JUDGMENT A J DESAI, J. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to allow her to appear in the examination of 1st Semester of 1st academic year of BSW LLB (Bachelor of Social Work LLB), a five years integrated course, which is re-scheduled on 18.01.2019, since the respondent university has refused to do so on the ground that the petitioner has been found guilty with regard to two incidents alleged to have taken place on 08.09.2018 and 12.09.2018 in the campus of the respondent university itself. 2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondent university appeared through Mr. Udayan Vyas, learned advocate and opposed the prayers made in the petition. 3. The short facts arise from the record are as under : 3.1. That the petitioner got admission in the 1st academic year of BSW LLB (Bachelor of Social Work LLB), five years integrated course, in the year 2018. On 08.09.2018, when the petitioner accompanied her friend in room No. 99, which belonged to her friend, the respondent university found liquor from the said room and for that, an inquiry was conducted. Thereafter, on 12.09.2018, an inspection was carried out in the room of the petitioner herself and from that room, a substance was found and for the same, on being inquired, it was found as "ganja". Subsequent to the inquiry, she was found guilty in both the incidents and a report was submitted. The petitioner was placed under suspension from the respondent university with immediate effect. 3.2. Since the petitioner was placed under suspension from the respondent university, she was not permitted to appear in the examination of 1st semester, which was scheduled in the month of December, 2018. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said decision of suspension by way of filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 14288 of 2018 and prayed for interim relief to allow her to appear in the examination. The Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani), by oral order dated 14.09.2018, refused to permit her to appear in the examination. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 14.09.2018 by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1230 of 2018. The said appeal was not entertained and therefore, on 20.09.2018, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner. 3.3. Justice Sonia Gokani), by oral order dated 14.09.2018, refused to permit her to appear in the examination. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 14.09.2018 by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1230 of 2018. The said appeal was not entertained and therefore, on 20.09.2018, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner. 3.3. The petitioner had also challenged the final report with regard to two incidents by way filing writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 20095 of 2018 and 20096 of 2018. All the three matters are pending. 3.4. The petitioner has also filed an appeal challenging the decision with regard to two incidents under Regulation 43(f) of the Gujarat National Law University (Academic, Mooting, Internship, Examinations, Hostel and Other Matters) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations, 2015' for short) . 3.5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the above prayers since the examination of 1st Semester of 1st academic year has been re-scheduled on 18.01.2019 since the respondent university has arranged special/repeat examination under Regulations 27(iv) of the Regulations, 2015. 4. Ms. Dimple Thacker, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the respondent university has deliberately not decided the appeals filed by the petitioner under Regulation 43(f) of the Regulations, 2015, though the same have been filed way back in the month of October, 2018. She would further submit that the petitioner had tried to explain how she has been held guilty in the alleged incident though she was not at all at fault. She would further submit that the roommate of the petitioner, who is her friend having room no. 99, has not been punished severely and has been permitted to appear in the examination. As far as the incident dated 12.09.2018 is concerned, she would submit that though the substance namely 'ganja' was found from the room, no inquiry has been held against her roommate and her roommate was not punished. She would further submit that if the petitioner, who is aged about 18 years, is not permitted to appear in the examination, which is re-scheduled under Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 2015, academic year of a young student would be ruined. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the examination. 5. On the other hand, Mr. She would further submit that if the petitioner, who is aged about 18 years, is not permitted to appear in the examination, which is re-scheduled under Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 2015, academic year of a young student would be ruined. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the examination. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Udayan Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent university, on instruction received from the Deputy Registrar of the respondent university, who is present in the Court, assures that the appeals filed by the present petitioner shall be decided as early as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from today in accordance with law. 6. Apart from the above statement made on instructions, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate would submit that as per Regulation - 11 of Regulations, 2015, if the student attends at least 70% of the total number of classes held in each subject, he/she would be permitted to appear in the examination. He has placed the document showing presence of the petitioner from the month of July and upto September, 2018. By taking me through the attendance of the petitioner, he would submit that the petitioner has not attended 70% of the total number of classes held in the month of July, August, 2018 and till her suspension. He would further submit that in none of the subjects, the petitioner had attended 70% of total classes or above 70% of total classes held during this period. In view of the above fact and also as per Regulation 11 of the Regulations, 2015, the petitioner shall not be entitled to appear in the examination, which is re-scheduled on 18.01.2019 under Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 2015. He, therefore, would submit that the petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for both the parties. Perused the order dated 14.09.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 14.09.2018 as well as withdrawal order dated 20.09.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1230 of 2018 as well as the document with regard to the examination, which is re-scheduled on 18.01.2019 arranged by the respondent university under Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 2015. 8. Regulation 11(a) of the Regulations, 2015 reads as under: (a) Attendance of at least 70% of the total number of classes held in each subject is compulsory. 8. Regulation 11(a) of the Regulations, 2015 reads as under: (a) Attendance of at least 70% of the total number of classes held in each subject is compulsory. Student failing to obtain 70% attendance in a given subject is prohibited and shall not be allowed to appear in the semester-end examination for that subject and will be required to re-register himself for that subject when it is again scheduled to be offered in regular course. Provided, the percentage of physical attendance required in each subject shall be in accordance with the Bar Council of India guidelines or 70% whichever is higher. The percentage shall stand to be automatically changed upon changes effected by the Bar Council of India. In case, if the change is effected during on-going academic semester, the amended requirement shall be effective from the following academic semester." 9. Regulation 27(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Regulations, 2015 reads as under: "(iii) The University shall conduct one special / repeat examination of the subjects to enable a student with academic backlog to clear the required subjects. If the students fails to appear in this examination due to any reasons, he shall be marked zero and shall be eligible to appear only when it is next scheduled to be offered in the regular course. (iv) A student with attendance shortage shall not be eligible for special repeat examination and can appear in the examination only when it is next scheduled to be offered in the regular course. However, if a student faces detention or is likely to loose an academic year due to attendance backlog in not more than two papers of a semester, he shall be allowed to appear in the special repeat examination." 10. From the above referred provisions, it is clear that the petitioner is bound to attend 70% of the total number of classes held in each subject and the same is compulsory. If the schedule is provided under the signature of Deputy Registrar of the respondent university is perused before the two incidents taken place, she has attended the classes, which goes below 70% of total classes organized by the respondent university. In none of the subjects, the petitioner has attended the classes as required. On this aspect, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as prayed for. 11. In none of the subjects, the petitioner has attended the classes as required. On this aspect, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as prayed for. 11. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not examined the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties with regard to the findings in connection with the two incidents alleged to have taken place on 08.09.2018 and 12.09.2018. The Court feels pain to note that when there is question of a young student, who is likely to loose an important year of his/her life in connection with the inquiry with regard to the conduct, the respondent university ought to have taken prompt action in deciding the appeals. In the present case, if the appeals, which have been filed by the petitioner in the month of October, 2018, would have been decided by the respondent university at the earliest, several issues would have been finalized themselves. It is expected from the respondent university that when it is a question of life of a student of a tender age, the bureaucratic approach is required to be deprecated. Hence, the following order: [i] The Appellate Authority of the respondent university is hereby directed to decide the appeals filed by the present petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from today. [ii] The appeals shall be decided by the Appellate Authority of the respondent university without being influenced with the fact that the petitioner is trying to save her academic year by approaching this Court by way of filing writ petitions. [iii] It is also expected from the Appellate Authority of the respondent university that the appeals shall be decided considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the tender age of a student. [iv] Since the order is passed in the presence of the Deputy Registrar of the respondent university, he shall inform the Appellate Authority about the decision by written communication today itself. [v] It is also expected that the Appellate Authority of the respondent university shall deal with the case as observed herein above. 12. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Notice discharged.