Judgment : 1. The petitioners are the students of 6th semester B.A.L, LL.B course in the 4th respondent college and are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent University not to permit them to appear for the 6th semester examinations. The decision of the University obviously is for reason of attendance shortage. Though the petitioners contend that a representation has been made to the University for condonation of attendance shortage, as is disclosed in Ext.P5, the learned Standing Counsel for the University contends that no such representation has been received and that in any event Regulations prescribe an application for condonation of attendance shortage to be forwarded and recommended by the Principal of the College in which the student is studying. Even the petitioners do not have a case that they have filed an application before the 4th respondent for forwarding, an application for condonation of shortage of attendance, to the University. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a statement admitting that there had been loss of classes due to very many reasons and that the teachers had made good the deficiency by holding additional classes on Saturdays and even on other holidays. The Principal of the 4th respondent categorically states that as on 25.9.2013 the percentage of attendance of the petitioners were as follows: Reshma : 33% Visakh Darsan : 12% Manumon : 29% Akhil Asokan : 42% 3. Subsequently also classes were held to enable the students to obtain required percentage of attendance and to complete the syllabus. The 4th petitioner alone attended the classes so held and in his case since he had acquired the required attendance for making an application for condonation of shortage, ie. 65% of the total classes held, his application for condonation has been forwarded to the University. 4. However, none of the other petitioners made up their shortage by attending classes regularly. Their shortage in any case could not have been made up even if they had attended classes after 29.5.2013, since their attendance percentage was very low. In the context of the said submission made by the Principal and also looking at the Regulation of the University which permits condonation only upto 10%, the requirement as such being 75% attendance, the petitioners 1 to 3 do not have a valid claim to be permitted to appear for the 6th semester examinations. In the context of the said submission made by the Principal and also looking at the Regulation of the University which permits condonation only upto 10%, the requirement as such being 75% attendance, the petitioners 1 to 3 do not have a valid claim to be permitted to appear for the 6th semester examinations. The 4th petitioner necessarily can be permitted to appear for the 6th semester examination provisionally and the publication of the results would depend upon the orders passed by the University on the application for condonation of attendance of shortage forwarded by the Principal of the college. 5. In the case of respondents 1 to 3 however their attendance shortage, far exceeds the condonable limit and they cannot be permitted to appear for the examination. The learned counsel for the petitioners would however urge that the representation filed by the petitioners may be directed to be considered by the University as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Rashid Kapadia V. Medha Gadgil and others (2012 KHC 4399) held that the right to make a representation and have it considered by the Authority is a Constitutional right. It is to be first noticed that it is the specific contention of the University that no such representation as is contended by the petitioners and produced as Ext.P5, is received by the University. It is also to be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the said observations in the case of preventive detention and the right was considered under the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The same is not applicable in the present case, since the petitioners have neither a Constitutional right nor a statutory right to claim condonation of attendance beyond the what is permissible by the Regulations. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.