ORDER : 1. In WP.No.17720/2025, the petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to permit the petitioners to write examination of 2 nd Semester and further to take the final examination and to announce the results pertaining to the 2 nd Semester of the 5 years B.A., L.L.B., course scheduled to be held on 22.06.2025 (Annexure-A) and consequential relief as prayed. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have joined the 5 years B.A., L.L.B., course (1 st year students of 2 nd Semester) in the respondent No.3 College affiliated to respondent No.2 University. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition that, the petitioners have not been permitted to take ensuing examination of 2 nd Semester of 5 years of B.A., L.L.B., on the ground that the petitioners have no requisite attendance during the 2 nd Semester in the respondent No.3 College. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions. 4. In WP.No.17772/2025, the petitioner has sought for identical relief to permit the petitioner to take up 2 nd semester examination of 1 st year B.A., L.L.B., (five year course) examination as per scheduled time table produced at (Annexure-Q), inter alia, direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.06.2022 produced at Annexure-P. 5. Heard Sri.Bhadrinath.R., learned counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.17720/2025 and Sri.Dhiraj.A.K., learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.17772/2025, Smt.Sukanya Baliga, learned AGA for respondent No.1-State, Sri.Girish Kumar.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- University, Sri.M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 6. Sri.Bhadrinath.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the lack of attendance of the petitioners herein is on the ground that there is a delay in filing of remedial submissions by the petitioners, which is not a part of curriculum as such and in this regard, he has submitted that, the petitioners herein had requisite attendance to take up ensuing examination. He further argued that, on the ground of not filing the remedial submissions within the requisite period, delay has been caused, which required to be condoned by allowing this writ petition. He further argued that, on the ground of not filing the remedial submissions within the requisite period, delay has been caused, which required to be condoned by allowing this writ petition. He also submitted by referring to the Notification dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure-A) that, it is the mandatory for the college to ensure that the list of eligibility candidates to write the examination, as per the regulation of respective courses, has to be filed within the requisite period with the respondent–University. It is further contended by Sri.Bhadrinath.R., learned counsel that, the writ petition requires to be allowed by providing an opportunity to the petitioners to take up examination, as there is a clear lack of fairness and proper application of mind by the respondent college. He also pointed out that, the college is discriminating with regard to granting attendance to some of the students and he submitted that a candidate who has secured 21.89% has been allowed to take up examination, however, the same benefit has not been extended to the petitioners herein and accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 7. Sri.Dhiraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.17772/2025, submitted that the petitioner herein was regular to the college, however, on account of the illness, he was not able to attend the class for few days and same has to be considered sympathetically and in this regard, he refers to the medical certificate, produced at annexure-D series and submitted that, the case of the petitioner has to be considered for permitting him to take up ensuing examination. 8. Sri.Girish Kumar.R., learned counsel appearing for the university, refers to Regulations 13 and 15 of the KSLU and submitted that, each of the students have to secure 70% attendance to appear for the examination and if the student secured 65% and above and satisfaction of the respondent college is required as to Condone upto 5% and therefore he contended that, the candidates who have appeared for the examination are required to have minimum 65% attendance for taking up ensuing examination and therefore, he contended that in all these writ petitions, the petitioners are having less than 65% of attendance and therefore, any misplaced sympathy expressed by this Court would, go against the Regulations of the respondent university. Therefore, he refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of Danush B.N. and others Vs. Therefore, he refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of Danush B.N. and others Vs. Karnataka State Law University and another in W.P. No. 14591/2024 disposed of on 25.07.2024 and contended that, the writ petitions are required to be dismissed. 9. Sri.M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, filed the relevant documents and submitted that the petitioners herein had attendance of less than 60% except the petitioner No.7 in WP.No.17720/2025, who had 63.5% and therefore he argued on the similar lines as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University. He further submitted that, since the petitioners herein had less than 65% of the attendance and the same cannot be condoned and further he submitted that, this Court is has to be slow in so far as the academic issues pertaining to the admissions to the college as well as permitting the students to take up examination and therefore he contended that the allegations made by the petitioners herein that the delay in filing the remedial submission is not a valid ground, in so far as denying the relief to the petitioners. He further contended that, the petitioners herein have no requisite attendance for appearance in the examination and therefore, it is argued that, any allegations that made against the college cannot considered, since the petitioners herein have no requisite eligible attendance to appear in the examination. 10. In the backdrop of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the Regulations of the respondent-University providing for eligibility criteria in so far as the attendance is concerned with regard to take up ensuing examinations. The Regulations governing in 5 year B.A., L.L.B., integrated degree courses in law, wherein the clause 13 and 15 reads as under; 13. ATTENDANCE No student shall be permitted to appear for the end- of-semester examination in a given course unless he/she has, to the satisfaction of the course teacher, fulfilled the course requirements and has put in not less than 70% attendance in the course concerned. Provided that a student who has attended not less than 65% of classes in each of the subjects prescribed may be permitted to keep the term for reasons to be recorded in writing and to the satisfaction of the Principal of the College or the Dean of the Faculty as the case may be. 15. Provided that a student who has attended not less than 65% of classes in each of the subjects prescribed may be permitted to keep the term for reasons to be recorded in writing and to the satisfaction of the Principal of the College or the Dean of the Faculty as the case may be. 15. PROMOTION (a) No student shall be promoted to the next year of the course unless he/she has passed in a minimum of one subject in each semester. (b) Students are required to successfully complete the entire course within ten years from admission to the course. 11. On careful examination of the language employed in clause-13 of the Regulations makes it clear that, the students shall be permitted to appear in the examination provided he/she fulfill the course requirements and has put in not less than 70% attendance in the course concerned. The said clause is having a proviso, which permits the respondent-University to take up examination to the particular candidate if the student has the eligibility of not less than 65% of classes in each of the subjects and 5% attendance would be condoned if there is a satisfaction of the Principal of the College or the Dean of the faculty as requires. In that view of the matter, in terms of the Regulation 13, the minimum requirement of the eligibility criteria of attendance is 70%, however the 5% attendance would be condoned at the instance of the satisfaction of the college. In this backdrop, the memo filed by the respondent- college would indicate that the petitioner No.1-Sri.Gagan M.P., had 58.77%, petitioner No.2-Sri.Dammu Revanth Kumar, had 58.94%, petitioner No.3-Sri.G.B.John Bryan, had 58.9%, petitioner No.4-Sri.Goutam Shravan Kumar, had 59%, petitioner No.5-Sri.Sanjana B. Desai, had 59.18%, petitioner No.6-Smt.Sahithya.K, had 58.05%, petitioner No.7- K.R.N.Subash Nataraj, had 63.5%, petitioner No.8 Sri.Sathkeerthi Sthavaramath, had 54.29% in WP.No.17720/2025 and the petitioner-Sri.Prateek, in WP.No.17772/2025 had 56.7% of attendance. 12. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners contended with various reasons as to non-filing of the remedial submissions or delay in filing the submissions and also with regard to the WP.No.17772/2025, by looking into the medical records produced herein would indicate that the petitioner is having only a viral fever, I am of the view that, accepting the petition at this juncture would go against the Regulations of the respondent-university. In this regard, this Court in the case of Danush B.N . Supra in respect of the very same college at paragraph 17 to 20 held as follows; "17. If that were to be so, the lack of sufficient attendance in terms of the Regulation 13 would result in the student not keeping with the terms and would be ineligible in terms of the Regulation 15A(d) to progress to the next semester. On this ground, the plea of petitioners to attend the 10th semester will not be permissible, as he/she has not kept the terms as regards attendance as mandated under the Regulation 13 and accordingly, cannot be permitted to pursue the 10th semester. 18. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that once a student has been promoted to the 5th year, there cannot be a bar for progressing to 10th semester leaving open opportunity to write the 9th semester subsequently cannot be accepted. The acceptance of such contention would be contrary to the Regulation 15A(d). 19. The reliance placed by the petitioners on this Court's order dated 29.