JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are students of Class XII in Elias Meyer Free School & Talmud Torah which is affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations. The petitioners are two brothers and have been students of the school since the academic year 2017-18. The petitioners' prayer before the Court is that the petitioners be allowed to take the ISC Examination 2020 which is due to commence from 28th February, 2020. The other prayer is that the petitioners may be permitted to attend Class XII classes in the school without paying the tuition fees for such attendance. 2. The case as made out in the writ petition is that the petitioners were issued Provisional Admit Cards for the ISC Examination 2019 upon payment of fees. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioners were served two letters by the Principal of the School, both dated 5th April, 2019, to the effect that the petitioners were being withdrawn from ISC 2019 as the petitioners did not meet the attendance requirements as per the Rules framed by the Council. By the said communication, the petitioners were allowed to resume the classes in the new session for Class XII. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places the Regulations of the Indian School Certificate Examinations and Regulation-F relating to "Minimum Attendance Requirement" in particular. Counsel submits that although the candidates with an attendance below 75% are ordinarily not eligible to sit for the examination, the Chief Executive and the Secretary of the Council has the authority to condone the shortage of attendance in the case of candidates whose attendance is not less than 60% of the working days in each year of the two-year course. Counsel submits that despite the Regulation providing for the Chief Executive and the Secretary having special powers to condone the attendance deficit, the School did not make the requisite effort or take any steps to forward the case of the petitioners to the Council for such condonation. Counsel attributes the absence of the petitioners from the School on account of medical reasons and places the medical certificates annexed to the writ petition. The primary submission made for waiver of the tuition fees for Class XII is the inaction on the part of the School in forwarding the records of the petitioners for the Council to take an appropriate decision in the matter. The primary submission made for waiver of the tuition fees for Class XII is the inaction on the part of the School in forwarding the records of the petitioners for the Council to take an appropriate decision in the matter. It is also submitted that before the impugned letters dated 5th April, 2019 was served on the petitioners for their withdrawal from ISC Examination 2019, the petitioners had no knowledge that such a decision would be taken by the School. It is further submitted that the petitioners would be severely prejudiced unless permitted to sit for ISC 2020. 4. Learned counsel for the ISC/Council relies on the Regulations framed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations and submits that the Regulations have to be read as a whole to understand the balancing of competing interests of the School on one hand and the students on the other. Counsel also places Regulation-G pertaining to withdrawal of candidates and which provides that candidates may be withdrawn at any time prior to the commencement of the examination, provided that, once the entries have been acknowledged as accepted by the Council's Office, Heads of Schools may only withdraw candidates on account of illness of the candidates, duly certified by a registered medical practitioner or at the express written request of the parents of the candidates. Part II of Chapter II (Internal Examination) is also placed with regard to the responsibilities of the Head of the School to ensure that promotion from Class XI is done on the basis of cumulative achievement level of the student throughout the year and that for promotion to Class XII, a candidate is required to have a minimum attendance of 75% of the working days. Counsel submits that on a conjoint reading of Regulations F and G, it can be seen that candidates must have an attendance of not less than 60% of the working days in each year of the two-year course, namely of Classes XI and XII. It is further submitted that if the petitioners did not fulfill the attendance requirements under Regulation-F, the School could not have promoted the petitioners to Class XII at all. It is further submitted that if the petitioners did not fulfill the attendance requirements under Regulation-F, the School could not have promoted the petitioners to Class XII at all. Lastly, counsel submits that there is no question of waiver of the fees for ISC 2020 since there is no provision for the same in the Regulations and further that the withdrawing of the petitioners from ISC 2019 was a decision taken by the School with which the Council was not involved. 5. Learned counsel for the School relies on several documents from which it would appear that before the impugned letters dated 5th April, 2019, the Council was informed by two letters dated 28th January, 2019 seeking permission to withdraw the petitioners from appearing for ISC 2019 on the ground of deficit of attendance. Counsel relies on documents annexed to the writ petition which shows that the petitioner no.1 had 33.33% attendance in the final assessment made for the academic session 2017-2018 and the petitioner no.2 had an attendance of 34.21% for the same academic session. For 2018-2019, the petitioner no.1 had an attendance of 55.74% while the petitioner no.2 had 63.93%. Counsel submits that the parents of the petitioners were put on notice of the poor attendance levels in the parent-teacher meeting and that the petitioners would be held back from appearing in ISC 2019 for the said reason. The decision taken was signed by the Class-Teacher, the Principal and the parent of the petitioners on 25th January, 2019. Relying on this document, counsel submits that the parents of the petitioners had adequate notice, at least in January, 2019, that the petitioners would not be permitted to sit for ISC 2019. Counsel submits that the medical certificates annexed to the writ petition were never produced before the School at the relevant point of time. Counsel raises questions on the nature of the medical certificates produced by the petitioners before this Court and that the said documents do not point to any serious medical condition which could have contributed to the poor attendance of the petitioners. Apparently, there is only one medical document for the second petitioner while for the first petitioner only some prescriptions have been produced without pointing to any specific medical condition. Apparently, there is only one medical document for the second petitioner while for the first petitioner only some prescriptions have been produced without pointing to any specific medical condition. In response to the allegation made on behalf of the petitioners that other similarly-placed candidates have been allowed to sit for ISC 2019, counsel submits that in one of the three cases cited, the lack of attendance for the concerned candidates had been condoned by the Council on medical grounds while in the other two cases, there was no issue of low attendance at all. In order to show the habitual absenteeism on the part of both the petitioners, counsel points to the petitioners staying away from the academic session for Class XII since April, 2019. It is submitted that despite the poor track record, the petitioners have not attended a single class since April, 2019. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There are several undisputed facts which are apparent from the records. Both the petitioners have stayed away from the concerned School for a substantial period of time. The attendance records which are not in dispute, show that the petitioners chose to attend school on an infrequent basis. The medical certificates unfortunately do not provide the basis for the attendance deficit which is somewhat surprising for students of Class XI who are gearing up for a Board examination. 7. The point is whether the decision to withdraw the petitioners from ISC 2019 was made known to the guardians of the petitioners before such decision was taken by giving them reasonable opportunity to take appropriate steps in the matter. The progress report for the 2018-2019 session contains the following endorsement "Refrained from appearing for ISC examination 2019 due to lack of attendance and below average academic performance". The progress report dated 25th January, 2019 has not only been signed by the Class-Teacher and the Principal of the School but also the parent of the petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that medical certificates explaining the cause of such poor attendance were not before the school at the relevant point of time. The second document issued by the petitioners to the Chief Minister of West Bengal and to other authorities is dated 18th February, 2019. It is also an admitted fact that medical certificates explaining the cause of such poor attendance were not before the school at the relevant point of time. The second document issued by the petitioners to the Chief Minister of West Bengal and to other authorities is dated 18th February, 2019. From the legal notice it can be assumed therefore that the parents of the petitioners had notice of the decision taken by the school and communicated in the progress report of 25th January, 2019. 8. There are, however, certain other factors which cannot be ignored by this Court. First, despite having an attendance of 34.21% and 33.33%, for the academic session 2017-2018, the progress report contains the following endorsement : "Promotion granted to class XII". 9. Regulation-F read with Part II (Internal Examination) makes it clear that candidates should have an attendance of not less than 60% of the working days during each year of the two-year course. This means that for being promoted to Class XII, each of the petitioners should have had an attendance of at least 60% in the academic session 2017-2018 which neither of the petitioners admittedly had at the relevant point of time. This naturally raises the question as to the basis for promoting the petitioners to Class XII despite such poor attendance. Second, Regulation-F makes a special provision for candidates whose minimum attendance is below 60% and for condonation of the same by the Chief Executive and Secretary of the Council in exceptional cases. To understand the objective of Regulation-F, the said Regulation is set out below : "F. Minimum Attendance Requirement Candidates whose attendance is below 75% of the working days are ordinarily not eligible to sit for the examination. However, the Chief Executive and Secretary has the authority to condone the shortage of attendance in the case of candidates whose minimum attendance is not less than 60% of the working days in each year of the two year course. This is inclusive of absence due to illness and other special circumstances. Heads of Schools may represent, to the Chief Executive and Secretary, cases of candidates who deserve special consideration for condonation of shortage of attendance in Class XI and/ or XII, provided that the attendance of such candidates is not less than 60% of the working days, during each year of the two year course. 10. Heads of Schools may represent, to the Chief Executive and Secretary, cases of candidates who deserve special consideration for condonation of shortage of attendance in Class XI and/ or XII, provided that the attendance of such candidates is not less than 60% of the working days, during each year of the two year course. 10. Further, the Chief Executive and Secretary may condone the shortage of attendance in the case of candidates whose minimum attendance is below 60% in exceptional cases i.e. : (i) on Psychological/Medical Grounds such as serious illness requiring long period of treatment/hospitalization. (ii) authorized participation in sports at State or National level organized by recognized Sports Authorities. (iii) other unforeseen and special circumstances...." A reading of the above makes it evident that even if a candidate falls short of the 60% attendance requirement, the Chief Executive and Secretary has the power to apply their minds as to whether the candidates would fall under the exceptional cases provided in Regulation-F. Notably, the exception provides for "other unforeseen and special circumstances". Whether the cases of the petitioners could have been condoned under this head is a matter which could have been decided by the authorities designated in the Regulation provided they had been given an opportunity to do so in the facts of the case. Third, Regulation-G referring to withdrawal of candidates, restricts the scope of withdrawal to only two