Judgment :- The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to write 6th semester examination for B.E.(CSE) scheduled to be held from 24. 2008 and arrear examination to be held from 25. 2008 by issuing the hall ticket and to conduct practical examinations for the 6th semester in B.E.(CSE) and also to permit the petitioner to continue his fourth year studies in the fourth respondent college. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a regular student of B.E. (CSE) course in the fourth respondent Engineering College and in the past four semesters, he has obtained 65 percentage of marks and for the 6th semester, he was having sufficient attendance. On 12. 2008, the college bus of the fourth respondent was allegedly driven by the driver in a negligent manner and one of the petitioners classmate suffered multiple fractures and he was admitted in the hospital. Since the petitioner was on the spot, he took the said injured student to the Life Line Hospital, Perungudi and some of the students raised voice against the college management and damaged bus mirrors. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent management in order to avoid further student-unrest closed the college for two days. On 12. 2008, the petitioner went to the hospital to know the status of his classmate, who was undergoing treatment. According to the petitioner, about 37 classmates of the petitioner prevented the petitioner to enter into the college by standing outside the college. The fourth respondent management directed the students to bring the parents next day. The petitioner along with his guardian went to the college next day and it is alleged that the management directed to give an undertaking that no strike would be called. All the students including the petitioner from Computer Science branch gave a signed undertaking in writing as directed by the fourth respondent. 3. It is stated in the affidavit that the college management informed the petitioner that they will intimate the date for attending college. It is alleged that the management called three students including the petitioner and directed them to get the Transfer Certificate from the college stating that the petitioner and other two students sent SMS to other students. On 13. It is stated in the affidavit that the college management informed the petitioner that they will intimate the date for attending college. It is alleged that the management called three students including the petitioner and directed them to get the Transfer Certificate from the college stating that the petitioner and other two students sent SMS to other students. On 13. 2008, the petitioner was asked to appear before the management and he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.35,407/-. The said amount was collected from the petitioner along with examination fee of Rs.1300/-. The said amount was not collected from only one student by name B.Balachandar. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was requested not to attend the classes and directed to appear for the examination on 14. 2008 and also insisted to get the Transfer Certificate after completing the academic year and the fourth respondent refused to permit the petitioner to attend the practical examinations held on 14. 2008, 24. 2008 and 24. 2008 on the ground that the petitioner refused to give a letter of undertaking to get the Transfer Certificate after completion of the academic year. Since the theory examination was to commence from 24. 2008 and arrear examination from 25. 2008 and the petitioner has not been issued the hall ticket, he has filed the above writ petition on 24. 2008. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 14. 2008 the petitioners father submitted a representation and also a telegram. 4. When the writ petition was posted for admission on 24. 2008, this Court directed to serve notice to the counsel for the respondents and posted the matter on 24. 2008 in the motion list. On 5. 2008, the writ petition was admitted and interim direction was issued permitting the petitioner to appear for the examination for B.E. (CSE) to be held on 5. 2008, 5. 2008 and 15. 2008 subject to the outcome of the main writ petition and the respondents were directed to withhold the results pending disposal of the writ petition in M.P.No.1 of 2008. 5. M.P.No.2 of 2008 was filed to issue an interim direction directing the respondents to conduct practical examinations for the 6th semester B.E. (CSE) examination separately. 6. 2008 and 15. 2008 subject to the outcome of the main writ petition and the respondents were directed to withhold the results pending disposal of the writ petition in M.P.No.1 of 2008. 5. M.P.No.2 of 2008 was filed to issue an interim direction directing the respondents to conduct practical examinations for the 6th semester B.E. (CSE) examination separately. 6. M.P.No.3 of 2008 was filed to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the fourth respondent from preventing the petitioner from attending the classes for the 4th year B.E. (CSE) pending writ petition. The said application was filed on 27. 2008. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has got only 27% attendance in the 6th semester and as per the Regulations of the Anna University, a minimum of 75% attendance is required for writing the examinations and also for further promotion to next semester. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for promotion to 7th semester/4th year and he is bound to be retained in the 6th semester and only on the successful completion of the 6th semester in the academic year 2008-2009, the petitioner will be eligible to go to the 7th semester in the academic year 2009-2010. 8. It is further stated that on 12. 2008, the students indulged in rampage after a minor accident of the Institution bus outside the college on 12. 2008 and caused extensive damage to the properties of the Institution apart from damaging the vehicles and laboratories. Since 16th and 17th of February, 2008 being Saturday and Sunday, the college was reopened on 12. 