Judgment : MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ. 1. The appellant is a student of Osmania University. In the 1st semester of the IIIrd Year B.Tech. course, he had attendance of 60.08%. 2. In terms of the Rules and Regulations of Attendance of Students of the University, a student must have a minimum 75% attendance to enable him to sit for the examination. However, if there are some medical grounds available, then the minimum attendance is reduced 65%. 3. Rule 2 of the Rules defines the expression “a regular course of study” as meaning putting in attendance of not less than 75% of the lectures and practicals and that this provision has to be enforced strictly. 4. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that in special cases, the Vice-Chancellor may on the recommendation of the Principal/Head of the Department, condone the deficiency in attendance to the extent of 10% on medical grounds subject to submission of a medical certificate and payment of condonation fee. 5. Rule 10 of the Rules provides that a student falling short of attendance (75% or 65% as the case may be) should be warned in writing every month/fortnight that he will be detained if he does not improve his attendance. Since the appellant had only 60.08% attendance, which is even well below the 65% requirement for condonation of delay, the Vice-Chancellor did not have the authority to condone the default to enable the appellant to sit for the examinations. 6. It is under these circumstances that the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.32465 of 2011 which came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge by the order under appeal dt.12.12.2011. 7. We find that the view taken by the learned single Judge is supported by the Rules and Regulations of Attendance of Students of the University. 8. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant sought to contend that being a student, the matter should be considered sympathetically. The learned single Judge referred to A.K. Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 298 , and B. Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College, Kuppam, Chittoor District 2008 (2) ALT 529 , and came to the conclusion that in cases like the present one, the matter cannot be dealt with on the ground of sympathy only. We cannot but agree. 9. We cannot but agree. 9. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not warned of shortage of attendance and therefore he could not make up the deficiency. 10. We find that no such averment has been made in the writ petition filed by the appellant nor any such ground was taken up before the learned single Judge. We are not inclined to entertain this ground at this stage in the absence of any pleading in this regard. 11. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge which is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of Attendance of Students of the University. 12. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed.