Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner, who is a student in the Second Respondent-College pursuing his B.E., Degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2011 of the Second Respondent, by which the Second Respondent rejected the claim made by the Petitioner for condonation of attendance. 2. (i) According to the Petitioner, he had completed 5 semesters and while doing the sixth semester, he fell ill. The Petitioner was advised by the Doctor to undergo Arthroscopy Surgery as he was suffering from chronic joint pain. Therefore, the Petitioner applied for leave with the Second Respondent. While so, when the examinations were due to take place, the Second Respondent college cancelled the 6th semester papers in the hall ticket and permitted the Petitioner to write only the arrears examination and thereafter, he was asked to re-do the sixth semester without any valid reasons. The Petitioner was also not permitted to join the 7th semester. (ii) The Petitioner earlier filed W.P. No.15358 of 2011 praying for a Mandamus to direct the Second Respondent to permit him to attend the 7th semester classes. As per the interim order granted by this Court, the Petitioner was permitted to attend the 7th semester classes. The Petitioner also, on the basis of the interim order granted by this Court, had completed the 7th semester with 90% attendance. Ultimately, the above W.P. No. 15358 Of 2011 was taken up for final hearing and this Court, by order dated 29.10.2011, directed the Second Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner for condonation of attendance on medical grounds and to pass orders on merits within a period of two weeks. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.10.2011, the Petitioner sent a representation dated 02.11.2011 to the Respondents by enclosing the copy of the order passed by this Court. When the representation dated 02.11.2011 of the Petitioner was under consideration by the Second Respondent, the 6th and 7th semester examinations commenced. Since the Respondents did not take any steps to pass orders on the representation dated 02.11.2011 of the Petitioner, he filed W.P. No.25776 of 2011 before this Court for a Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit him to take the 6th and 7th semester examination and the said Writ Petition is pending. Since the Respondents did not take any steps to pass orders on the representation dated 02.11.2011 of the Petitioner, he filed W.P. No.25776 of 2011 before this Court for a Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit him to take the 6th and 7th semester examination and the said Writ Petition is pending. While so, on 14.11.2011, the Second Respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the request of the Petitioner for condonation of 10% attendance without considering the medical records furnished by the Petitioner. (iii) The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Medical Certificates furnished by him for the relevant period of his absence were not considered by the Second Respondent. According to the Petitioner, earlier, he met with a major accident in the year 2009 and again he met with another accident while driving the motor bike on 15.05.2010. Under those circumstances, he continued his treatment with Dr. Kalidoss, who treated him between 12.01.2011 to 14.01.2011 in K.M. Hospital, Chennai. As he suffered from a knee problem, he was advised to take bed rest and therefore, his absence on medical ground ought to have been considered by the Second Respondent instead of rejecting his claim for condonation of attendance. 3. The Second Respondent filed a detailed Counter Affidavit contending that the 6th semester commenced from 15.12.2010 to 22.03.2011 and the Petitioner had attended 285 periods out of 568 periods conducted. However, for the purpose of examination, only 450 periods was taken into account as per the University norms. Even if 450 periods is taken into account, the Petitioner had secured only 63% attendance as against 75% attendance. According to the Second Respondent, there were about 28 students, including the Petitioner, who have not fulfilled the prescribed percentage of attendance for the examination held in April/May 2011 and the list of such person was duly notified. The Petitioner also not evinced any interest to claim condonation of attendance at the appropriate time and in any event he could not achieve 65% of attendance even if 10% of attendance is condoned on medical grounds. Therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible to pursue his 7th semester without re-doing the sixth semester with requisite attendance as per university norms. The Petitioner had 27 arrears papers upto fifth semester as on 10.04.2011 and therefore the Petitioner was issued hall ticket only to write the arrears examination upto 5th semester. Therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible to pursue his 7th semester without re-doing the sixth semester with requisite attendance as per university norms. The Petitioner had 27 arrears papers upto fifth semester as on 10.04.2011 and therefore the Petitioner was issued hall ticket only to write the arrears examination upto 5th semester. The hall ticket was not issued for writing the sixth semester. The hall ticket was issued on 10.04.2011, whereas, the sixth semester commenced on 15.12.2010 itself. (ii) As far as W.P. No. 15358 of 2011 is concerned, this Court granted interim direction to permit the Petitioner to attend his seventh semester subject to the result of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition itself was ultimately disposed of on 29.10.2011 holding that the Petitioner has attended two days of function organised by the Second Respondent and that no required attendance has been given corresponding to nine hours of class, hence, this Court directed that the same will have to be added to the attendance secured by the Petitioner already in which case he would be getting 65%. Ultimately, this Court directed the Second Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner for condonation of 10% attendance on the ground of illness. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Second Respondent carefully considered the claim of the Petitioner along with the records produced by him and ultimately it was rejected by the Second Respondent. (iii) The Second Respondent would contend that they have filed Review Petition No.153 of 2011 in W.P. No.15358 of 2011 to review the order dated 29.10.2011 and the Review Petition is pending. The Review Petition was filed, due to the reason that the Second Respondent, on verification of records, found out that the claim of the Petitioner that he participated in Women's day function held on 08.03.2011 is false and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for attendance for having allegedly attended the college on those days. (iv) The main ground of attack of the Second Respondent is that the Petitioner, as per the directions of this Court, made a detailed representation on 02.11.2011 by enclosing six documents for consideration of his claim for condonation of attendance. The six documents did not pertain to the relevant period relating to 6th semester and all the documents have been duly considered and rejected by the Second Respondent. The six documents did not pertain to the relevant period relating to 6th semester and all the documents have been duly considered and rejected by the Second Respondent. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the Second Respondent did not properly consider the medical records produced by him is unsustainable in law. Only for the first time, in the present Writ Petition, by way of additional typed set of papers, some documents have been produced to show that there was a second accident. Even the second accident was never pleaded in the earlier two Writ Petitions. In any view of the matter, as far as the impugned order is concerned, the Second Respondent has carefully considered all the relevant materials produced by the Petitioner and rejected the claim for condonation of attendance. The impugned order is therefore per se valid and in accordance with law. (v) According to the Second Respondent, even the two certificates produced in the additional typed set of papers are totally contradictory. In the certificate dated 24.12.2010 produced by the Petitioner, the Doctor had certified that the Petitioner was treated for Effusion (L) Knee Joint from 15.12.2010 to 24.12.2010 and he is fit to join the classes from 25.12.2010, whereas, on 20.12.2010 and 22.12.2010, the Petitioner attended the classes. Similarly, in another certificate dated 22.03.2011 produced by the Petitioner, it was stated that the Petitioner was advised bed rest from 18.03.2011 to 22.03.2011, whereas, the Petitioner attended the classes on 19.03.2011 for 3 periods and 4 periods on 22.03.2011. In any event, these documents were not produced for consideration by the Second Respondent at the time of passing the final orders. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Second Respondent, without considering the medical records furnished by the Petitioner, has passed the impugned order. 4. On behalf of the First Respondent it was contended that any person who secured minimum 75% attendance alone can write the examinations and the college can at best recommend only for 10% of condonation of lack of attendance. In the present case, the Second Respondent-College has not recommended for condonation of attendance of the Petitioner and in the absence of any such recommendation, the First Respondent/University cannot condone the lack of attendance independently. In the present case, the Second Respondent-College has not recommended for condonation of attendance of the Petitioner and in the absence of any such recommendation, the First Respondent/University cannot condone the lack of attendance independently. On behalf of the First Respondent, the Regulations of the University were also produced to show that if the minimum requisite attendance is not secured by a student, he cannot be permitted to write the examination. 5. I heard the Counsel for both sides and perused the material records. By consent of Counsel for both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has attended the classes in the VI Semester in the Second Respondent-College, however, during the sixth semester, he met with an accident and was taking treatment in the hospital from 15.12.2010 to 22.03.2011. Out of the 568 periods conducted by the Second Respondent-College, he attended only 285 periods. However, for the purpose of examination, only 450 periods was taken into account as per the University norms. If 450 periods is taken into account, the Petitioner had secured 63% attendance as against 75% attendance. This is not in dispute. 7. In the earlier round of litigation, in W.P. No. 15358 of 2011, the Petitioner prayed for a direction to the Respondents to permit him to attend the 4th year B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the Second Respondent-College. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that he attended the Women's day celebration in the 2nd Respondent-College and that was not taken into account by the Second Respondent. The Writ Petition itself was ultimately disposed of on 29.10.2011 holding that the Petitioner has attended two days of function organised by the Second Respondent and that no required attendance has been given corresponding to nine hours of class, therefore, this Court directed that the same will have to be added to the attendance secured by the Petitioner already in which case he would be getting 65%. Ultimately, this Court directed the Second Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner for condonation of 10% attendance on the ground of illness. It is pertinent to point out here that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and only directed the Second Respondent to consider the representation made by the Petitioner for condonation of attendance. Ultimately, this Court directed the Second Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner for condonation of 10% attendance on the ground of illness. It is pertinent to point out here that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and only directed the Second Respondent to consider the representation made by the Petitioner for condonation of attendance. Pursuant to such direction, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.11.2011 by enclosing the copy of the order. Along with the representation dated 02.11.2011, the Petitioner produced six documents for consideration of the Second Respondent and they are: (i) MRI Scan Prescription dated 14.12.2009 referred by Dr. Kalidoss (ii) MRI Scan report of Gemini Hospitals, dated 16.12.2009 (iii) Payment receipt dated 16.12.2009 of the Scan report (iv) Medical Certificate dated 26.01.2010 issued by Dr. Kalidoss (v) Medical prescription dated 26.01.2010 issued by K.M. Hospitals (vi) Medical prescription dated 08.09.2011 issued by K.M. Hospitals 8. According to the Second Respondent, the aforesaid six documents were carefully examined and considered before passing the impugned order of rejection. In the impugned order, it was stated that the Medical Certificates were issued during 14-16.12.2009 and once again a certificate was issued on 26.01.2010 and those certificates, scan reports and prescriptions, etc., relates to the year 2010 and may not be relevant to the 6th semester inasmuch as the 6th semester commenced on 15.12.2010. Therefore, according to the Second Respondent, none of the documents produced by the Petitioner are relevant for condoning the lack of attendance in the 6th semester. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the documents furnished by him were all relevant and they were not considered cannot be accepted. The Second Respondent also filed Review Petition No. 153 of 2011 in W.P. No.15358 of 2011 and the same is pending till date. 9. For the first time, the Petitioner filed certain documents before this Court, not along with the Writ Petition but by way of additional typed set of papers. When we analyse the documents produced in the additional typed set of papers, it is seen that the Doctor had given a certificate dated 24.12.2010 certifying that the Petitioner was treated for Effusion (L) Knee Joint from 15.12.2010 to 24.12.2010 and he is fit to join the classes from 25.12.2010, whereas, on 20.12.2010 and 22.12.2010, according to the Second Respondent, the Petitioner attended the classes. Similarly, in another certificate dated 22.03.2011 produced by the Petitioner, it was stated that the Petitioner was advised bed rest from 18.03.2011 to 22.03.2011, whereas, the Petitioner attended the classes on 19.03.2011 for 3 periods and 4 periods on 22.03.2011. In yet another certificate dated 15.12.2010, it was opined by the Doctor that the boy came with injury in left knee with pain and swelling and he was advised rest from 15.12.2010 to 24.12.2010. Admittedly, these documents were produced for the first time before this Court, especially by way of additional typed set of papers. On further scrutiny of the documents, the Doctor has not stated that the Petitioner met with an accident. It is also not known whether the Petitioner was treated as a medico legal case. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent, in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, these facts were not brought out or pleaded and only in this Writ Petition it was stated that the Petitioner met with a second accident. Therefore it is clear that the Petitioner failed to produce these documents along with his representation dated 02.11.2011 submitted to the Second Respondent as directed by this Court and therefore, with the available documents, the Second Respondent has passed the impugned order of rejection. Even in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has not referred to about the documents filed along with the additional typed set of papers for consideration by this Court. 10. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent, in the certificates produced by the Petitioner along with the additional typed set of papers, the Petitioner was advised bed rest but on those days, the Petitioner had attended the college. For example, in the Medical Certificate dated 24.12.2010, the Petitioner was advised rest between 15.12.2010 and 24.12.2010, but in the interregnum on 20.12.2010 and 22.12.2010, the Petitioner attended the college. Therefore, these documents are contradictory to the claim made by the Petitioner. In any event, even if the certificate produced by the Petitioner are taken to be true, still, the Petitioner did not comply with the requisite number of days of attendance, as required. Therefore, these documents are contradictory to the claim made by the Petitioner. In any event, even if the certificate produced by the Petitioner are taken to be true, still, the Petitioner did not comply with the requisite number of days of attendance, as required. Therefore, when the Regulations of the University manifestly states that 75% attendance is mandatory and the college can at best condone only 10% attendance, in the absence of relevant documentary evidence to show that the Petitioner was prevented from attending the college due to medical reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. 