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.63253/2016 c/w W.P.Nos.61196-61199/2016 and W.P.Nos.61272-61275 and 61571/2016 [EDN- EX] cannot be accepted, as the order passed in the said case was in the context of pre-amended provision of Regulations 13 and 15. Post the amendment in 2020, the insertion of terms, 'kept the terms' in Regulation 13 and insertion of Regulation 15A(d) providing for progression to the next semester, only if he has 'kept the terms' has altered the interpretation to be placed. The interpretation now to be placed is as discussed above. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 20. The students are now entitled to take up the 9th semester along with the students of subsequent batches and only thereafter they would be permitted to attend the 10th semester, which is a natural progression and would be in accordance with the Scheme envisaged under Regulation 15A(d). Accordingly, W.P.No.14591/2024 is rejected." 13. At this juncture it is also required to follow the declaration of law made by this Court in case of Satish Vs. Vice Chancellor, ILR 1994 KAR 1191 , has held at paragraph Nos.7 and 11 which reads as under; "7. But whether such Mandamus can be sought? Accordingly, W.P.No.14591/2024 is rejected." 13. At this juncture it is also required to follow the declaration of law made by this Court in case of Satish Vs. Vice Chancellor, ILR 1994 KAR 1191 , has held at paragraph Nos.7 and 11 which reads as under; "7. But whether such Mandamus can be sought? Firstly, the person seeking a Mandamus, should have a legal right to the performance, by the Authority, of a public duty imposed by law. No one has a right to claim performance of an unlawful or illegal act. Secondly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to perpetuate illegalities, but to strike at them. On the ground that grant of benefit of an illegality to only a few would amount to discrimination, a Court cannot direct an Authority to repeat the illegality or extend the benefit of the illegality to others. If a person who has a legal right is denied the benefit of it, while others having a similar right are given the benefit of such right, then there is discrimination, and a Mandamus may be issued to ensure that he also gets a similar benefit. But, if a person who does not have a right is given a benefit contrary to law, then the illegal act itself will be struck down and there can never be a Mandamus to repeat the illegal act to favour others. To put it differently, if a person having a legal and enforceable right is denied the benefit of it, by non-performance of a public duty, then the Court will grant 'constructive' or 'positive' relief by way of a Mandamus directing the Authority to perform the required act, on the other hand, if a person, not having a legal right, is granted a benefit contrary to law, then the Court will grant a 'destructive' or 'corrective' relief by issue of a Certiorari, striking down the illegal action. Neither sympathy nor any enormity of the discrimination or arbitrariness alleged, can persuade a Court to issue a Mandamus to perform or perpetuate an illegality. Neither sympathy nor any enormity of the discrimination or arbitrariness alleged, can persuade a Court to issue a Mandamus to perform or perpetuate an illegality. Irrespective of the circumstances or hardship likely to be caused, the Court will have to always examine and be satisfied before granting a Mandamus, that the direction being issued by the Court will not require the Authority to do an act contrary to or prohibited by law, or for doing which the Authority has no jurisdiction or power. It is relevant to refer to three Decisions of the Supreme Court to illustrate the above legal position. *** *** *** 11. Attendance is necessary to achieve academic discipline and scholastic excellence. In fact it is the foundation for any course of study. Recognising its importance, the Regulations provide for a minimum attendance and also provide for exercise of discretion by the Vice-Chancellor, to condone a further shortage in given circum-stances. Beyond that limit, the Vice- Chancellor himself has no power to condone the shortage. In such a case it is neither advisable nor permissible for Courts to exercise their extra-ordinary jurisdiction to condone shortages beyond permissible limits thereby setting at naught academic control and discipline and interfering in a matter which is purely within the regulatory province of Colleges and the Universities. As petitioners have admittedly not obtained the minimum percentage of attendance, this Court will neither condone the shortage nor permit the petitioners to participate in the examinations." 14. On similar lines the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahiti and Others Vs. Chancellor Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Others, AIR 2009 SC 879, it is held that, in respect of the academic administration are concerned, interference under Article 226 does not warrant which would go against the University regulations. 15. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by this Court referred to above and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned case, in order to maintain the discipline in the academic courses, I am not inclined to interfere with these writ petitions. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.