ORDER C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in detaining the petitioner in the 1st semester of III year B.Tech course, on account of shortage of attendance, without considering the medical leave for major surgery, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to permit him to write the 1st semester of IIIrd year examinations of B. Tech course scheduled to be held from 17.11.2014. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. The petitioner pleaded that while pursuing his 1st semester IIIrd year B.Tech course, he was advised to undergo knee surgery for an injury sustained by him as a football player. That his father has addressed a letter, which was received on 26.07.2014 by the Principal of respondent No. 2 college in which the petitioner is studying, wherein he has informed that as his son is undergoing a knee surgery at Sunshine Hospital on 31.07.2014, he needs rest for a period of 30 days. Therefore, he has requested for grant of medical leave of 30 days. The petitioner pleaded that after taking rest for about 40 days after surgery, he started attending classes and that, however, to his shock and surprise, a notice was put up in the notice board on 08.11.2014 to the effect that he was detained. He has further pleaded that as against the minimum attendance of 75%, he has only 37% of attendance due to the said illness and that in view of the bona fide reasons for the shortage of attendance, the same deserves to be condoned by respondent No. 1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while as per the University Regulations, a student must have a minimum of 75% attendance and the University has power to condone shortage upto 10%, on the facts of the present case where the petitioner was compelled to undergo a surgery, special and sympathetic consideration deserves to be extended to the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. 6. The attendance of students of the colleges affiliated to respondent No. 1 University is governed by Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations framed by respondent No. 1. The said Regulation reads as under: "5. 5. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. 6. The attendance of students of the colleges affiliated to respondent No. 1 University is governed by Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations framed by respondent No. 1. The said Regulation reads as under: "5. Attendance Requirements: i. A student shall be eligible to appear for University examinations if he acquires a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects; ii. Shortage of Attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in NO case be condoned. iii. Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate up to 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester or I year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. iv. A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/I year, as applicable. They may seek re-admission for that semester/I year when offered next. v. Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/I year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. vi. A stipulated fee shall be payable towards Condonation of shortage of attendance." 7. In B. Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College 2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.), a Division Bench of this Court, of which I am a party, has dealt with a more or less similar case, where an Engineering student failed to achieve the minimum prescribed attendance of 75% due to viral fever. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed by a learned single Judge. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the student has filed a writ appeal. The Division Bench has noticed earlier Division Bench judgment in M.S. Chakravarthi v. Principal, Sri Kalahasteeswara Institute of Technology 2005 (2) ALT 184 : 2005 (1) ALT 253 (D.B.) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 298 and held as under: "6. The above reproduced regulation was interpreted by the Division Bench in M.S. Chakravarthi (supra). After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra), the Division Bench held: "Since nobody has power to condone the attendance below 65% therefore, it should be assumed that even this Court cannot order such a condonation. Something which is prohibited by the Regulations cannot be subject-matter of a mandamus." 7. After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra), the Division Bench held: "Since nobody has power to condone the attendance below 65% therefore, it should be assumed that even this Court cannot order such a condonation. Something which is prohibited by the Regulations cannot be subject-matter of a mandamus." 7. In Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra), the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the plea of sympathy and held: "Considering that this case concerns the career of a young student we tried to look at the matter with all possible sympathy and consideration but we do not see how we can direct or compel an authority to do something which is beyond its legal competence to do. Since the principal is the only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not see how we can intervene in favour of the petitioner even if the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for condonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of his academic life we are in law bound to confirm the decision of the High Court, and dismiss the petitioner's appeal. We, therefore, do so. In the circumstances of this case, however, we are making no order as to costs." 8. In view of the aforementioned judgments, it must be held that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the respondents to admit the appellant in I semester examination of the 4th year and thereby violate the mandate of Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations." 8. In view of the ratio laid down in M.S. Chakravarthi (supra), Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra) and B. Yugandhar (supra), this Court cannot direct respondent No. 1 to act contrary to Regulation 5 of its Academic Regulations, for such regulation does not contain any exceptions for condonation of shortage of attendance beyond 10% for any reason whatsoever including the reason of ill health of the students. If the University has no power to condone the shortage, this Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to it, in violation of the mandate of Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations. 9. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. If the University has no power to condone the shortage, this Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to it, in violation of the mandate of Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations. 9. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 42853 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.