall be too harsh to deprive the Petitioner from availing the benefit of the examination in question. Accordingly, it shall be appropriate that without creating any precedent, keeping in view the ratio of Apex Court's judgments of Dr. Km. Nilofar Insaf (supra) and Sayyad Aqueel Arif (supra) as well as R. Vishawanatha Pillai (surpa), Respondents may be directed to declare the Petitioner's result formally with all benefits. 21. In view of above the writ petition is disposed of finally directing the opposite parties to declare the Petitioner's result formally with all consequential benefits. However, this direction shall not create any precedent for other case. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.