Judgment :- Abdul Nazeer, J. The petitioners are the students of Shaikh Pre-University College of Science, Commerce and Arts, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum. They were not permitted to appear for the II year PUC examinations held from 18.03.2010 onwards on the ground of ineligibility to appear for the examination. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to appear for the II year PUC examination for the academic year 2009-2010. In W.Ps.No.61721-35/2010, this Court passed an interim order on 19.03.2010 permitting the petitioners therein to appear in the remaining subjects of the II year PUC examinations, subject to the condition that the petitioners should not claim equity if they are found to be ineligible for declaration of their results. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have appeared for the examination the remaining subjects of II Year PUC. In W.P.Nos.62090-94/2010, this Court has not granted any interim order. 2. Leaned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners have regularly attended the classes. However, their attendance has not been marked by the concerned lecturers. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioners were not eligible to appear for the examinations. In order to be eligible to appear for the examination, a student shall have attendance of 75% attendance, they have denied permission to appear for the examination. He has produced the records relating to the attendance of the petitioners in each subject for the academic year 2009-2010. 3. From the records made available by the Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the attendance of the petitioners are as under: TABLE Attendance Report Rameez Shaikhaji (Pet. No.12) Sl. No. Subject Theory Practical Total Attended Percentage Total Attended Percentage 1 Physics 93 37 39.785 15 3 20 2 Chemistry 78 29 37.179 14 0 0 3 Maths 115 41 35.652 0 0 0 4 Comp.Sc. 76 27 35.526 14 6 42.85714286 Attendance Report Taheer Kadalagi ( Pet. No.13) Sl. No. Subject Theory Practical Total Attended Percentage Total Attended Percentage 1 Physics 93 51 54.839 19 9 47.36842105 2 Chemistry 78 48 61.538 16 7 43.75 3 Maths 115 70 60.87 4 Comp.Sc. 76 53 69.737 13 6 46.15384615 4. 76 27 35.526 14 6 42.85714286 Attendance Report Taheer Kadalagi ( Pet. No.13) Sl. No. Subject Theory Practical Total Attended Percentage Total Attended Percentage 1 Physics 93 51 54.839 19 9 47.36842105 2 Chemistry 78 48 61.538 16 7 43.75 3 Maths 115 70 60.87 4 Comp.Sc. 76 53 69.737 13 6 46.15384615 4. The Karnataka Pre-University of Education (Academic Registration, Administration and Grant-in-aid etc.) Rules, 2006, which has come into force with effect from 09.10.2006 provides for the minimum days of attendance a student has to secure in order to be eligible to appear for the annual examination. The said rule is as under: “12. Minimum days of attendance- (1) A student shall have attendance of 75% of the total number of periods in each subject during the academic year to become eligible to appear for the annual examination.” 5. It is evident from the aforesaid rule that in order to be eligible to appear for the examination, a student shall have attendance of 75% of the total number of periods in each subject during the academic year. The documents produced by the Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent would clearly indicate that the petitioners do not have attendance of 75% in each subject. The overall attendance is also far below 75%. There is no merit in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the lecturers of the petitioners have not marked the attendance of the petitioners whenever they attended the classes. The petitioners have not alleged any mal fides against any of their lecturers nor have they been made parties to the writ petitions. The attendance of the petitioners is between 11% to 40%. 6. The attendance is necessary to achieve the academic discipline and scholastic excellence. It is the foundation for any course of study. A formal education in a school or college necessarily involves learning and training under the direction of teachers. A student has to undergo the requisite training to acquire the knowledge, learning discipline in the prescribed manner. 6. The attendance is necessary to achieve the academic discipline and scholastic excellence. It is the foundation for any course of study. A formal education in a school or college necessarily involves learning and training under the direction of teachers. A student has to undergo the requisite training to acquire the knowledge, learning discipline in the prescribed manner. A quality or worth of education not only consists of marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the academic session but also human qualities, the culture and the social outlook one acquires and the development of his personality through living with other students in the school/college as a community, constant interaction with teachers and other students and participation in co-curricular activities. That is why the experts who formulated the policy and framed the Regulations, have made minimum attendance in each of the subjects, as essential for eligibility to appear for the examination. 7. In B.K.RAGHU vs. THEKARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD AND OTHERS 2010 ILR(Kar) 3651, this Court was considering the deficiency of attendance in respect of a student who had to appear for SSLC examination. The ground urged was ill-health of the student for not attending the classes. Rejecting the said contention, this Court has held that such an approach would be detrimental to the essential requirement that a student has to necessarily undergo the requisite training to acquire the knowledge, learning variance and discipline in prescribed manner by attending the classes. Benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations cannot be a substitute for the legal requirement. If the authority has in its discretion come to the conclusion that 116 days of absence was too long period to be condoned and if condoned it would result in sacrificing the interest of the academic standards, the Court cannot substitute the discretion exercised by the authorities only because a sympathetic view was permissible in a given case. 8. The said order has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in B.K.RAGHU vs. THEKARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND CFHAIRMAN AND OTHERS 2009 ILR (Kar) 206. In the course of the judgment. the Division Bench has observed as under: “…………… Thus a formal education in a school or college necessarily involves learning and training under the direction of teachers and it envisages that the learners should come to the school/college regularly and on time. In the course of the judgment. the Division Bench has observed as under: “…………… Thus a formal education in a school or college necessarily involves learning and training under the direction of teachers and it envisages that the learners should come to the school/college regularly and on time. That is why the experts who formulated the policy and framed the Regulations, have made minimum attendance as essential condition for eligibility to appear in the examination. Having regard to the possible contingencies and circumstances, the rules also provide for dealing with exceptionally hard cases subject to certain reasonable conditions and limitations. Persuaded by sympathy, the Court should not further dilute or relax the requirements prescribed by the experts in the field. If the Court did so, it will amount to an unwarranted interference in academic matters and it will not be in public interest. It may also be pointed out that the quality or worth of education consists not only in the marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the course. It consists also in the human qualities, the culture and the social outlook one acquires and the development of his personality through living with other students in the school/college as a community, constant interaction with teachers and other students and active participation in co-curricular activities. Hence unless a student attends the school/college regularly, he cannot get proper education. Therefore, it is in the interest of the student himself that he is asked to repeat the course to enable him to attend at least the required minimum number of classes.” 9. This Court in PREETHAM BHARGAV K.S. vs. B.R.R.MAHAJAN FIRST GRADE COLLEGE AND ANOTHER 2008 ILR(Kar) 5127 has held that attendance is necessary to achieve academic discipline and scholastic excellence. It is the foundation for any course of study. That is why the University has provided for a minimum attendance in the semester. What may not be done under the Regulations of the University cannot be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvent the process of law and the provisions of the statute. Courts do not interfere with the decisions of the authorities as the educational institutions and Board/University are best fitted to examine the matter. Article 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvent the process of law and the provisions of the statute. Courts do not interfere with the decisions of the authorities as the educational institutions and Board/University are best fitted to examine the matter. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to perpetuate illegalities, but to strike at them. 10. The petitioners have not put in the required number of attendance as per the relevant Rules. Therefore, they are not eligible to appear in the examination. The writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. However, the 3rd respondent-College is directed to admit the petitioners to II Year PUC if they so desire and permit them to appear for the examination if they become eligible in accordance with the relevant Rules. The petitioners in W.Ps.No.61721-35/2010 are not entitled for declaration of results of the examination taken by them pursuant to the interim order passed in the said cases. No costs.