ORDER : Petitioners are seeking for quashing of endorsements issued to them, whereunder they have been intimated by their College in which they are studying namely Dayananda Sagar College of Arts, Science and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as” college’) that they have achieved attendance less than prescribed by the Bangalore University Regulation and as such, they would not be issued with Hall Tickets for the examination due to be held. They are also seeking for further a direction to permit them to write remaining examinations of 4th Semester and 6th Semester B.Com and 4th Semester Business Management. 2. It is the contention of petitioners that they are all studying in respondent- College and for academic year 2015-2016, which commenced on 28.12.2015 and ended on 23.4.2016, they have achieved requisite attendance prescribed by the University and on account of certain Co-Curricular activities conducted during the academic year by the college, they could not attend regular classes but they have attended additional classes and had skipped classes only on those days on which there were Co-Curricular activities and same also had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating or reckoning their percentage of attendance. It is also their contention that College had collected examination fee, being aware of the deficit in attendance and thereby made petitioners to believe that they are entitled to appear and write ensuing examinations deemed to be held during May 2016 and had never intimated petitioners about shortage of attendance and at the end of academic year just before commencement of final examination they have been denied hall tickets for examination on the ground that they do not possess requisite attendance and same is illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. It is further contended that impugned endorsements issued to petitioners are without verifying the true and correct facts. They further contend that students studying in same courses in other colleges, under same Management at Kanakapura, Hall tickets have been issued though they had less than 75% attendance and intention of respondent-College by issuing impugned endorsements to the writ petitioners is only with an intention to collect fees for academic year 2016-2017 by detaining petitioners in the same classes. As such, they have sought for quashing of the impugned order. 4. As such, they have sought for quashing of the impugned order. 4. On service of notice, respondent-College has appeared, filed their statement of objections denying the averments made in the petitions except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. It is specifically contended by respondent-College that Bangalore University has prescribed number of hours in which each student will have to attend the class during academic year and achieve the attendance which should not be less than 75% of number of classes actually held by the end of the year and on account of petitioners not having achieved the same, petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to seek for a direction for issuance of Hall tickets or permission to be granted to write examinations. 5. It is also denied by the respondent-College that question of considering attendance in respect of days on which certain extra curricular activities were conducted would not arise, since the Regulations of the University prescribes that only if a candidate represents the Institution/University/State/Nation in sports or NCC or NSS and cultural functions, then attendance can be granted for those days as otherwise attendance cannot be granted if students have not attended classes for any other reason. On these grounds, they have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths Nataraj H.C., Vikas Mahendra, Lakshmanachar K.V. and Sindhu learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2. However, Respondent No.3-University is duly served in other writ petitions, but none have appeared. Learned Advocates appearing for the parties have reiterated the contentions raised in the respective petitions. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, on perusal of records and after bestowing my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, it would emerge from the records that petitioners had been detained or in other words, hall tickets have not been issued to them for appearing in the examinations, which was due to be held during May-June 2016 for the respective streams in which petitioners are studying on the ground that they did not have attendance as prescribed by University. 8. The academic year 2015-2016 commenced as per the notification issued by the Bangalore University on 14.12.2015 and Calendar of Events of even Semesters i.e., II/IV/VI/VIII for under-graduate courses B.A/B.Sc/B/Com/BBM/BHM/BV/B.Sc(FAD)/BCA courses is as under: Sl. 8. The academic year 2015-2016 commenced as per the notification issued by the Bangalore University on 14.12.2015 and Calendar of Events of even Semesters i.e., II/IV/VI/VIII for under-graduate courses B.A/B.Sc/B/Com/BBM/BHM/BV/B.Sc(FAD)/BCA courses is as under: Sl. No. Name of the Event Date fixed for 2015-16 1 Re-opening of even semesters i.e., II/IV/VI/VIII Semesters 28.12.2016 2 Last Working day for even semester (end of Academic session after 90 days) 23.04.2016 3 Commencement of vacation 24.04.2016 4 Commencement of practical examination 18.04.2016 5 Last date to submit Internal Assessment marks by the teachers to the Principal of the colleges 23.04.2016 6 Last date to submit Internal Assessment Marks to the University 30.04.2016 7. Commencement of Theory examination 02.05.2016 8. Commencement of valuation of major subjects (having more number of students) in B.Com, English, Mathematics, economics, etc., 16.05.2016 9. Closing of theory examination 28.05.2016 10. Commencement of valuation of all other subjects. 23.05.2016 11. Re-opening of odd semester I, III V semesters)(and VII semester for BHM) 20.06.2016 9. Bangalore University by communication dated 23.9.2011 has communicated to all its affiliated colleges that as per the Regulations governing under-graduate and P.G. Courses, student has to satisfy a minimum of 75% of attendance in each subject out of 90 working days in each semesters to become eligible for appearing in the examinations as per Annexure-R3. By virtue of power conferred under Section 44(1)(C) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, the Bangalore University has framed Regulations in this regard, which governs the Choice Based Credit System (Semester System) for Under-graduate and Integrated Masters Degree Programmes in the faculties of Arts, Science and Commerce. Same has been produced by respondent-College as per AnnexureR4. A perusal of the said Regulation would clearly indicate that mandate with regard to attendance is stipulated under Regulation 8 and it reads as under: “8. ATTENDANCE AND CHANGE OF SUBJECTS: 8.1 A candidate shall be considered to have satisfied the requirement of attendance for semester if he/she attends not less than 75% of the number of classes actually held up to the end of semester in each of the subjects. There shall be no minimum attendance requirement for the Co-Curricular and extension activities. 8.2 An option to change a language/subject may be exercised only once within four weeks from the date of commencement of the I Semester. There shall be no minimum attendance requirement for the Co-Curricular and extension activities. 8.2 An option to change a language/subject may be exercised only once within four weeks from the date of commencement of the I Semester. 8.3 Wherever a change in a subject is permitted the attendance in the changed subject shall be calculated by taking into consideration the attendance in the previous subject studied. 8.4 If a candidate represents his/her institution/University/Karnataka State/Nation in Sports/NCC/NSS/Cultural or any officially sponsored activities he/she may be permitted to claim attendance for actual number of days participated, based on the recommendation of the Head of the Institution concerned. If a candidate is selected to participate in national level events such as Republic day Parade etc., he/she may be permitted to claim attendance for actual number of days participated based on the recommendation of the head of the institution concerned.” 10. The revised syllabus for the academic year 2014-2015 in respect of BBA (CBCS) Decree Semester Scheme issued by the Bangalore University as per AnnexureR8 would also indicate that under Clause VI (b) “A student shall be considered to have satisfied the requirement of attendance for the semester, if he/she has attended not less than 75% in aggregate of the number of working periods in each of the subjects compulsorily.” Thus, for both streams i.e., B.Com and B.B.A minimum attendance of 75% is mandatory for a student to be eligible to appear in the examination. There is no dispute to this factual aspect. 11. Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court while examining the claim of Engineering students studying in Visvesvaraiah College of Engineering had taken note of the Regulation of AICTE, as well as Regulation of the University relating to attendance requirement and found that University Regulation prescribes 75% attendance in any subject being minimum and candidates having less than 75% of attendance have to repeat that particular semester along with regular students of that semester during the next academic year. The question that came up for consideration in said writ petition was: (i) Whether University had fixed higher minimum standard? AND (ii) Whether Regulations of the University is in conflict or at variance of the Regulations of the AICTE? The question that came up for consideration in said writ petition was: (i) Whether University had fixed higher minimum standard? AND (ii) Whether Regulations of the University is in conflict or at variance of the Regulations of the AICTE? and on facts, it was found in the said Writ Petition No.22134/2011 disposed of on 27.07.2011, that students had put in attendance ranging from 40% to 55% and it was found that none of the candidates had put in 75% attendance in all subjects as per the requirement of the Regulations of the University and as such, denied the prayer of petitioners. 12. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that a student has to undergo requisite training to acquire knowledge, learning discipline in the prescribed manner. When the Regulations of the University mandates the requirement of 75% of attendance to be possessed by a candidate to be eligible to appear in a particular semester examination, any short fall thereof cannot be condoned. Thus, the prescription of 75% of attendance by the University has to be achieved by the petitioners in these cases and there cannot be any dispute to the said fact at all. 13. In the instant case, academic year commenced as already noticed hereinabove on 28.12.2015 and came to be ended on 23.4.2016. On the one hand, petitioners have contended that they do possess requisite attendance and there has been improper calculation of attendance. On the other hand, respondent-College has justified its calculation and stated that there is no error committed by it in this regard. Yet another contention raised by the petitioners is that cultural festivals, officially conducted programmes by the colleges on the working days have been attended too by them and for the said programmes attended by them, respondent-College has not awarded attendance. As such, there is an error committed by respondent-College. Last contention which has been raised is that the denominator used for the purpose of computation of attendance is also erroneous and as such by using appropriate denominator, if the number of classes attended by the respective petitioners is reckoned on the basis of the attendance statement produced by the respondent college itself, petitioners would have 75% attendance as prescribed by the University. As such, they have sought for grant of prayers made by them. 14. As such, they have sought for grant of prayers made by them. 14. In so far as the first contention with regard to claiming attendance for having participated in cultural programmes/sports etc., is concerned, it has to be examined in the background of the Regulation 8 which has been extracted herein above. 15. Regulation 8.4 of the University makes it clear that if a candidate represents his/her Institution or University or Karnataka State or Nation in Sports or NCC or NSS or Cultural or any officially sponsored activities, he or she may be permitted to claim attendance for actual number of days participated. That apart, if a candidate is selected to participate in the national level events, such as, Republic Day parade etc., then such student/s would be permitted to claim actual number of days participated based on the recommendation of the Head of the Institution for reckoning his or her attendance. In the instant case, (except in W.P.No.28630/2016 and W.P.No.28729/2016) all other petitioners have specifically contended that the college during the academic year 2015-2016 conducted the following activities. The extra curricular activities during the year 2015 are as under: (a) Appaji College Fest for two days. (b) Ethnic day for one day. (c) Gramya award winner day for one day. (d) College day for one day. (e) Sports day for two days. Thus, the total number of days which petitioners claim to have attended all the above functions conducted by respondent-College is in total 7 days. The respondent College in the statement of objections filed at Paragraph No.8 has contended to the following effect: 8. 2nd Respondent respectfully submits that the 3rd Respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 44 (1)[c] of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 has framed regulations governing the semester scheme for under graduate and integrated Master Degree Programmes for faculties in Arts, Science and Commerce. The said regulations have statutory force. As could be seen from the preamble, the purpose of framing the said regulations is that new challenges in higher education have led to praradigm shift in the reconceptualising this sector in terms of what constitutes higher education and what the goals of this education ought to be. Having regard to the purposed with which the regulations are framed, the University has prescribed the attendance criteria to stand eligible to appear for the semester examination. Having regard to the purposed with which the regulations are framed, the University has prescribed the attendance criteria to stand eligible to appear for the semester examination. The relevant clause contained in the regulations reads as under: “8. Attendance and change of Subjects: 8.1 A candidate shall be considered to have satisfied the requirement of attendance for semester if he/she attends not less than 75% of the number of classes actually held up to the end of semester in each of the subjects. There shall be no minimum attendance requirement for the Co-Curricular and extension activities. 