ORDER : B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief: "to issue a writ or order or direction more so a writ in the nature of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in detaining the petitioners to write semester examination on the ground of shortage of attendance of attendance as arbitrary, illegal, high handed, capricious and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequentially to declare the proceedings as bad in law and permit the petitioner to participate in the semester examination being conducted by the 2nd respondent university in the 3rd respondent college." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel Sri V. Ramachander Goud, representing for the 2nd respondent, before ordering notice to the 3rd respondent and Sri Abhishek Reddy, learned standing counsel, representing for the 1st respondent and perused the prayer in the writ petition with supporting affidavit. 3. It is the supporting affidavit of the petitioners that as per the semester system, students are whenever taking examination, the days of examination will be counted for attendance and for the midterm term examinations conducted during January and April 2017, there is a 12 days examination period that is to be taken as regular attendance period and had it been included to the existing attendance they could exceed the regular attendance above 65% but for one or two within the range of 65% to 75% under consideration within the discretionary range and non-considering the same is unjust, thereby the proceedings are liable to be set aside by directing the 3rd respondent college to permit to participate in the semester examinations being conducted by the 2nd respondent University commencing from 02nd May 2017 onwards and pursuant to the interim order in W.P.M.P.No.20280 of 2017, dated 28.04.2017, they are attending. 4. 4. It is the submission of the learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent, while filing application WVMP.No.2069 of 2017 to vacate the interim order referred supra and to dismiss the writ petition with the contentions that the attendance required for the academics of the college is 75% and the academic committee can condone the shortage of attendance if it is exceeding a 65% and below 75%, within the 10% range of discretion only on any genuine ground and not otherwise and the period of attendance to the examinations cannot be considered as per Regulation 3 of sub-regulation (5) and Regulation 6 of the Regulations issued under UGC Act, 1956 and JNTU academic regulations; Vide Regulation 6, clauses (1) & (2) of the JNTU Academic Regulations of the year 2013-2014, still in force to the above extent, even in the academic year of the petitioners concerned and thereby sought for dismissal of the writ petition by vacating the interim order. 5. In order to resolve the issue involved in this case, it is necessary to extract the relevant Regulations: "Regulation 3(5) (issued by UGC): Minimum number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc., which a student shall be required to attend before being eligible for appearing at the examinations shall be as prescribed by the University which on an average shall not be less than 75% of the total number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc. Regulation 6 (issued by JNTU University): Attendance Requirements: 6.1. A student is eligible to write the University examinations only if he acquires a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects. 6.2. Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggreage up to 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester or I year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. 6.3. Shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall not be condoned. 6.4. A student who is short of attendance in semester/I year may seek re-admission into that semester/I year when offered within 4 weeks from the date of the commencement of class work. 6.5. Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/I year are not eligible to write their end semester examination of that class and their registration stands cancelled. 6.6. A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance. 6.7. 6.5. Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/I year are not eligible to write their end semester examination of that class and their registration stands cancelled. 6.6. A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance. 6.7. A student will be promoted to the next semester if he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/I year, as applicable, including the days of attendance in sports, games, NCC and NSS activities. 6.8. If any candidate fulfils the attendance requirement in the present semester or I year, he shall not be eligible for readmission into the same class." 6. So far as the petitioners concerned, as per the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, the attendance period of all the writ petitioners 1 to 25 is 62, 64, 64, 55, 62, 61, 57, 63, 63, 64, 57, 61, 57, 51, 56, 61, 59, 46, 59, 62, 62, 58, 57, 53 and 62 respectively. Here undisputedly, the attendance is below 65%. In fact, coming to the issue whether the court can condone beyond the regulatory discretionary 10% even the attendance is below 65% is the core question for consideration. 7. In this regard, in M. Sunil Chakravarthy and others v. Principal, Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, Srikalahasti, Chittoor and another, 2005 (1) ALD 253 , Division Bench of this Court held that writ of mandamus cannot be issued for something which is prohibited by regulations. It is therefrom held on a factual matrix referring to the expressions of the Apex Court and the earlier expression of this Court that 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, thereby it cannot be subject matter of mandamus to give any direction. 