JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i.) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) which is illegal in all respect. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to permit the petitioner in the examination of B. Com. IInd semester which is scheduled since 23.05.2016.” 2. Vide order dated 19.05.2016 passed by this Court, the petitioners were permitted to appear in the examination of B.Com Ist year II Semester, provisionally. However, it was directed that the result of the said examination shall not be declared and that shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners requested that since the petitioners have appeared in the examination, the Authorities be directed to declare the result of the petitioners and they may be permitted to pursue their studies in higher class. 4. This Court is of the view that grant of interim order in such matter does not at all help the petitioners because, in case, in future, if writ petition is dismissed, the petitioners will lose further one year. Therefore, I asked the counsel for the petitioners to argue the matter. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the action of the respondent no. 3 by not permitting the petitioners to appear in IInd semester of B.Com 1st year, is arbitrary. He submitted that the petitioners could not be blamed for shortage in attendance; but, the college itself is responsible for the same. According to him, the petitioners were throughout present in the college; but, teachers themselves did not take classes and due to this reason, shortage in attendance of the petitioners was shown. He also contended that there is shortage of teachers in the college and due to this reason in one period they teach one class and in another period they teach another class. In nutshell, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the classes do not run regularly and shortage in attendance of the petitioners has been shown wrongly. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 2 denying the allegations made in the writ petition. Apart from this, the respondent no. In nutshell, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the classes do not run regularly and shortage in attendance of the petitioners has been shown wrongly. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 2 denying the allegations made in the writ petition. Apart from this, the respondent no. 2 has also put up the case that since the petitioners’ attendance is less than the minimum attendance prescribed, the petitioners cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. In this context, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the counter affidavit are being reproduced hereunder: “3. That the controversy in the present writ petition is related to the less than minimum attendance of the petitioners in B.Com. IInd Semester in the college in the academic session 2015-16 and their consequent ineligibility to appear in the IInd semester examination of the B.Com programme. 4. That as per Academic Ordinance of the H.N.B. Garhwal University i.e. the affiliating university of Govt. P.G. College, Doiwala. “A candidate who has less than 75% attendance shall not be permitted to sit for the end-semester examination in the course in which the short fall exists. However, it shall be open to the Dean to grant exemption to a candidate who has failed to obtain the prescribed 75% attendance for valid reasons on payment of prescribed fee and such exemptions shall not under any circumstances be granted for attendance below 65%”. 5. That against the said norms, the attendance of the petitioners have been less than 40% during second semester of B.Com. in the academic session 2015-16. The matrix of classes attended by the petitioner vis-à-vis classes held during second semester of B.Com I in the academic session 2015-16 in the college is as follows: S. No. Name of the student/petitioner No. of lecture attended/ No of Lectures held % attendance Feb Mar Apr May Total 1 Km. Seema Chauhan (Petitioner No. 1) 03/16 07/14 06/18 02/04 18/52 34.61 2 Manoj Kumar (Petitioner No. 2) 01/16 03/14 05/18 02/04 11/52 21.15 3 Ateet Pathak (Petitioner No. 3.) 02/16 04/14 11/8 03/04 20/52 38.46 4 Aman Purohit (Petitioner no. 4) 05/16 06/14 09/18 01/04 21/52 40.38 6. That due to the said shortage of attendance of the petitioners during second semester for B.Com. 4) 05/16 06/14 09/18 01/04 21/52 40.38 6. That due to the said shortage of attendance of the petitioners during second semester for B.Com. Ist in session 2015-16, the management of the college decided not to all the petitioners appear in the IInd semester examination. But in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court dated 19.05.2016 in the present writ petition, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examination. 7. That it is also submitted in this connection that not only the petitioners but 03 other students were also not allowed to appear in the IInd semester examination due to shortage of attendance.” 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material available on file. 8. The academic Ordinance of the H.N.B. Garhwal University provides that a candidate, who has less than 75% attendance, shall not be permitted to sit in the semester examination in the course in which the short fall exists. In the present case, the attendance of petitioner no. 4 is 40.38%, whereas the attendance of other petitioners is also less than 40%. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 has rightly passed the order denying permission to the petitioners to appear in the examination. Petitioners have not challenged the Ordinance of the H.N.B. Garhwal University, which provides for minimum attendance. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondent no. 3. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.