JUDGMENT : BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with prayer to quash of the notification No.60 dated 25.7.2017 so far as it makes him ineligible for taking the first year, D.EL. Ed Examination, 2017. He has further prayed to direct the opp. parties to allow him to fill up his form for appearance in the above noted examination. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after coming out successful in the entrance test, he took admission in D.EL. Ed course 2016-18 in the District Institute Education and Training, Balasore and prosecuted his studies in first year course. Under Annexure-3, the Directorate of Teacher and Education and SCERT, Odisha, Bhubaneswar intimated all the Principals of DIETs and ETEIs of the State that the academic session for the candidates admitted to D.EL. Ed course 2016-18 shall be treated as follows: “1st year: 01.09.2016 to 31.08.2017 2nd year: 01.09.2017 to 31.08.2018” It was also made therein that they should take necessary steps to ensure minimum numbers of teaching days for all admitted candidates as per National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) norms and regulations, 2014. It is the case of the petitioner that he successfully prosecuted the first year course by attending theory and practical classes, but on account of severe ailment he could not attend classes for certain periods and in support of the same he has filed medical certificates dated 29.6.2017 and 22.7.2017 issued by Medical Officer-in-charge, Remuna CHC, Balasore under Annexure-4 series. According to learned counsel for the petitioner as per Annexure-4 series, the petitioner has remained absent for 39 days on health ground. While so, vide notice dated 10.7.2017 (Annexure-5), the opp. Party No.1 notified that in order to take the 1st year, 2nd year, 1st year back and 2nd year back of Diploma in Elementary Education Examination, 2017, the candidates have to fill up the forms online within the period 17.7.2017 to 28.7.2017. Further vide Annexure-6 issued by opp. Party No.1, it was notified that the examination is to start from 28.8.2017. In tune with Annexure-5, while the petitioner was making arrangement for filling up his form, on 25.7.2017 vide Annexure-7, it was notified that he has been debarred from filling up form on account of shortage of attendance. Further vide Annexure-6 issued by opp. Party No.1, it was notified that the examination is to start from 28.8.2017. In tune with Annexure-5, while the petitioner was making arrangement for filling up his form, on 25.7.2017 vide Annexure-7, it was notified that he has been debarred from filling up form on account of shortage of attendance. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he could not fill up his form and finding no other way out, he filed this writ application on 1.8.2017 with the earlier noted prayer. 3. Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Annexure-3, an academic session so far as first year is concerned comes to an end on 31.8.2017, and, therefore, the percentage of attendance ought to have been calculated till 31.8.2017. But in the present case, the petitioner has been deprived of filling up his form by showing his mid-academic session attendance percentage on 25.7.2017. Secondly, relying on the Bombay High Court decision in Nikita Garg and others v. Vile Parle Kelwani Mandal through the Secretary and others (Writ Petition (L) No.908 of 2016 disposed of on 31.3.2016), he contended that since the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the debarring order under Annxure-7, such order should be quashed and the petitioner should be permitted to sit in the examination which is scheduled to be held from 28.8.2017. He has also relied on the decision of this Court in Nilamadhaba Nanda and others v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and Another reported in Vol. 54 (1982) CLT 429. 4. A counter affidadvit was filed by opp. party No.3 in the Court on 22.8.2017 with a copy served on the learned counsel for the petitioner in the first hour. In such background, as requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was taken up in the afternoon session. In the said counter affidavit, opp. Party No.3 has stated that for reasons best known the petitioner, he did not attend the training classes regularly and in each month starting from September 2016, he remained absent for which his total attendance fell to 107 days out of 170 total working days. In support of such contention, the opp. In the said counter affidavit, opp. Party No.3 has stated that for reasons best known the petitioner, he did not attend the training classes regularly and in each month starting from September 2016, he remained absent for which his total attendance fell to 107 days out of 170 total working days. In support of such contention, the opp. Party No.3 has filed attendance statement of the petitioner at Annexure-A/3 giving detailed break up reflecting total number of working days and total number of days when the petitioner has attended the classes. According to Mr.