JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. The petitioner, a student of four years degree Course (B.Sc. Forestry), 2015 in the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar (for short, ‘OUAT’), has approached this Court for a direction to allow her to sit in the 2nd semester examination through a special examination condoning her shortage of attendance during the 2nd semester period. 2. Petitioner, being duly selected, took admission in B.Sc. (Forestry) in the constituent College of Forestry under OUAT in August 2015, her admission number being 44Fo/15, OUAT. She had cleared her 1st semester examination and mid-semester examination conducted by the OUAT in November, 2015 and March, 2016 respectively. 3. As per Clause-21 of the Semester Regulation for Under Graduate (UG) courses, a student is required to secure at least 70% attendance to appear in the semester examination. Due to shortage of her attendance during the 2nd semester period, i.e., from 21.01.2016 to 30.06.2016, she was not allowed to appear in the 2nd semester examination for which she has approached this Court for the aforesaid relief. 4. Mr. Abhijit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner being a sports person, had to attend practice sessions and events representing the College for which she could not secure adequate attendance during the 2nd semester period. Further, scheduled classes were not held due to absence of teaching faculty. However, some unscheduled classes were held intimating the students by WhatsApp, some of which could not be communicated to the petitioner. Out of 32 (thirty-two) scheduled classes, the concerned teacher had taken only 12 (7 theory +5 practical) classes and had taken 10 (ten) numbers of un-scheduled classes (5 theory + 5 practical). Thus, out of thirty-two scheduled classes, only twenty-two classes could be held, out of which the petitioner had attended only twelve classes. Several other students also suffered shortage of attendance during the 2nd semester period for which the Academic Council in its meeting dated 21.09.2016 passed the following resolution (resolution no. 7172): “3. Considered regarding the shortage of attendance of 1st year B.Sc. (Forestry), 2015 Batch students. Proceeding of the enquiry committee regarding the shortage of attendance of 1st year B.Sc. (Forestry) students was discussed in detail. The concerned teacher did not take the required number of classes and took classes outside the approved time table without approval of authority, and made the new timings circulated through Whatsapp. (Forestry), 2015 Batch students. Proceeding of the enquiry committee regarding the shortage of attendance of 1st year B.Sc. (Forestry) students was discussed in detail. The concerned teacher did not take the required number of classes and took classes outside the approved time table without approval of authority, and made the new timings circulated through Whatsapp. The House resolved that the classes should be taken in scheduled time. The teachers should not be allowed to take classes as per their own will. The classes can be taken on holidays for achieving the NIDs. Adjustment classes will be taken in lieu of 2nd Saturday. Classes can never be suspended on the occasion of functions. Action as deem fit may be taken against erroneous teachers.” Accordingly, a formula was worked out in which the petitioner secured only 63.63% of attendance. Thus, there was shortage of around 6% of attendance, for which she was not permitted to sit in the 2nd semester examination. The petitioner had also represented the Dean, Students’ Welfare, OUAT to condone the shortage of attendance, but to no effect. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a sports person ought to be given some extra weightage and her shortage of attendance may be condoned. During pendency of the writ petition, 2nd semester examination for B.Sc. (Forestry), 2015 course was conducted. Hence, learned counsel prays for a direction to conduct a special 2nd semester examination for the petitioner and to grant her consequential benefits. 5. Mr. Pabitra Mohan Pattjoshi, learned counsel appearing for the OUAT, relying upon the counter affidavit and additional affidavits, filed during course of hearing, submitted that as the concerned teacher was engaged in seminars and had gone on study tour representing the College, she could not conduct the regular classes, for which un-scheduled classes, taking consent of the students, were conducted to complete the course. The petitioner was duly intimated about the unscheduled classes, but she along with some others did not attend, both scheduled as well as un-scheduled classes for which they suffered shortage of attendance. Although Physical Education Officer (PEO) had recommended the case of the petitioner for condonation of shortage of her attendance, the same was not taken into consideration as he was not the competent authority to make such recommendation. Although Physical Education Officer (PEO) had recommended the case of the petitioner for condonation of shortage