Judgment : 1. The petitioner was a Computer Science student in the 3rd respondent-College; who joined the graduate course of four years, which commenced in 2007 and continued till 2011; with 8 Semesters thereon. The petitioner, while she was continuing her 7th Semester course, could not attend classes, allegedly due to medical reasons, for 26= days. The petitioner, hence, sought for condonation of attendance shortage by Exhibit P2 application. In the meanwhile, she also filed a writ petition before this Court, seeking her continuance in the 8th Semester in the 3rd respondent-College. By Exhibit P3 order, the same was allowed on 08.03.2011. Though she had continued in the 8th Semester classes, obviously she could not get attendance even in the 8th Semester course, since the 8th Semester classes were almost over by the time Exhibit P3 order was passed. 2. Subsequently, in the very same writ petition she sought for permission to appear for the 8th Semester examination. This Court by order dated 29.04.2011 directed that the petitioner shall be provisionally permitted to appear for the 8th Semester examination and also noticed that she has been permitted to appear for the 7th Semester examination by the University itself. However, it is not disputed that there was no such permission granted by the University; nor had she appeared for the 7th Semester examination before the passing of Exhibit P5 order. 3. On the strength of Exhibit P5 order, the petitioner appeared for the 8th Semester examination. Subsequently, when the 7th Semester Supplementary examinations were scheduled, she obtained Exhibit P6 order permitting her to provisionally appear for the 7th Semester examinations. While the proceedings were so continued, the application for condonation of shortage of attendance pending with the University was declined as per Exhibit P7. Since the orders passed by this Court was provisional and her application for condonation of shortage of attendance was not favourably considered by the University, she was not permitted to appear for the 7th Semester examination. The writ petition eventually was disposed of by Exhibit P8, directing the Syndicate of the University to consider the application dated 11.04.2011 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This Court, in Exhibit P8, also noticed the contention of the petitioner, relying on Clause 10A.6 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Examination Manual and Clauses 3(xviii) and 3 (xxvii) of Chapter 6 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. This Court, in Exhibit P8, also noticed the contention of the petitioner, relying on Clause 10A.6 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Examination Manual and Clauses 3(xviii) and 3 (xxvii) of Chapter 6 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. However, this Court did not make any observation on the same and merely noticed the above provisions, as the contention of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Syndicate, by the above noted provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, has ample power to condone the attendance shortage even beyond the 10% stipulated by the Regulations. It is also contended that the Mahatma Gandhi University Examination Manual provides for condonation up to 10 days and the petitioner's attendance shortage is slightly more than 10 days, being 10.35 days. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, would contend that the Examination Manual is not applicable, as the University has come out with Regulations under the First Statutes, which provides for minimum 75% attendance in any particular year and condonation being allowable only up to 10% of the actual working days. 6. Going by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, in the 7th Semester there were a total of 63 working days and the petitioner has attended classes only for 36.9 days. Working out the percentage, 6.3 days attendance shortage could have been condoned, going by the regulations. However, the attendance shortage of the petitioner was to the extent of 10.35 days. The contention of the petitioner is that Exhibit P10 issued by the 3rd respondent-College would indicate that subsequently, along with the junior batch, she has appeared for 11 working days and that would in fact resolve the attendance shortage alleged against her. The learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, would assert that the 3rd respondent-College had absolutely no power or authority to permit such continuance by the petitioner in a different batch to cover up the attendance shortage of the petitioner in the regular batch, which was during the period 2010-11. 7. Admittedly the petitioner had attendance shortage beyond the condonable limit in the 7th Semester course. This was the ground on which she was not permitted to write the 7th Semester examination. Subsequently, though she had appeared for the 8th Semester examinations, it was only on the strength of the interim orders issued by this Court. 7. Admittedly the petitioner had attendance shortage beyond the condonable limit in the 7th Semester course. This was the ground on which she was not permitted to write the 7th Semester examination. Subsequently, though she had appeared for the 8th Semester examinations, it was only on the strength of the interim orders issued by this Court. The interim order was issued only on the premise that she had already appeared for the 7th Semester examination and that she had sufficient attendance in the 8th Semester course. There is no dispute that the petitioner attended the 8th Semester course only for 13 days after issuance of Exhibit P3 order. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner did not have the attendance either for the 7th Semester or the 8th Semester course. 8. The petitioner had appeared for the 8th Semester examination only by virtue of the interim order of this Court, which, again, was provisional and would depend upon the final result of the writ petition. The University having framed the Regulations, which are statutory in nature, the petitioner's reliance on the Mahatma Gandhi University Examination Manual cannot be countenanced by this Court. Going by the Regulations, she had exceeded the condonable limit of shortage of attendance and, hence, the Vice-Chancellor could not have condoned the shortage of attendance; going by the prescription in the Regulations. The reliance placed on Clauses 3(xviii) and 3(xxvii) of Chapter 6 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 is no more relevant, since the Syndicate delegated its authority to the Vice-Chancellor, who has passed Exhibit P9 order. Exhibit P9 is issued in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P8 judgment. 9. The facts above noticed by this Court does not persuade this Court to make any interference. The petitioner, admittedly, did not have the required attendance either in the 7th Semester or in the 8th Semester course and the admittance to the 8th Semester examination was only provisional. The petitioner, necessarily, would have to repeat the 7th and 8th Semester courses in the 3rd respondent-College. If the petitioner makes an application for the same before the University, the University shall take necessary steps to facilitate the continuance of the petitioner in the 7th and 8th Semester courses with the 3rd respondent-College at the earliest possible instance. The petitioner, necessarily, would have to repeat the 7th and 8th Semester courses in the 3rd respondent-College. If the petitioner makes an application for the same before the University, the University shall take necessary steps to facilitate the continuance of the petitioner in the 7th and 8th Semester courses with the 3rd respondent-College at the earliest possible instance. The writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for and re-join the 7th and 8th Semester courses. The parties are left to suffer their respective costs.