JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner A.Anitha Devi has come to this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to admit her in the M.L. Degree course for the year 2010-11 under physically challenged category in the 4th respondent 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Adi-Dravida Community, which comes under the category of Schedule Caste. She is the only educated member in her family. After completing her B.L. Degree in the year 2009 with 49.72 marks from Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, she had submitted the application to Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University for admission into M.L. Degree course. She being a physically challenged person, is also entitled to have the benefit of reservation made for physically disabled persons. 3. While so, after the receipt of the application for admission to M.L. Degree, an interview card was also sent to the petitioner by the 4th respondent, calling her to attend the interview on 22.11.2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai-600 104. After receiving the interview card, the petitioner had attended the said interview, but she was not selected to the admission to the M.L. Degree. As a result, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the above said prayer. 4. By adding to the submission, it was stated that though this Court had directed the respondents to admit the petitioner, the respondents have not considered and deliberately failed to implement the order of this Court and as a result she was not able to attend the classes. Finally, when she attended the classes on 03.05.2011 and the last day for the semester being on 06.05.2011, she was not able to obtain 75% of attendance. Therefore, by taking into account the special circumstances under which the petitioner was put in, this Court should consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of equity and permit the petitioner to attend the examination which is scheduled tomorrow. 5. Opposing the said prayer, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition based on Regulations 7 and 8 of the Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College Regulations, which are extracted as under: "7.Attendance: A candidate is eligible to write the examination for the semester only on obtaining a minimum of 75% of the attendance prescribed for each semester. 8. Continuous Assessment: Continuous assessment includes the following: Teaching Exercise/ Seminar : 10 Marks Test Paper/ Assignment: 15 Marks Attendance”: 05 Marks “The marks for attendance shall be based on the following rating: 75% : 2.5 76% - 80% : 3.0 81% - 85% : 3.5 86% - 90% : 4.0 91% - 95% : 4.5 96% - 100% : 5.0 A candidate who failed to complete or to secure the minimum prescribed marks in internal components cannot be permitted for taking up the written examination. He/She shall be permitted to redo the same internal assessment component on payment of a fee of Rs.500/- in the ensuing semester as one chance, provided he/she fulfills the attendance requirements." 6. A close reading of Regulations 7 and 8 goes to show that a candidate is eligible to write the examination for the semester only on obtaining a minimum of 75% of the attendance prescribed for each semester. Further, as per Regulation 8, a candidate should have obtained proper and continuous assessment for teaching, assignment and attendance and the marks for attendance shall also be based on the following ratings: 75% : 2.5 76% - 80% : 3.0 81% - 85% : 3.5 86% - 90% : 4.0 91% - 95% : 4.5 96% - 100% : 5.0 Since the petitioner has failed to secure the 75% of attendance prescribed for each semester and also failed to qualify in the continuous assessment as per Regulation 8, it is not possible for this court to exercise even that equity jurisdiction to permit the petitioner to write the examination scheduled on 08.06.2011, for yet another simple reason that the petitioner had attended the classes only for three days before the closure of the semester classes on 06.05.2011. 7. More so, this is a case where the petitioner was given benefit of admission on the basis of the order of this Court on 28.04.2011. Though the admission started on 10.12.2010, till the closure of the admission namely 15.12.2010, the petitioner was not able to get into the class. Consequently, the classes for the M.L. Degree started on 03.01.2011 and the last date for the semester was also on 06.05.2011. But after, of course, passing through all the hurdles, the petitioner was able to get admission only on 03.05.2011. Consequently, the classes for the M.L. Degree started on 03.01.2011 and the last date for the semester was also on 06.05.2011. But after, of course, passing through all the hurdles, the petitioner was able to get admission only on 03.05.2011. But by the time the petitioner got admission on 03.05.2011, the petitioner was able to attend only three days classes. As a result, she has not secured the 75% attendance as contemplated by the Regulation 7. 8. That apart, Regulation 8 also specifically states that a candidate for writing the examination should have been properly and continuously assessed under various heads like assignment, seminar and attendance. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not having 75% attendance which is prescribed for each semester and admittedly in the present case, admission was also got only on 03.05.2011 and since the semester for the said year came to be closed on 06.05.2011, this Court is not able to consider the case of the petitioner in her favour. When the Regulation 8 specifically states that a candidate who failed to complete or to secure the minimum prescribed marks in internal components cannot be permitted for taking up the written examination, she shall be permitted to redo the same internal assessment component on payment of a fee of Rs.500/- in the ensuing semester as one chance, provided she fulfills the attendance requirements, under these circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner to permit her to write the examination tomorrow i.e. 08.06.2011 cannot be considered. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.