11. No doubt, on behalf of the Petitioner, sympathy was sought for. Here is a case where the Petitioner, a student met with an accident or was not feeling well and on that ground he is unable to attend the classes. That by itself is not a reason for consideration of the lack of attendance on the part of the Petitioner. In fact, a feeble attempt was made on behalf of the Petitioner that the College authorities insisted for payment of more amount and on refusal by the Petitioner, he is victimised. Such an argument is being made without any evidence to prove the same. In any view of the matter, the main ground of attack of the Petitioner is the Second Respondent failed to consider the documents produced by him and that was found to be incorrect inasmuch as the Second Respondent considered all the relevant materials before passing the impugned order of rejection. 12. The learned Counsel for the First Respondent brought to the notice of this Court the Regulations 2004 governing the Second Respondent-College. As per Regulation 11, a candidate who has fulfilled the following conditions shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for completion of a semester and they are: "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 atleast 75% of the classes. 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 atleast 75% of the classes during any (semester ±) Semester/ First Year of Annual pattern. 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 atleast 75% of the classes during any (semester ±) Semester/ First Year of Annual pattern. 11.1.2 Therefore, he/she shall secure not less than 75% of over all attendance in that semester taking into account the total number of periods (540 periods) in all courses put together attended by the candidates 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 (hospitalisation/ 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 examination. 11.1.2 Therefore, he/she shall secure not less than 75% (after rounding off to the nearest integer) of overall attendance taking into account the total number of 540 periods in a semester (1060 periods of Fist year of Annual Pattern) with 90 working days (which include 15 days of end-semester examinations) in all courses put together attended by the candidate as against the total number of periods in all courses offered during that semester/ First year of Annual pattern. 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. 11.2 Candidates who do not complete the semester/First year of Annual pattern (as per Clause 11.1) will not be permitted to write the University examination at the end of Semester/First year of Annual pattern and not permitted to go to next semester. They are required to repeat the incomplete semester/First year Annual pattern in the next academic year, as per the norms provided." 13. Therefore, even as per the Regulation of the University, for consideration of condonation of attendance, the Petitioner must have secured 65% of attendance, which he did not secure. They are required to repeat the incomplete semester/First year Annual pattern in the next academic year, as per the norms provided." 13. Therefore, even as per the Regulation of the University, for consideration of condonation of attendance, the Petitioner must have secured 65% of attendance, which he did not secure. Even for consideration of medically unfit students, the student will be considered only if he or she had taken prior permission from the Principal, who alone is entitled to grant exemption. Admittedly, in the present case, during the relevant period, the Petitioner has not given any intimation or letter to the Second Respondent-College regarding his illness. Therefore, also, I am of the view that the order of rejection passed by the Second Respondent is in tune with the Regulations of the University. 14. The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent relied on the decision of this Court reported in S.K. Manikandan and another versus Saint Michael's Polytechnic College, Chennai and another, 2006 (3) MLJ 52 to contend that in the matter of maintaining discipline in the College, the educational institution must be given a right of exercising such power and the right of the Principal to maintain peaceful atmosphere should be preserved and upheld. In para-9 of the said decision, this Court held as follows: "9. In the matter of maintaining discipline in the College, the educational institution must be given a right of exercising such power and the right of the Principal to maintain peaceful atmosphere should be preserved and upheld. The administrative authorities before taking an extreme decision to dismiss the students must give the students a reasonable opportunity. However, such opportunity cannot be stretched to a full-fledged enquiry as normally required to be conducted for disciplinary matters in service law. The learned Counsel would strenuously contend that in the absence of reasonable opportunity, the impugned orders suffer for non-compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice. In this context, it must be observed that since the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules, it is not possible to precisely define the parameters of natural justice. The Principles of Natural Justice are applicable in all force not only to the quasi-judicial proceedings, but