2008 (Monday) and there was no closure of the college due to the said incident as alleged. To maintain the cordial relationship between the management and the students, no police complaint was lodged. The injured persons were given treatment and all the medical expenses amounting to Rs.9 lakhs was spent by the management. The demand of undertaking letter by the management is denied and the fourth respondent never prevented any students from entering the classes and no fine was demanded from any students and no amount was also collected towards any damages. The fourth respondent also stated that no student was directed to take the Transfer Certificate from the fourth respondent college. The demand of undertaking letter by the management is denied and the fourth respondent never prevented any students from entering the classes and no fine was demanded from any students and no amount was also collected towards any damages. The fourth respondent also stated that no student was directed to take the Transfer Certificate from the fourth respondent college. The petitioner did not attend the classes along with several other students and for non-attending classes, the Institution cannot be made responsible. The Institution never stopped any students from entering the class and if really, any student was prevented, there would be certainly strike by the students. Since the petitioner was having only 27% of attendance in the 6th semester, he was not permitted to write the examination. The petitioner has also paid examination fee of Rs.1300/- along with all other students and the fee was remitted along with attendance particulars of the students to the University. Since the petitioner was not having required number of attendance of minimum 75%, he was not eligible to write the University examinations. Hence, the petitioner was not permitted to write the theory and practical examinations of 6th semester, however he was permitted to write the arrear examinations. 9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that even though the writ petition was posted in the list on 24. 2008, no mentioning was made to take up the matter on 24. 2008, 24. 2008 and 30.4.2008. The order passed by the vacation Court on 5. 2008 was complied with by permitting the petitioner to write the examinations held on 5. 2008, 5. 2008 and 15. 2008 and the results are yet to be published. When the matter was posted for hearing, interim order was passed on 27. 2008 by giving a direction to go into the allegations and conduct the enquiry to find out the truth, which reads as follows:- " 9. In view of the above, the following interim order is passed:- "(a)Mr.Elwin Chandra Mone, the Additional Director of Technical Education, Anna University Campus, Chennai is appointed as an Enquiry Officer in this matter. (b)The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of his affidavit filed in this writ petition, a copy of the representation and telegram dated 18.04.2008 and also any other documents if he wants to rely on, before the Enquiry Officer. (b)The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of his affidavit filed in this writ petition, a copy of the representation and telegram dated 18.04.2008 and also any other documents if he wants to rely on, before the Enquiry Officer. (c)The fourth respondent is directed to produce the relevant records before the Enquiry Officer, on which he can also make reliance. (d)Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Enquiry Officer. (e)The Additional Director of Technical Education is directed to hold proper enquiry in the college and examine the above stated 37 students of the fourth respondent college and other persons who are posted with the facts and to submit a report before this Court with a finding that whether the allegation made by the petitioner against the fourth respondent college is true or not. The said report shall be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 10. Pursuant to the said interim direction, a report was filed by the Additional Director of Technical Education (Exams), Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025. On 19. 2008, the said officer has given a finding. The objection to the said finding was filed by the fourth respondent management. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having prevented from attending classes and he having paid the examination fee, he is entitled to appear in the 6th semester examinations and also to get promotion to the 7th semester and also the petitioner is entitled to sit for the 7th semester examination commencing from 210. 2008. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner was not willing to get the Transfer Certificate after writing the examination, he was prevented from appearing in the practical and theory examinations. 13. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner failed to attend classes on his own in the 6th semester and he is having only 27% of attendance and the management never prevented the petitioner from attending classes and only because of lack of attendance, he was not permitted to write the practical and theory examinations in the 6th semester. The learned counsel submitted that the enquiry report submitted by Additional Director of Technical Education (Exams), Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025 is not acceptable as 45 students were dealt with by the Enquiry Officer, whereas only 38 students are in the 6th semester. 14. The learned counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner was not having required attendance as per the University Regulations and as per the intimation given by the 4th respondent college, the petitioner was given 27% of attendance and therefore, he is not entitled to write the examinations and even for some of the examinations he has written, he is not entitled to get the results. The learned counsel further submitted that the 7th semester classes commenced from 26. 2008 and the course is now over and the petitioner not even attended one class for the 7th semester and therefore, he is not entitled to write the 7th semester examination also. 15. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 16. The petitioner is the student of the 6th semester course in the fourth respondent, which is affiliated to the second respondent-University. For writing the examination conducted by the second respondent Anna University, the petitioner has to satisfy the Regulations issued in the year 2004. As per the Regulation No.11, a candidate must satisfy at least 75% of over all attendance in that semester and if the candidate secures attendance between 65% and 74%, he can be granted relaxation on medical or any other valid reasons. Candidate who do not complete the semester with the said percentage of attendance, will not be permitted to write the University examination and will not permitted to go to next semester and they have to repeat the incomplete semester in the next academic year. For proper appreciation, Regulation No.11 is extracted hereunder:- " 11. Requirements For Completion Of A Semester: A candidate who has fulfilled the following conditions shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for completion of a semester. 11.1 Ideally every student is expected to attend all classes and secure 100% attendance. However, in order to allow for certain unavoidable reasons such as Medical/participation in sports/ personal, the student is expected to attend at least 75% of the classes. 11. 11.1 Ideally every student is expected to attend all classes and secure 100% attendance. However, in order to allow for certain unavoidable reasons such as Medical/participation in sports/ personal, the student is expected to attend at least 75% of the classes. 11. 1 Therefore, he/she shall secure not less than 75% of overall attendance in that semester taking into account the total number of periods (540 periods) in all Courses put together attended by the candidate as against the total number of periods in all courses offered during that semester. However, a candidate who could secure attendance between 65% and 74% only in the current semester due to medical reasons (hospitalization / accident / specific illness) or due to participation in the College / University / State / National / International level sports events with prior permission from the Principal shall be given exemption from the prescribed attendance requirement and he/she shall be permitted to appear for the current semester examinations. 11. 2 Candidates who do not complete the semester (as per clause 11.1), will not be permitted to write the University examination at the end of the semester and not permitted to go to next semester. They are required to repeat the incomplete semester in the next academic year." 17. From the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner is not having either 75% of attendance or at least 65% of attendance in the 6th semester and his actual attendance was only 27%. The reason for not having such attendance is raised as an issue in this writ petition. The petitioner states that he was not allowed to attend the classes and also he was prevented to appear for the examination by the fourth respondent. The same is disputed by the fourth respondent stating that the petitioner without any reason refused to attend the classes after 12. 2008 and if the college has prevented the petitioner from attending the classes, nothing prevented the petitioner or his father from making a complaint before the respondents, as and when the petitioner was not permitted to attend the classes. Admittedly, no complaint prior to 14. 2008 was given to the respondents either by the petitioner or by his father. 2008 and if the college has prevented the petitioner from attending the classes, nothing prevented the petitioner or his father from making a complaint before the respondents, as and when the petitioner was not permitted to attend the classes. Admittedly, no complaint prior to 14. 2008 was given to the respondents either by the petitioner or by his father. The said fact reveals that the petitioner is not right in contending that he was not allowed to attend the classes inspite of his attempt to attend classes. The reason stated for not attending the classes may be true or untrue but the same cannot be considered in this writ petition, since the prayer in this writ petition is to permit the petitioner to write the 6th semester examination and to conduct practical examination separately and permit the petitioner to continue his fourth year studies in the fourth respondent college. As extracted above, the University Regulations contemplates 75% of attendance or at least 65% of attendance for writing a semester and if a candidate who do not complete the semester by attending for such classes cannot go to the next semester. 18. Similar issue was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2006 Wlr 176 (C. Praveen Chander Vs. The Principal, Sri Venkateswara College), where the student secured only 54% of attendance in the 7th semester. In paragraphs 4 to 8, this Court held as follows:- " 4. ... The law is well settled that in the matter of education, more particularly in the matter of entitlement to take the examination, the minimum required attendance should be strictly adhered to . The shortage of attendance can be a valid ground for denial of permission to take the examination. Factually, the petitioner had not secured the minimum required attendance of 75%. Even if the condonation limited is applied, he has to secure atleast 64% attendance. Virtually, the petitioner has secured only 54% attendance and therefore, he is not entitled to sit for the examination. Law is well settled that the court would be very slow in interfering with the academic matters. If the Regulation of the University prescribed a minimum percentage of attendance for entitlement to sit for examination, the Court will not substitute its own reason for relaxing the minimum number of days of attendance and make the student to sit for the examination. 