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department, the said Annexure-A/3 makes it clear that the teaching with regard to first year D.EL. Ed course commenced on 27.9.2016 ended on 17.7.2017 and accordingly the percentage of attendance of the petitioner has been calculated at 62.94%. He further made it clear that the petitioner was admitted on 26.9.2016 after which the teaching had commenced. As per Annexure-A/3, the opp.party No.3 has clearly indicated that since the total working days is 170, 80% of attendance comes to 136 days and 70% of attendance comes to 119 days. As per Regulation of opp. Party No.1 with regard to conduct of examination of Diploma in Elementary Education Examination, a candidate, who has secured not less than 80% attendance in each paper can appear in the examination. Further, according to opp. Party No.3 as per Regulation of opp. Party No.1 there exists a relaxation clause wherein it has been made cleaer that the Examination Committee of opp. party No.1 can condone the deficit of attendance not exceeding 10% for special reasons, especially on health grounds. But in the instant case, the petitioner secured only 62.94% of attendance, which is much below than the percentage prescribed by opp. Party No.1 in its Regulation. In such background, due to lack of percentage, the petitioner has not been allowed to fill up his form, and, therefore, according to opp. Party No.3, no illegality has been committed by issuing Annexure-7. Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education submitted that the training is given to the candidates to equip them properly for teaching the students of Class-I to Class-VIII. Unless a candidate is properly trained in D.EL. Ed course, he will not be able to discharge his duty as a teacher to such student. Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education submitted that the training is given to the candidates to equip them properly for teaching the students of Class-I to Class-VIII. Unless a candidate is properly trained in D.EL. Ed course, he will not be able to discharge his duty as a teacher to such student. Hence, taking into all these things, the petitioner has not been allowed to fill up his form. 5. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for opp. Party No.1 produced the Regulations of Board For Conduct Of Examination Of Diploma in Elementary Eduction (D.EL. Ed). Supporting the stand of opp. party No.1, he submitted that as per Regulation, a candidate has to secure not less than 80% of attendance in each paper in order to be eligible to take examination and as per the said Regulation, the examination authority can condone the deficit in the requisite percentage of attendance not exceeding 10% for special reasons, especially on health ground when the application is supported by a certificate from a registered medical practitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that since the petitioner has not secured even the minimum 70% of attendance, the medical certificate under Annexure-4 is of no value and in such background, the writ application is without merit and ought to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Undisputed facts in this case are as follows: As indicated under Annexure-A/3 attached to counter filed by opp. Party No.3, the petitioner took admission in the first year D.EL. Ed course on 26.9.2016 and the classes started on 27.9.2016 and ended on 17.7.2017. According to opp. Party No.3, the grand total working days during this period was 170. The petitioner had only attended the teaching on 107 days and thus remained absent on 63 days. Accordingly, the petitioner secured only 62.94% of attendance. As per Boards Regulation for Conduct of Examination of Diploma in Elementary Education, a candidate has to secure not less than 80% attendance in each paper for taking the examination and the Examination Committee has been empowered to condone the deficit in the requisite percentage of attendance not exceeding 10% for special reasons, especially on health ground. The relevant portion of Boards Regulation is quoted hereunder for better appreciation. The relevant portion of Boards Regulation is quoted hereunder for better appreciation. “xxx xxx xxx The Examination shall be open to the candidates who have been duly admitted in Teacher Education Institutions; and have prosecuted their courses of study by attending classes during the year of examination thereby securing not less than 80% attendance in each paper; and have successfully completed required number of supervised practice teaching lessons, workshop-based and school-based activities for the purpose and must have completed the required number of assignments and projects, duly internally assessed; and must have completed the action research project (only during 2nd year) in order to be declared eligible to be sent up and fill up the form for the final examination by the Head of the Institution subject to fulfilment of the following conditions. Such candidates shall be termed as “Regular Candidates”. Note: (a) The Examination Committee may condone the deficit in the requisite percentage of attendance not exceeding 10% for special reasons, especially on health ground when the application is supported by a certificate from a registered medical practitioner or for extra-ordinary circumstances beyond the control of the candidate supported by any authentic evidence (s). xxx xxx xxx” As calculated under Annexure-A/3 to the counter, for obtaining 70% attendance, a candidate is required to attend classes on 119 working days. Here admittedly, the petitioner has not attended classes on 119 working days. The Regulation nowhere provides that in case of absence on health ground, the entire