8. In fact, the earlier Division Bench expression of this Court in Akilesh Lumani and others v. Principal, Sir C.R. Reddy Autonomous College, Eluru, 2000 (4) ALD 630 , referring to the UGC Regulation 3 clause (5) referred supra of the minimum attendance prescribed of 75% and the discretion of 10% for those secured above 66%, the regulation is held mandatory and not directory in nature. For that the Division Bench referred two expressions of the Apex Court in para 18, which reads as follows: "18. For that the Division Bench referred two expressions of the Apex Court in para 18, which reads as follows: "18. The intention of the Rule making authority making in the said Regulation is to maintain minimum standards in college education throughout the country by prescribing minimum number of lectures a student has to attend to make him eligible to appear at the examinations. The said Regulation is binding on all that Universities and Autonomous Colleges in view of Section 14 of the Act. If the said Regulation is to the interpreted as a mere guideline, as suggested by the learned senior Counsel, a College or an University can easily give a go bye to the requirement by not framing a Regulation and allow a student, who has failed to attend the lecturers even to the barest minimum, at the examinations. Thus, the very intention of the Rule making authority to maintain minimum standards of instruction will be defeated. It is one of the basic principles of statutory interpretation that a Statute/Rule should be construed, to make it effective, if possible, and an interpretation which has the affect of defeating the plain intention of the Legislature/Rule making Authority has to be avoided." And from that the conclusion at Paras 19 and 20 is as follows: "19. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the said Regulation is not a mere guideline but is a binding Regulation prescribing the requirement of attending 75% of lectures as a condition precedent for appearing at the examinations even though no such Rule or Regulation has been framed by the Autonomous College or the University concerned. 20. We, therefore, answer the question, referred to above, in the negative and hold that the appellant-students, who have failed to attend 75% of the lectures, are not eligible to appear at the final examinations on the ground that the College has not prescribed such a requirement by framing a Rule or Regulation." 9. Thus, the Division Bench expression of this Court referring to the two expressions of the Apex Court is very clear that the Regulations are not directory and mandatory in regard to the minimum required attendance and if there is no minimum required attendance, the Court cannot issue any direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, according to the Division Bench expressions supra. 10. 10. Apart from it, there is another Division Bench expression of this Court in B. Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College, Kuppam, Chittoor District and another, 2008 (2) ALT 529 , dismissed the writ petition, where there is no required attendance as held mandatory by referring to the earlier Division Bench expression of M. Sunil Chakravarthy and others case (referred supra), it is held particularly from paras 6 to 9 as follows: "6. The above reproduced regulation was interpreted by the Division Bench in M.S. Chakravarthi case. After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur case, 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 case, 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. 9. 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. 9. We are further of the view that even if the benefit of Regulation 5(ii) was to be extended to the appellant, he would not have been able to achieve the requirement of minimum 75% attendance in aggregate. Therefore, the learned single Judge did not commit any error by refusing to entertain his prayer and we do not see any reason to differ with him." 11. In fact, in this regard, several expressions laid down are basically following the three Judge Bench expression of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh and others, (1973) 2 SCC 298 , wherein it is held that the minimum prescribed academic attendance is to condone by the Principal under Rule 1(a) of the Panjab University Calendar 1969 and the Rules made thereunder under volume III to condone the deficiency upto 15 lectures for subject whereas the student exceeded 18 lectures in Economics and 20 lectures in Civics. In fact, there was a provisional admission of him subject to production of certificates which he could not and even he attended that period held could not be considered as attendance after transfer to another college and ultimately holding even the students loose two academic years, the Rule is since mandatory Court cannot even relax by exercising writ jurisdiction. 12. Having regard to the above, the law is crystal clear that the Rule regarding the minimum required attendance is mandatory, unless it is within the discretionary range of 10% to consider in genuine cases. 13. 12. Having regard to the above, the law is crystal clear that the Rule regarding the minimum required attendance is mandatory, unless it is within the discretionary range of 10% to consider in genuine cases. 13. The counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court in All India Students Federation through Abhishek Anand, Member, Bihar State Counsel and others v. State of Bihar and others, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3834 of 2016, dated 20.04.2016, even from the expression all the expressions read from Ashok Kumar Thakur case (referred supra) referred and there is no principle of law laid that the rule is even directory apart from that Patna High Court Division Bench is only persuasive value and the three Division Bench Judgments of this court are binding on this Court which clearly held right from the year 2000 of the Regulations are mandatory and not directory in nature, referring to the expression of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur Case (referred supra). 14. Now, it is left one more contention to be answered raised by the petitioner regarding the attendance to the period of examinations to which they attended can be considered as part of the regular attendance to be counted for the academics and if so, whether it exceeds 65%, within the range of 65 to 75%, whether these are the fit cases to consider by exercising the discretion based on any genuine grounds. 15. The counter affidavit of the University is very clear that the period of 75% and the range of 10% to consider those exceeded 65% attendance excludes the examination attendance period for which there is a criteria which are clear from the Regulations. However, a reading of the regulations are not clear. 16. Having regard to the above, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider if at all entitled to such concession for those exceeded 65%, if entitled to the concession if computed that period of attendance to examinations as regular academic attendance and if their cases are genuine and dispose of the same within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 17. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.