ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent - University to permit the petitioner to appear in LL.M. Course. 2. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner has taken admission under the respondent - University for LL.M. Course., however, on account of shortage of attendance he has not been permitted to appear in the examination. Various reasons have been assigned for shortage of attendance and the admitted fact is that the petitioner does not have the attendance required for the course. 75% of the attendance is mandatory and the petitioner did not attend the classes. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent - University has drawn attention of this Court towards Regulations framed by the University. Regulation 12.1 provides for 75% of the attendance. Regulations 14.1 to 14.6 reads as under : 14.1: Each Department/Constituent Unit of the University will prescribe “Guided Self Study Course” for the course units in which the students fail or are detained due to shortage of attendance in a semester and arrange counseling sessions for the students on weekends and holidays in the same odd or even semesters. 14.2: The students who are detained due to shortage of attendance in any subject of semester, shall register with their Department/Constituent Unit for Guided Self Study Course in the beginning of next semester/ year scheduled for next batch of students. They will be required to pay a fee per subject as prescribed by the Department/Constituent Units. 14.3: Such students will have to attend contact classes as and when scheduled by the Department/ Constituent Unit on weekends/ holidays in the relevant semester to complete the package of study for the course designed by the Department/ Constituent Unit. 14.4: The Departments/Constituent Units may prescribe term papers/ home assignments which the students will submit to their teachers subject wise within the due dates. 14.5: The regularity in attending the classes and prompt submission of assignments by due date will determine whether a debarred or detained candidate is permitted to take the re-examination or not. The schedule for regular collection and submission of term paper/ home assignment will be announced by the Department/ Constituent Unit. 14.5: The regularity in attending the classes and prompt submission of assignments by due date will determine whether a debarred or detained candidate is permitted to take the re-examination or not. The schedule for regular collection and submission of term paper/ home assignment will be announced by the Department/ Constituent Unit. 14.6: Only those students who register for Guided Self Study Course and complete the requirements as prescribed by the Department/ Constituent Unit will be permitted to take the examination in the respective subject when the examinations of such course units are conducted in normal schedule along with the next batch of students. The scheme of re-examination will be announced by the University on receipt of report from the Department/Constituent Unit. 4. The aforesaid Regulations do provide for a procedure for a student in case he is having short attendance to make up the deficiency in attendance. The petitioner has not taken steps as per Regulation 14.1 to 14.6. 5. This Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the regulations governing the field, the University was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of permission to appear in the examination. However, if the petitioner approaches the University, keeping in view of Regulation 14.1 to 14.6, the University shall be taking appropriate action in accordance with law. The question of permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination even though he is short of attendance, does not arise. 6. The apex Court in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another, reported in ( AIR 1993 SC 2412 ), in paragraph 6 has held as under : 6. Sri Gambhir is right in his submission. We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions. 7. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rutvj Waze and others v. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No.1254 / 2014, decided on 13.2.2015), has dealt with the scope of interference of High Court in the academic matters / policy matters. 8. Keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Rutvj Waze (supra), as a regulation is in existence which does not permit a student having less than 75% marks to appear in the examination, the question of permitting the petitioner does not arise. 9. Accordingly, the admission is declined. 10. A copy of this order be kept in the record of Writ Petition No.3053/2015 also.