8.2 An option to change a language/subject may be exercised only once within four weeks from the date of commencement of the I Semester. 8.3 Wherever a change in a subject is permitted the attendance in the changed subject shall be calculated by taking into consideration the attendance in the previous subject studied. 8.4 If a candidate represents his/her institution/University/Karnataka State/Nation in Sports/NCC/NSS/Cultural or any officially sponsored activities he/she may be permitted to claim attendance for actual number of days participated, based on the recommendation of the Head of the Institution concerned. If a candidate is selected to participate in national level events such as Republic day Parade etc., he/she may be permitted to claim attendance for actual number of days participated based on the recommendation of the head of the institution concerned.” 16. A perusal of Regulation 8.1 would clearly indicate that a candidate who has satisfied the requirement of attendance by attending not less than 75% of number of classes actually held upto the end of semester in each of the subjects, such candidate would satisfy the criteria of minimum attendance. 17. Under Regulation 8.2 the candidate has an option to change either the language or subject in first semester and it can be exercised only once within four (4) weeks from the date of commencement of first semester and Regulation 8.3 would indicate that in case of a candidate being permitted to change the subject, such candidate would be entitled to attendance by calculating the attendance in the previous subject studied. 18. Regulation 8.4 enables the candidate to claim attendance for actual number of days of participation by representing the institution, University, State, Nation in Sports/NCC/NSS, Cultural or any officially sponsored activities. 18. Regulation 8.4 enables the candidate to claim attendance for actual number of days of participation by representing the institution, University, State, Nation in Sports/NCC/NSS, Cultural or any officially sponsored activities. Said Regulation also enables the candidate to claim attendance for number of days participated, if selected to participate any national events such as Republic Day Parade, etc. 19. The specific stand of the respondent-College is that on account of petitioners having not represented the Institution/University or Karnataka State/Nation in sports/NCC/NSS or cultural Programme, they cannot be permitted to claim attendance for actual number of days in respect of other programmes conducted by the college. However, their contention is that 2nd respondent has not considered their attendance for Appaji College fest for two days, Ethnic day for one day, Gramya award winner day for one day, college day function for one day and Sports day for two days if considered and accepted, then petitioners would be entitled to claim attendance for three days also. It is no doubt true that none of the petitioners have represented the Institution or University to claim set off the attendance under first part of Clause 8.4 of the Regulations. 20. One relevant factor which has been lost sight of by respondent-College is the fact that Regulation 8.4 of University not only enables a candidate to seek attendance in respect of the programmes attended by such students which was conducted by the University, by representing the University/State/Nation etc., but even in respect of those functions or progammes which is officially sponsored activities conducted by college, even then students would be entitled to claim the benefit flowing from Regulation 8.4. In other words, where the event or programme is conducted by the college during working hours or on a working day and such function or programme conducted by the college is attended to by the candidate, even in such circumstances, he or she could be permitted to claim attendance for actual number of days of participation. As such, this benefit deserves to be extended to the petitioners in the instant case, in as much as, respondent/college has not denied specifically about petitioners having not attended the functions, programmes, sports day, as claimed by the petitioners in their respective petitions. As such, this benefit deserves to be extended to the petitioners in the instant case, in as much as, respondent/college has not denied specifically about petitioners having not attended the functions, programmes, sports day, as claimed by the petitioners in their respective petitions. In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that such benefit of claiming attendance by the petitioners by virtue of Regulation 8.4 of the Bangalore University Regulations, they would be entitled to seek for reckoning their attendance for these days also. 21. The next issue which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is with regard to denominator adopted by respondent-College for arriving at the percentage of attendance. In so for as the 6th semester BBA is concerned, respondent-College as per Annexure-R 42, has construed the denominator as 434 total number of classes conducted during the academic year as the basis (denominator), which includes 16 internal days attendance. 