Judgment :- 1. With consent of both the parties, heard this matter for final disposal. 2. The petitioner submits that he is a student of M.B.B.S. and he has completed all the subjects up to Phase-Ill of Part-I. He had to appear for Phase-Ill of Part-II M.B.B.S examination in the month of December, 2014. The Hall Ticket for the said purpose was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had to appear for three theory papers to be held on 26.12.2014 and 29.12.2014, for which there was no problem. In respect of other theory i.e., Pediatrics paper to be held on 31.12.2014, the respondent authorities expressed their inability to permit the petitioner to take up the examination on the ground of shortage of attendance. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has been regular to the classes, both theory and practicals of all the subjects, right from the beginning. There is no reason or cause for the petitioner to suffer shortage of attendance in only one subject. It may be due to error in daily attendance marking or due to wrong marking of attendance by the respondent. The respondent authorities informed the petitioner orally on 23.12.2014. If the petitioner is not permitted to take up the examination in Pediatrics subject, he would not remain a regular M.B.B.S candidate. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. 4. This Court by the order dated 26.12.2014 permitted the petitioner to take up the examination and accordingly petitioner has written the examination in Pediatric subject as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that throughout his study in the M.B.B.S. course, the petitioner is a studious and he has not disobeyed any regulations and instructions issued by the College. Under these circumstances, denying result of the petitioner in one subject is arbitrary on the part of the respondents. Hence, learned counsel submits that the impugned action of respondent No.3-College as well as the University is to be goaded and direction be issued to the respondent-University and College to announce the result of the petitioner, 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-College submits that the petitioner is not having the requisite attendance for the purpose of consideration. Hence, learned counsel submits that the impugned action of respondent No.3-College as well as the University is to be goaded and direction be issued to the respondent-University and College to announce the result of the petitioner, 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-College submits that the petitioner is not having the requisite attendance for the purpose of consideration. As per the University regulations and the orders of the High Court in various judgments, including the judgment reported in 2012 (2) KCCR 1180 (Kumari Sharmila vs., State of Karnataka & others) 75% is the minimum attendance. The petitioner was given earlier notice in order to facilitate him to upgrade the requisite attendance. The head of the department of pediatrics published a notification on 18.11.2014 about the shortage of attendance. Examinations were conducted on 3J. 12.2014. Initially the petitioner was not permitted to take up the examination. However, this Court has granted interim order, pursuant to which the petitioner was permitted to appear for the examination. As per the notification, out of 89 students, 12 students including this petitioner were lacking in requisite attendance. In the notification issued by the head of the department, petitioner's name is at Sl.No.37, which discloses that in theory he has 59% of attendance and in practical he has 71% of attendance. Since the minimum attendance required is 75% for taking up examination, the petitioner was denied from taking up examination. In theory out of 64 classes he has attended 38 classes, which comes to 59.37% and in practical out of 51 classes he had attended 39 classes, which comes to 71% and on calculating, it would not come to minimum of 75% attendance. Under these circumstances, he submits that the impugned action is justified and submits to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the action on the part of the third respondent in denying taking up examination in Pediatrics subject for want of attendance is justifiable. It is as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court and also the regulations of Rajiv Gandhi University and hence submits to dismiss this writ petition. 8. I have heard both sides. I have gone through the material and judgments placed on record. It is not in dispute that to take up the examination, the minimum attendance required is 75%. 8. I have heard both sides. I have gone through the material and judgments placed on record. It is not in dispute that to take up the examination, the minimum attendance required is 75%. The brochure of Rajiv Gandhi University provided by the petitioner's counsel, in Section III, item No.2 it is provided regarding minimum attendance. For the purpose of convenience item No.2 is extracted hereunder: "2. Attendance Every candidate should have attendance not less than 75% of the total classes conducted in theory, practical and clinical jointly in each calendar year calculated from the date of commencement of the term to the last working day as notified by the University in each of the subjects prescribed to be eligible to appear for the university examination, (vide Medical Council of India Notification on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations 2003, published in the Gazette of India Part III Section 4, Extraordinary issued on 15th October 2003) The Principal should notify at the College the attendance details at the end of each term without fail under intimation to this University." 