grounds which would be evident from the said regulation which is set out below : "G. Withdrawal of Candidates Candidates may be withdrawn at any time prior to the commencement of the examination, provided that, once the entries have been acknowledged as accepted by the Council's office, Heads of Schools may only withdraw candidates: (a) on account of illness of the candidates, duly certified by a registered medical practitioner; OR (b) at the express written request of the parents/legal guardians of the candidates". It is evident from this Regulation that one of the conditions for withdrawal of candidates is the express written request of the parents of the candidates. From the facts in the instant case, it appears that the school took the decision not to allow the writ petitioners to sit for ISC 2019 on 25th January, 2019. From this document it can therefore be presumed that at least in January 2019, the school had taken the decision for withdrawing the petitioners. From the facts in the instant case, it appears that the school took the decision not to allow the writ petitioners to sit for ISC 2019 on 25th January, 2019. From this document it can therefore be presumed that at least in January 2019, the school had taken the decision for withdrawing the petitioners. If this be the case, there is no ground apparent from the records accounting for the school failing to refer the case of the petitioners to the Council for a decision under Regulation-F. This is particularly relevant in light of the petitioners not only being promoted to Class XII despite the poor attendance record but also being given Provisional Admit Cards for ISC 2019 upon payment of fees. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the school that the said Admit Cards were issued on a provisional basis in July, 2018 is taken to be correct, promoting the petitioners to Class XII with the available attendance records cannot be explained. The predominant issue which has weighed upon this Court in coming to a decision in this matter is the effect on a student who is not permitted to sit for a Board examination. The effect would be such that the student himself can never be compensated by the School for all times to come. The entire future of a student is potentially irrecoverably compromised. The career of the concerned student as well as future opportunities for pursuing any course or vocation, as the case may be, are bound to be irretrievably prejudiced. The student may not even be given an opportunity to have a quality of life which every young person has the right to aspire for. Next, every school can be said to be in the position of a guardian where the students are the wards or protectees of the school and the welfare of the students is of paramount consideration. Even if a student falls below the required standards either by way of academic performance or in terms of attendance or in any other parameter, it is the duty of the school as the alma mater to attend to the needs of the students and ensure that the future of the students is not compromised in any way. The relationship which a student has with his/her school is a life-long and a special one. The relationship which a student has with his/her school is a life-long and a special one. In the facts of this case, if the school had notice of the poor attendance of the petitioners in Class XI and took a decision in January, 2019 to hold the petitioners back from taking ISC 2019, the school should have fulfilled its duty and responsibility to refer the petitioners' case to the Council for a decision in the matter. Referring a matter such as this to the Council does not automatically mean that the petitioners' attendance deficit would have been condoned by the Council. It is reasonable to expect that the Council, being a neutral body, would have come to an independent decision on the available records before it. However, not referring the case to the Council at all, has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioners. The letters to the Council dated 28th January, 2019 were merely for seeking permission to withdraw the petitioners from ISC 2019 and not for any decision under Regulation-F. Notwithstanding the above, the prayer of the petitioners for waiving the tuition fees for Class XII as well the fees for ISC 2020 cannot be granted. The petitioners chose to stay away from the school for the academic session 2019-2020 which commenced from April, 2019 and the reason for such absence has not been informed to this Court. The Council, being an independent body, cannot be deprived of its fees for the next examination scheduled in 2020 for candidates who have not taken the previous examination. This is also because the Council had no role to play in withdrawing the petitioners from the previous examination. It is inconceivable to this Court that while the petitioners seek to be permitted to attend Class XII in order to be eligible for ISC 2020, they seek a waiver of the tuition fees for such attendance. The poor attendance records of the petitioners is also a factor which this Court must take into account for negating the prayer for waiver of tuition fees. In view of the above discussion, the respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to permit the petitioners to attend the current academic session so that the petitioners can be eligible to sit for ISC 2020 provided the petitioners otherwise meet all the requisite conditions for such eligibility. In view of the above discussion, the respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to permit the petitioners to attend the current academic session so that the petitioners can be eligible to sit for ISC 2020 provided the petitioners otherwise meet all the requisite conditions for such eligibility. The petitioners will be at liberty to attend the school on a regular and uninterrupted basis but only upon paying applicable tuition fees for attending such classes. Since neither of the petitioners attended a single class from April, 2019 till date, the petitioners will pay the tuition fees from 1st September, 2019 onwards together with other applicable fees as may be intimated by the School as soon as the petitioners join the classes. If the petitioners are found to be lacking any of the conditions framed by the Council for appearing in the ISC Examination, the school will forward the case of the petitioners to the Council for a proper decision in the matter. WP No. 404 of 2019 is disposed of in terms of the above.