period of such absence can be condoned for the purpose of calculation of percentage 8. Now with regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that notification under Annexure-7 dated 25.7.2017 is illegal as it calculated the percentage of attendance in Mid-Academic Session, this Court is of the view that such a contention cannot be accepted because as indicated under Annexure-A/3, in the instant case, the teaching started from 27.9.2016 and ended on 17.7.2017. Therefore, within the academic session 2016-17 as prescribed under Annexure-3, actual teaching was imparted between 27.9.2016 to 17.7.2017. Accordingly, after closing of the classes/working days on 17.7.2017, the impugned notification under Annexure-7 was prepared on 25.7.2017. In such background, lebelling of Annexure-7 being prepared during Mid Academic Session cannot be accepted. Therefore, within the academic session 2016-17 as prescribed under Annexure-3, actual teaching was imparted between 27.9.2016 to 17.7.2017. Accordingly, after closing of the classes/working days on 17.7.2017, the impugned notification under Annexure-7 was prepared on 25.7.2017. In such background, lebelling of Annexure-7 being prepared during Mid Academic Session cannot be accepted. Moreover, the Board Regulation quoted earlier nowhere says that the percentage of attendance is to be counted vis-à-vis the academic session, rather it refers to attending the classes during the year, which obviously means attending classes which are actually held during the year. 80% attendance is to be counted in the background of actual total working/teaching days. If this is taken into account, then it cannot be said that Annexure-7, i.e., the impugned notification, makes a calculation of attendance in Mid Academic Session. Rather, as indicated earlier, after the actual working/teaching days ended on 17.7.2017, such calculation has been made under Annexure-7. As per Annexure-5 the last date of filling up the form was 28.7.2017 mid night. With regard to 2nd contention of the learned counsel regarding violation of principles of natural justice in issuing the notice under Annexure-7, it can only be said that though the Bombay High Court has examined the matter in Nikita Garg case (supra), in the background of principles of natural justice, but here by the time notification under Annexure 7 was issued on 25.7.2017, the factum of absence of the petitioner to the tune of 63 days out of 170 working days has already been crystalised. Such calculation which remains undisputed can only be made after the last working day, i.e., 17.7.2017. In such background giving an opportunity of hearing prior to issuance of Annexure-7 on 25.7.2017 would not have altered the factual position in any way relating to less percentage of attendance of the petitioner. Further, the order under Annexure-3 which was issued in January, 2017 made it clear that all concerned have to ensure minimum number of teaching days. Despite knowing the same, the petitioner has not cared to attend minimum number of working/teaching days as required under Regulation of opp. party No.1. Moreover, unlike Nikita Garg case (supra); here no ordinance exists laying down guidelines relating to attendance. 9. Now, coming to the other decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Nilamadhaba Nanda and others (supra), the said decision is clearly factually distinguishable. party No.1. Moreover, unlike Nikita Garg case (supra); here no ordinance exists laying down guidelines relating to attendance. 9. Now, coming to the other decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Nilamadhaba Nanda and others (supra), the said decision is clearly factually distinguishable. There, despite having attendance shortage, the four petitioners were allowed to take final examination of second semester B.Sc (Ag.) course which commenced from January 11, 1982. Later on, they were debarred from taking examination on 15.1.1982 on the ground of shortage of attendance percentage. In such background, the petitioners therein contended that since the opp. parties did not detain them at outset and allowed them to take the hourly and practical examination and a part of the final examination from January, 11 to January 15, 1982, it was not open to the opp. parties to debar them from taking the entire examination. This Court allowed the writ application after quashing the debarring order on the ground that the decision to debar is to be taken before commencement of examination, not after commencement or in course of examination. But in the present case, the present petitioner has been debarred before commencement of examination and not after the commencement or in course of examination. Therefore, as indicated earlier, the decision of this Court in Nilamadhaba Nanda and others (supra) is factually distinguishable and has no application to the fact situation of the present case. 10. In the present case, when the petitioner has not cared to attend the classes in the training course and has thus not been able to secure the minimum required percentage of attendance as prescribed under the Regulations of opp. party No.1, the authorities have done no legal wrong in declaring him to be ineligible from taking the 1st year D.EL.Ed Examination, 2017. For all these reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application, and as such, the same stands dismissed.