of her attendance, the same was not taken into consideration as he was not the competent authority to make such recommendation. The teaching faculties are also warned to take regular classes as per the schedule and not to take un-scheduled classes in future. In order to make good the shortage of attendance of the students, a liberal view was taken by the Academic Council and a formula was worked out in which the petitioner had secured only 63.63% which falls short by 6.37%, to appear in the 2nd semester examination. Hence, learned counsel for the OUAT contended that the writ petition merits no consideration and, the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In course of hearing, it came to the notice of this Court that out of thirty-two scheduled classes for the 2nd semester, only 12 (twelve) could be taken by the concerned teacher, besides 10 (ten) un-scheduled classes were also taken. Thus, aggregating the scheduled and unscheduled classes taken, it came to 22 (twenty-two) classes out of 32 (thirty-two) scheduled classes to be taken for completion of course. 7. As learned counsel for the OUAT could not explain the position, this Court taking a serious note of the matter, vide its order dated 11.05.2017, directed the Registrar, OUAT to be present in person with relevant records on 22.06.2017 to explain the matter. In compliance of the said direction, the Registrar, OUAT and Dean, Students’ Welfare, OUAT as well as Dean, College of Forestry, OUAT were present in person on 22.06.2017. On that date, they were directed to file an affidavit explaining as to why there was shortfall in taking scheduled classes. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was also filed by the Dean, College of Forestry-opposite party no.3 on 27.06.2017 explaining as to under what circumstances, only 12 (twelve) scheduled classes could be taken out of 32 (thirty-two) and 10 (ten) un-scheduled classes were taken to make good the loss. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length; perused the record and on consent of learned counsel for the parties, took up the matter for final disposal at admission stage. 9. The facts narrated are not disputed. Admittedly, the petitioner had only attended 12 (twelve) classes out of 22 (twenty-two) scheduled and un-scheduled classes. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length; perused the record and on consent of learned counsel for the parties, took up the matter for final disposal at admission stage. 9. The facts narrated are not disputed. Admittedly, the petitioner had only attended 12 (twelve) classes out of 22 (twenty-two) scheduled and un-scheduled classes. Thus, applying the formula, she was given a grace of two classes and accordingly, she could only secure 63.63% of attendance out of 70%, which falls short of approximately 2 classes. As there was a shortage of her attendance, she was not allowed to appear in the 2nd semester examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner, though challenged the formula adopted by the OUAT to calculate the attendance of the students to be defective, but could not place any material in support of the same. Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioner is a sports person and that she has represented the College, is not disputed by the OUAT. Further, considering the grievance of the petitioner, the PEO had also recommended her case for condonation of shortage in attendance during the 2nd semester period. The said fact is also not disputed by the OUAT. OUAT has only challenged the authority of PEO to make such recommendation. The fact that only twelve scheduled classes out of thirty-two could be taken by the concerned teacher cannot also be denied. The conduct of the concerned teacher in not taking scheduled classes and instead conducting un-scheduled classes after intimating the students through WhatsApp has been deprecated by the Academic Council. The teachers have also been warned to take classes, as per the time table. The petitioner had also attended most of the un-scheduled classes. Although several allegations and counter allegations have been made by learned counsel for the parties and submissions are being made to justify their respective actions/steps taken, this Court, keeping in view the career of the petitioner as well as considering the fact that the petitioner is interested in completing her course and that she being a sports person could not attend few classes, for her sports activities, is of the view that a liberal view should be taken in the peculiar facts of this case. Accordingly, this Court without entering into the intricacies and correctness of allegations and counter-allegations made by learned counsel for the parties and taking a lenient view, directs the OUAT authorities to conduct special 2nd semester examination for the petitioner, Miss Priyanka Senapaty (Admission No. 44Fo/15, OUAT) and also take consequential steps in the matter. This may not be treated as precedence, as this order is being passed taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.