22. In W.P.No.28729/2016, petitioner has produced the attendance register published in the notice Board of respondent-College, which is at Annexure-H. A perusal of same would indicate that attendance status report of each of the students as indicated therein and it relates to the period 28.12.2015 to 23.4.2016 and even according to respondent-College the total number of classes held during the said period is 418 and this is taken as the denominator for purposes of calculating the percentage of the candidates. As could be seen from Annexure-H, first respondent-College has calculated the percentage of attendance of first candidate Ms.Apeksha S on said basis. Total number of classes attended by her is 371 i.e., 355+16 (internals). The total number of classes attended by Ms.Apeksha being 371 has been multiplied by the factor 100 and divided by the denominator 418 (total number of classes held during the academic year) her percentage of attendance has been arrived at 88.76% and same has been rounded off to 89%. (371x100/418 = 88.76%). In that view of the matter, respondent-College was not justified in construing denominator as 434 while calculating the percentage of attendance of petitioners. Yet another aspect which has been lost sight of by the respondent-College is the fact that it allowed the petitioners to remit examination fees and as per the conditions prescribed by the Bangalore University, colleges were not entitled to receive examination fees from students who were not possessing requisite attendance. Yet another aspect which has been lost sight of by the respondent-College is the fact that it allowed the petitioners to remit examination fees and as per the conditions prescribed by the Bangalore University, colleges were not entitled to receive examination fees from students who were not possessing requisite attendance. In this regard, circular issued by the Bangalore University dated 22/25.2.2016 vide Annexure-R37 can be looked up, whereunder it is specifically indicated by the University to the following effect: Attendance: Students who were having 75% and above Attendance in each subject are only eligible to pay examination fees. Failure to achieve the attendance criteria as per B.U. Regulations, will make them not eligible for examination & will have to repeat the semester for attendance. Thus, respondent-College being fully aware of this fact yet allowed the petitioners to remit the examination fees. Though, no fault can be laid at the doors of respondent-College in this regard and obviously under the impression that respective candidates would make up for the deficit attendance and to ensure that in the event of such candidates being able to make up the deficit attendance would not be able to appear for examination if they have not paid such fee, has accepted fees from petitioners. This is no doubt, in the interest of the students. However, the fact that respondent college had also accepted the fees from petitioners and other similarly placed students cannot go unnoticed by this court and as such, this fact also requires to be taken note of by this court in granting the relief sought for by the petitioners. 23. The denominator which has been construed by respondent-College for the purpose of actual percentage of the attendance in respect of each streams to which the petitioners belong to are as under: 4th Semester 6th Semester BBA 434 B.Com 360 B.Com. 406 BBM 360 RE: W.P.No.28630/2016: 24. In the instant case, the petitioner does not seriously dispute that he had achieved 67% of attendance in the 4th Semester of the academic year 2015-2016 and it is specifically pleaded that due to his ill health “Allergic Rhino Bronchits” he had undergone treatment and has not attended classes. However, having said so, petitioner has also contended that he has got sufficient attendance and there is no shortage of attendance and respondent college has not properly evaluated his attendance. However, having said so, petitioner has also contended that he has got sufficient attendance and there is no shortage of attendance and respondent college has not properly evaluated his attendance. Except bald and vague statement there is no material placed to call upon respondent-College to establish as to whether the petitioner had achieved 75% attendance. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court, attendance register extract of all the petitioners were made available and same has been perused by this court and it has been found that petitioner has not achieved 75% attendance for the current semester and as such his claim of having achieved 75% attendance cannot be accepted and there is no merit in the said contention and it deserves to be rejected. Accordingly it stands rejected. RE: W.P.No.28729/2016: 25. Petitioner has been declared as not being eligible to take up examination of 4th Semester BBM on the ground that he is having attendance shortage. According to respondent – college petitioner is having 74% though it is 74.42%. It is not in dispute that the academic year for 4th semester BBM course commenced on 28.12.2015 and came to an end on 23.04.2016. As already noticed hereinabove, petitioner has claimed that the total number of classes conducted during the said period was 418 as against the claim of the respondent-College at 434 classes, which includes special or remedial classes. Annexure ‘H’ produced along with the writ petition would indicate that the total number of classes conducted was 418 and at paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that the subject-wise breakup and aggregate attendance for the said period i.e., 28.12.2015 to 23.04.2016, is furnished by petitioner as per Annexure ‘H’ and it was circulated among the students of the classes and also displayed on the Notice Board of the college. This factual aspect is not disputed by the respondent-College either in the statement of objections or in the additional statement of objections. However, under Annexure ‘R42’, which is the Abstract or Consolidated Attendance Statement of 4th Semester BBA students filed with the statement of objections, would indicate that total number of classes, which has been reckoned by the respondent – College is 434 or in other words, it has been taken the denominator as 434 for the purpose of calculating of the attendance of the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, total number of classes attended by the petitioner out of 434 is 283, Internal Test – 13 and Remedial Classes – 27, in all, 323. As such, by construing total number of classes attended by petitioner as 323 and denominator as 434 is calculated at 74% (i.e., 323 x 100/434 =74.42%). 26. In the statement of objections, the respondent – College has also admitted that Remedial Classes and Special Classes came to be conducted between 23.04.2016 to 27.04.2016 and 28.04.2016 to 03.05.2016 as per Annexures ‘R5’, ‘R6’, and ‘R7’ respectively. If it were to be so, the moot question that would arise is, “how to construe the denominator as 434 for the period 28.12.2015 to 27.04.2016 as per Annexure ‘R42’, when figure 418 is depicted in Annexure ‘H’ it is depicted as 418?” In other words when the document of the respondent – College itself i.e., Annexure ‘H’ depicts that the number of classes for the ‘course’ for the academic year 2016 conducted during the period from 28.12.2016 to 23.04.2016 was 418 it could not have construed the denominator as 434 and it committed an error in construing the denominator as 434. Thus, figure depicted in the attendance register extract produced along with the Statement of objections as per Annexure ‘R42’ being in variance with Annexure ‘R’ series and Annexure ‘H’, this Court is of the considered view that denominator ought to have been construed by the respondent – College for the purpose of calculating the attendance of the petitioner at 418 as against the denominator taken or construed by the respondent – College at 434. When denominator is construed as 418, the percentage of attendance achieved by the petitioner for the academic year 2015-16 would be 77.27% i.e., 323 x 100/418 = 77.27%. Hence, this petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought for. RE: W.P. Nos. 29698-29707/16, 29811-29813/16, 30256/16 and 30715/16 27. When denominator is construed as 418, the percentage of attendance achieved by the petitioner for the academic year 2015-16 would be 77.27% i.e., 323 x 100/418 = 77.27%. Hence, this petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought for. RE: W.P. Nos. 29698-29707/16, 29811-29813/16, 30256/16 and 30715/16 27. As already noticed hereinabove, in these 2nd petitions, the petitioners have claimed that the respondent had also conducted extra curricular activities during 2015-16 for the period of 7 days and as such for the said period also attendance have to be reckoned or in other words, it has to be construed as petitioners having attended College on these days and total number of periods/hours even according to the respondent being 6 hours for 7 days, it would be 42 hours and same has to be extended. Even if, number of hours per day is to be construed as four hours, the total number of hours for 7 days would be 28 hours i.e., 7 days X 4 hrs = 28 and either way, if it is construed, petitioner’s attendance for the academic year would exceed 75% as noted in the tabular column herein below: Sl. No. Name of the Petitioner & Course Writ Petition Numbers If the No. of hours is construed as 42 (in percentage) If the No. of hours is construed as 28 (in percentage) 1. N.Manjunath, * 4th Sem. B.Com. 28630/2016 77.83 74.38 * 2. G.Manikanta, 6th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 85.35 81.40 3. Rachan K.S., 6th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 85.35 81.40 4. Anusha K.S., 6th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 84.78 80.84 5. D.R.Rakshith, 6th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 