5. If the Regulation of the University prescribed a minimum percentage of attendance for entitlement to sit for examination, the Court will not substitute its own reason for relaxing the minimum number of days of attendance and make the student to sit for the examination. 5. The petitioner has claimed that the period treatment for illness and he being a sport person, should be accepted while computing the period of attendance. In my opinion, even those days are given credit to, the petitioner will not secure the minimum required attendance of 64%. As per the regulations of the University, the authorities are not empowered to condone the delay beyond the minimum required attendance of 64% In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to sit for 7th semester examination. Moreover, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition seeking to condone his absence is impermissible as any direction issued on the basis of the relief, the same would result in directing the University to act contrary to its own statute. 6. It is also the well settled law that ineligible student should not be allowed to take the examination by order of Court as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board Of Secondary Education Vs Nikhil Gulati ( A.I.R.1988 Sc 1205) and it has been held in the said judgment as follows: "Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted under Courtorders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the Courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process; more so, when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders, for its puts the "Rule of Law" to a mockery, and promotes rather the "Rule of Man". All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students herein. Therefore, we decline to interfere under Article 136 of the constitution. All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students herein. Therefore, we decline to interfere under Article 136 of the constitution. The S.L.Ps are, accordingly dismissed." 7. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.33933/2005 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.36820/2005 is closed. 8. As the petitioner is not entitled to even sit for 7th Semester in terms of Regulation, he is not entitled to attend the 8th semester without completing the 7th semester examination. Hence, the relief sought for in W.P.No.1163/2006 also cannot be granted. However, the petitioner is entitled to repeat the incomplete semester so as to enable him to take the examination in future." 19. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2008 (4) Ctc 741 (Mahatma Gandhi University And Another Vs. Gis Jose And Others), considered the admission of ineligible candidate and permitting to appear for examinations. In the said decision, a student who was not having 55% of marks in U.G. Degree was admitted in M.Sc Computer Science Course by the college though he secured only 53.5% marks. The University directed the college to cancel the admission. However, the college permitted the student to complete the course and write her examinations. The results having not been published, the student approached the High Court. The Division Bench allowed her appeal. The Supreme Court set aside the order and in paragraph 9, held as follows:- " 9. The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened. Such a course was disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others, 2003 (7) SCC 719 . In paragraph 6 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows:- "6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the Petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions......" 10. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions......" 10. In the present case, the College where the student was admitted, in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write the examination which was totally illegal." 20. In an unreported decision made in W.P.No.10757 of 2003, dated 14. 2003, this Court dismissed a similar claim of a student who was not permitted to write the B.E.Degree examinations on the ground that the said student was having only 38.41% attendance. 21. In the light of the Regulations of the Anna University extracted above and the decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court cited supra, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled to write the 6th semester examination, as he secured only 27% of attendance and even the examinations written by the petitioner for 6th semester will have no effect and the results cannot be ordered to be published. However, if the petitioner appeared for any arrear papers in the 5th semester, there is no impediment to publish the results for the said semester. Since the petitioner has not completed the 6th semester as per the University Regulations, the fourth respondent is justified in not permitting the petitioner to attend the fourth year/7th semester classes from 26. 2008 and the petitioner having not been permitted to attend the classes in the 7th semester, he has no right to seek for permission to appear for the 7th semester examination commencing from 210. 2008, as he has not attended not even a single class in the 7th semester. I am not expressing any opinion with regard to the report filed by the Additional Director of Technical Education (Exams), Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025, as the fourth respondent disputes the said findings. 2008, as he has not attended not even a single class in the 7th semester. I am not expressing any opinion with regard to the report filed by the Additional Director of Technical Education (Exams), Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025, as the fourth respondent disputes the said findings. If the petitioner is aggrieved by purposely not permitting the petitioner to attend the classes by the fourth respondent and the petitioner is prejudiced due to such action of the fourth respondent, it is open to the petitioner to agitate his claim in an appropriate and separate proceedings for reducing his grievance. 22. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, M.P.Nos.2 & 3 are closed. No costs.