Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ directing the respondent- Institute of Engineering and Technology, Badhal (Ropar), to permit the petitioner to appear in the final 8th Semester Examination of Electronics and Communication Engineering Course and for sending the internal assessment of the petitioner. Prayer is further for declaration of the result of the 8th Semester final examination. 2. The case set up by petitioner Navneet Sodhi, is that he has an excellent academic record. He having passed Class X from the Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 2001, secured 74% marks. Thereafter, he got admitted in the three year Diploma course in Electronics and Communication Engineering in the Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, which was successfully cleared in 1st Division in the year 2004. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The petitioner, already having successfully cleared the three year diploma course, was admitted to the 3rd Semester, i.e. second year of the Engineering Degree course. The Engineering Degree Course is of four years duration divided into 8 semesters. The petitioner secured a higher rank in the entrance. 3. In the Engineering course the petitioner appeared in the final examination of 3rd Semester in December, 2004 and passed in 1st Division in first attempt. Like wise 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th semesters were also cleared in 1st Division and in first attempt. Till passing of the 7th Semester, the aggregate percentage of the petitioner is nearly 70%. 4. In January 2007, the petitioner was admitted to 8th (final) Semester. The classes started from January 16, 2007. During the final semester the students like the petitioner are required to appear for interview for admission to the Masters or Business Administration Courses, which are generally held in the month of February. The petitioner was keen to pursue further studies by way of joining Masters and Business Administration. Accordingly, he applied for the said course and was called for interview on February 2, 2007 in Christ College, Bangalore and on February 8, 2007, he got an interview call for admission in ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad. The petitioner applied for leave from January 30, 2007 to February 9, 2007 for the said purpose, which was sanctioned by the Principal on January 25, 2007 itself. The petitioner applied for leave from January 30, 2007 to February 9, 2007 for the said purpose, which was sanctioned by the Principal on January 25, 2007 itself. The petitioner attended the interview and was selected to ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad, for admission to the Postgraduate Programme (2007-2009). The petitioner has also deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards admission fee. Letter of admission has been placed on record as Annexure P-7. 5. After coming back from the interview, the petitioner started attending his classes. In the 3rd week of February his first sessional internal examination was held in which the petitioner appeared in three of the examinations and passed. 6. The petitioner, however, contacted Chicken Pox and therefore, could not attend classes from March 9, 2007 till April 3, 2007. On April 4, 2007, he again started attending classes. He submitted his medical certificate reflecting his ailment and the period of ailment which has been placed on record as Annexure P. 9. 7. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner, that he was not allowed to appear in sessional examinations which are held by the college on the ground that the issue regarding sanction of medical leave was undecided. The petitioner approached the Principal for the said purpose, who however stated that in view of the earlier leave having been granted, there was difficulty in the grant/sanction of further leave. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meantime the internal practical which are part of final examinations was held on May 17 and May 18, 2007. The petitioner was allowed to appear in both these examinations and was allowed to be evaluated. Thereafter, external practical examinations were scheduled to be held on May 21 and May 22, 2007. The petitioner was allowed to take examinations scheduled for May 21, 2007. However, for certain reasons the examinations which were scheduled to take place on May 22, 2007 were postponed for an indefinite period. 9. The written examinations were scheduled from May 29, 2007 onwards. The roll number of the petitioner, however, was not allotted for the reason of shortage in lectures. The petitioner went to the Principal along with his mother to plead. However, he was not allowed to take the examination. 9. The written examinations were scheduled from May 29, 2007 onwards. The roll number of the petitioner, however, was not allotted for the reason of shortage in lectures. The petitioner went to the Principal along with his mother to plead. However, he was not allowed to take the examination. Considering the bright academic past and the promising future in view of the admission in a very prestigious institute namely ICFAI, Hyderabad, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing this petition. The petition was entertained on May 28, 2007, when the following order was passed : "Counsel for the petitioner slates that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the internal and external practical final examinations without raising any objection. Counsel further states that petitioner could not attend lectures on account of his illness, regarding which, necessary medical certificate was submitted with the authorities. Notice of motion for 16.7.2007. The respondents are directed to release the roll number of the petitioner forthwith, so that he can sit in the final examination of 8th semester, commencing from 29th May, 2007. Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Court Secretary of the Bench." Respondents have filed written statement. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 11. The controversy boils down to the absence of the petitioner from March 9, 2007 to April 3, 2007 during which period the petitioner could not attend classes and therefore fell short in lectures. While the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure P. 9, which is a certificate certifying that the petitioner was suffering from Chicken Pox and was under treatment in Rajan Clinic and had been advised rest for the given period, the respondents have disputed the veracity of the certificate. In para 4 of the written statement, it has been pleaded, that the petitioner had enjoyed holidays and it was wrong that he was suffering from Chicken Pox. The objection is that the medical certificate should have been conveyed in the month of March 2007. It is further the case of the respondents that Annexure P. 9 i.e. the medical certificate has been issued by a private Doctor whereas there are number of prestigious institutes in the city. The objection is that the medical certificate should have been conveyed in the month of March 2007. It is further the case of the respondents that Annexure P. 9 i.e. the medical certificate has been issued by a private Doctor whereas there are number of prestigious institutes in the city. Thus it has been gathered by the respondents that the certificate was false and has been procured only to complete the shortage in lectures. 12. Having considered the issue, we find that there is no dispute to the petitioners academic career from 2001 to 2007. We find that the petitioner has through out been 1st Divisioner rather while a student of the respondent- institute the petitioner aggregated 70% marks. 13. We have further noticed that after the petitioner had joined the college in April 2007, he was allowed to take the internal practical examinations held on May 17 and May 18, 2007 and was evaluated. The petitioner was even allowed to take external practical examinations scheduled on May 21, 2007 and was evaluated. It is only at the point of time of written examination that the respondent refused to issue the roll number whereupon the petitioner approached this Court and the order, as reproduced above, was passed. In terms of the interim directions, the roll number was released and he was allowed to take the final examination of 8th semester commencing from May 29, 2007. 14. The future of the petitioner, the petitioner having been admitted in ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad, is also seemingly promising. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we are unable to agree with the stand of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner was enjoying holidays. There is no appropriate challenge to the medical certificate, Annexure P. 9. Simply because the petitioner chose to be examined from a private practitioner, would not be a reason sufficient to doubt the veracity of the certificate particularly in view of the fact that the respondents have not placed on record any material to disprove the authenticity of the certificate. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the approach of the respondent is technical and does not reflect the approach of an academician. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the approach of the respondent is technical and does not reflect the approach of an academician. In para 6 of the petition and rejoinder it has specifically been pleaded that other students who fell short of lectures namely Pushpinder, Satinder Pal Singh, Vikas and Nishant Katyal were allowed to take examination after condoning the shortage in lectures. The assertion has not been denied, rather the circumstances have been given in the written statement considering which the shortage was condoned. 15. We have noticed that in the written statement the respondents have not pleaded lack of jurisdiction or legal authority to condone the shortage. Rather the plea is only that Medical Certificate was not sent in time and it was issued by a Private Hospital/Doctor. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we allow the petition. Accordingly, we direct that the respondents shall send internal assessment marks of the petitioner. In case the internal assessment has not been, done, the same may be done and the result of the examination, in which the petitioner has already appeared be declared.