83.09 79.15 6. Mukesh Sutar, 6th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 83.09 79.15 7. Sharan Manjunath, 6th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 81.69 77.74 8. Shakthi H.J., 4th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 84.23 80.78 9. Pooja Shekhar, 4th Sem. B.Com. 29698-709/2016 82.26 78.81 10. Syed Imran Ahmed, 6th Sem. B.B.M. 29698-709/2016 84.16 80.27 11. Uroas Ayman, 6th Sem. B.B.M. 29698-709/2016 85.00 81.11 12. Pranav H.M., 4th Sem. B.B.M./B.B.A. 30715/2016 74.19/77.03 70.96/73.68 13. Kushal P.S., 4th Sem. B.B.M./B.B.A. 30256/2016 75.34/78.22 72.11/74.88 14. Pallavi Reddy, 6th Sem. B.B.M. 29811-813/2016 80.27 76.38 15. Soundarya Chilkuri, * 6th Sem. B.B.M. 29811-813/2016 63.88 * 60.00- 16. Amit Dennis, 4th Sem. B.B.M./B.B.A. 29811-813/2016 76.49/79.42 73.27/76.07 17. Meghashyam N., 4th Sem. B.B.M. 28729/2016 84.10 80.87 {-75% attendance not achieved} 28. Pranav H.M., 4th Sem. B.B.M./B.B.A. 30715/2016 74.19/77.03 70.96/73.68 13. Kushal P.S., 4th Sem. B.B.M./B.B.A. 30256/2016 75.34/78.22 72.11/74.88 14. Pallavi Reddy, 6th Sem. B.B.M. 29811-813/2016 80.27 76.38 15. Soundarya Chilkuri, * 6th Sem. B.B.M. 29811-813/2016 63.88 * 60.00- 16. Amit Dennis, 4th Sem. B.B.M./B.B.A. 29811-813/2016 76.49/79.42 73.27/76.07 17. Meghashyam N., 4th Sem. B.B.M. 28729/2016 84.10 80.87 {-75% attendance not achieved} 28. While ordering notice on these petitions, this Court had permitted the respective petitioners to take up the examination and it was made clear that, it would be subject to the result of the writ petition. In the light of the prayer sought for by the petitioners being granted since all these petitioners have attendance of more than 75%, respondent-University will have to be directed to announce the results. Insofar as, the petitioner in W.P. No.28729/2016 is concerned, it is stated that he has not taken up the examination in the subject Kannada – KAN 4.1 and as such suitable directions are to be issued in this regard. 29. It is made clear that in the instant petitions, only on the ground of certain classes, which were claimed to have been attended by the petitioners or in other words extending the benefit of doubt for having been deemed to have attended classes during cultural festivals, sports day and other official functions conducted by the College, the attendance for the said days has been taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating or arriving at the number of classes attended by the respective petitioners for the academic year 2015-16. Though respondent – College have now and then taken all reasonable steps expected of an Educational Institution, this Court is of the view that relief now being granted to petitioners could have been granted by the respondent – College itself, but for the reason that none of the petitioners had sought for this prayer before the respondent – College and the petitioner-Students obviously had not anticipated this situation would arise, inasmuch, as the impugned endorsements have been issued to the petitioners on the day of the examinations were to commence. Though, this Court would have in normal course directed respondent – College itself to extend the benefit, now at this stage, it would not be appropriate and it would only be another exercise, which the College would have to undertake and same would have not served any fruitful purpose and as such, this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has moulded the relief accordingly in favour of the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. This order shall not be construed as a precedent, inasmuch as, in the peculiar facts obtained in these cases reliefs have been moulded. 30. For the reasons aforesaid, I proceed to pass the following order: (a) W.P. No.28630/2016 is hereby dismissed. (b) W.P. No.28729/2016 is hereby allowed and the impugned endorsement 3rd Annexure ‘A’ issued by the respondent – University is hereby quashed and in lieu of the petitioner having taken up the examination in view of the interim order, respondents 1 and 3 are hereby directed to announce the results of the petitioner and also a direction is issued to respondents to permit the petitioner to take up examination in subject Kannada–Kan 4.1 in the next even semester of May-June 2017. (c) W.P. Nos. 28698-707/2016, 29811 and 29813/2016 30715/2016 are Annexures ‘D1’ to & 30256/2016 & hereby allowed. ‘D10’ issued by the 2nd respondent in W.P. Nos.29698-707/2016, Annexures ‘D1’ to ‘D3’ issued by 2nd respondent in W.P. Nos. 29811 and 29813/2016 and Annexure ‘D’ issued by the 2nd respondent in W.P. No.30256/2016 and W.P. No.30715/16 are hereby quashed. (d) W.P. No.29812/2016 is hereby dismissed. (e) The 1st and 3rd respondent-University are hereby directed to announce the results of petitioners in respect of the streams, in which they have appeared for the examination, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and in view of the fact that petitioners have succeeded in the present petitions. No order as to costs.