also to the administrative actions. In this context, it must be observed that since the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules, it is not possible to precisely define the parameters of natural justice. The Principles of Natural Justice are applicable in all force not only to the quasi-judicial proceedings, but also to the administrative actions. While considering the scope of the Rule of Natural Justice, the Supreme Court in Union of India versus P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 : 1970 (1) LLJ 633 has observed as follows: "The extent and application of the Doctrine of Natural Justice cannot be imprisoned within the straitjacket of a rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and the policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case". In the decision inA.K. Kraipak versus Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 : 1969 (2) SCC 262 , the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "What particular Rule of Natural Justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a Court that some Principle of Natural Justice had been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case". In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education versus K.S. Gandhi, 1991 (2) SCC 716 , the Supreme Court observed: "The omnipresence and omniscience of the Principles of Natural Justice, act as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary decisions in flagrant infraction of fair play. But the applicability of the Principles of Natural Justice is not a rule of thumb or straitjacket formula as an abstract proposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case, nature of enquiry and the effect of the order/decision on the right of a person and attendant circumstances." 15. The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Director (Studies) Dr. It depends on the facts of the case, nature of enquiry and the effect of the order/decision on the right of a person and attendant circumstances." 15. The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Director (Studies) Dr. Ambedkar Institution of Hotel Management, Nutrition and Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others versus Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, 2009 (1) SCC 59, wherein it was held that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the order of the educational institutions unless there is a clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. In para Nos. 8 and 27, it was held as follows: "8. In the present case, there is no doubt that the slip of paper contained material pertaining to the examination in question. Hence, we cannot accept the submission of Shri. Lalit Bhasin that the Respondent was not guilty of malpractice since he was not found to have used that piece of paper. 27. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic Tribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of High School & Intermediate Education versus Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875 para 12; J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) versus Allahabad University, 1980 (3) SCC 418 para 17 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436: AIR 1980 SC 2141 para 17; Rajendra Prasad Mathur versus Karnataka University, 1986 Supp SCC 740 para 7 and AIR 1986 SC 1448 para 7. We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decisions and further tate that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of the educational unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair means in the examinations." 16. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court cannot ordinarily interfere with the administrative decision taken by the Second Respondent in the absence of any violation of the statutory rule. Furthermore, the Second Respondent had taken into consideration all the documents produced for consideration by the Petitioner at the time of passing the final orders. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court cannot ordinarily interfere with the administrative decision taken by the Second Respondent in the absence of any violation of the statutory rule. Furthermore, the Second Respondent had taken into consideration all the documents produced for consideration by the Petitioner at the time of passing the final orders. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Second Respondent, without considering the medical records furnished by the Petitioner, has passed the impugned order. In fact, the plea of the Petitioner that he could not attend the 6th semester due to his illness is not at all proved by the Petitioner as all the documents produced by him for condonation of delay was pertaining to a different period. It is pertinent to note that the representation itself was made after the order passed by this Court directing the Petitioner to give a consolidated representation, but he has not enclosed any document for condonation of his absence during the relevant time. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that the documents have not been properly considered. As stated earlier, all the documents produced by the Petitioner along with his representation has been duly considered and rejected by the Second Respondent. In fact, the condonation Petition itself has been made only as per the direction of this Court treating him as having secured 65% attendance. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Second Respondent. I do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with the order of rejection dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Second Respondent. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.