9. A plain reading of the said provision clarifies the position beyond doubt that minimum attendance that is required to take up the examination is 75% which has to be calculated on the basis of total classes conducted in theory, practical and clinical jointly and the student attended the said classes in each calendar year. No doubt, in this case, if the practical alone is considered, it comes to 71% but in respect of theory classes of the subject in question, it comes to 59.37%. As per the guidelines referred to above, if both are jointly calculated, it comes to 65%. Even then, the petitioner lacks minimum attendance of 75%. 10. I have considered the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has completed all the subjects and his career is depending upon the declaration of result in the said one subject. If the result is announced and the petitioner is declared passed, he would become a doctor, otherwise he would have to wait for one more year. 11.As it is referred in the University regulations, the minimum attendance is 75% but on the face of it, it is seen that the petitioner has got 65% attendance. It is submitted by the third respondent that the notification was issued on 18.11.2014 and examination was scheduled to be conducted on 31.12.2014. 11.As it is referred in the University regulations, the minimum attendance is 75% but on the face of it, it is seen that the petitioner has got 65% attendance. It is submitted by the third respondent that the notification was issued on 18.11.2014 and examination was scheduled to be conducted on 31.12.2014. The time between the date of notification and the date of examination is less than one and half months that means to say about 37 working days. It is not clear in the said 37 working days, how many classes were conducted in Pediatric subject. If the petitioner was issued notice of shortage of attendance periodically by splitting the term into three-four equal parts, he would have got an opportunity to make good the attendance either by approaching the head of the department as to the irregularity in marking the attendance, calculation or omission to mark the attendance as the case may be. In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that his request to rectify the mistake was turned down on 24.12.2014. If it is informed to the student that he has shortage of attendance periodically, then definitely he could have attended the classes regularly or sought for rectification in marking the attendance etc., But the date of notification was issued at the fag end of the examination. Even thereafter, if he had been regular to the classes, it is not clear, whether he could have recouped the minimum attendance. At the end of each term has to be taken as split of three-four equal parts of that term and at the end of each such part of period, the student must be communicated so that the student would have an opportunity to make good the same, as otherwise, the very communication to the student would be rendered redundant. There may be a case where a student enters the college little late or may be a case though he attended the classes, chance of not marking the attendance. But whatever may be the case, an opportunity should have been there for the student more particularly in the professional courses with an intent to enabling the student to make good the required attendance. The State Government and the Central Government spend huge amount on these students of professional courses in addition to their payment of fee. Even the parents of such students spend more money for their study. The State Government and the Central Government spend huge amount on these students of professional courses in addition to their payment of fee. Even the parents of such students spend more money for their study. Every amount so spent by the Government and the parents of such students is accountable. Keeping all these factors in view and the public interest at large, this Court feels that the Colleges must notify about the shortage of attendance of the students on the notice board by splitting each term into three-four parts and at the end of each such part period, student should be notified so that the students would get an opportunity to make good the attendance. Issuance of notification at the fag end of the course is in no way helpful and will not serve the intent behind notifying the student about shortage of attendance. In the instant case, the petitioner has been deprived of such an opportunity by notifying the shortage of attendance at the fag end. The petitioner had no opportunity to make good the shortage of attendance. By considering all these aspects, I am inclined to direct the colleges to issue notification of shortage of attendance periodically by splitting each term into three-four parts and notify the shortage of attendance at the end of each such part period, which would be in full compliance of principles of natural justice. Otherwise, it would be an arbitrary action and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, It should be believed that every student is worth to the Nation and his future is to be taken into consideration, and no student can be denied of his right to take up the examination without duly following the principles of natural justice, in the light of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner had been permitted by this Court to take up the examination, in the interest of equity and justice, I pass the following: ORDER Respondent No.3 is directed to announce the result of the petitioner. In future, the notification of shortage of attendance shall be published by splitting each term into three-four parts and at the end of each such part period, so that students would be able to workout to make good the attendance. Writ Petition is according disposed of.