( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by ten students for a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to once again study the courses of Diploma in Mechanical, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Civil Engineering, for which courses, the petitioners have already written examinations, which were held on 7-4-1997 and as such, the action of the respondents is violative of principle of promissory Estoppel and consequently direct the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners examinations that were held in the month of April, 1997.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is elaborated that petitioner Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,8 and 10 were the students of final year polytechnic and the petitioner Nos. 6. 7 and 9 were the students of second year polytechnic and they were all the students of Government Model Residential Polytechnic, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. It is further stated in the affidavit that there was shortage in attendance and they were allowed to sit for the examination by giving hall-tickets, on the petitioners paying Rs. 100. 00 for the condonation of shortage of attendance. When the petitioners were awaiting for the results, all of a sudden, third respondent served on them the impugned proceedings dated 1-7-1997, directing the petitioners to once again appear for the examination, which they have already written, on the ground that petitioners had shortage of attendance. They further stated that there was no fault on their part. They submitted that the hall-tickets were given and when they were permitted for the examination and if they were made to appear for the examination once again by completing the attendance, they would be loosing one year and it would cause hardship to them. Therefore, the writ as prayed for may kindly be issued.

( 3 ) COUNTERS are filed by all the three contesting respondents.

( 4 ) IN the counter of respondent No. 1, it is stated that petitioners have not put in minimum per cent prescribed i. e. , 75 per cent, as per Rule 89 of the Conduct Rules for Students of Technical Institutions, issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1896, Education Department, dated 27. 06. 1962. However, as per the resolution of the Board, the shortage of 10 per cent attendance could be condoned by the Principal, on payment of certain fees. For the condonation of shortage of attendance between 65 per cent to 70 per cent, Rs. 507-and for the shortage of attendance between 70 per cent and 75 per cent, Rs. 100. 00 is the fee prescribed. In the instant case, the petitioners have put in attendance at 48 per cent, 61 per cent, 56 per cent, 59 per cent, 50 per cent, 58 per cent, 61 per cent, 53 per cent, 59 per cent and 43 per cent respectively and the minimum percentage of attendance required is 75 per cent. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has allowed the petitioners to appear for the examination without any authority. Since, the shortage of attendance regarding the present petitioners is concerned, it is more than 10 per cent and since the petitioners do not have the minimum of 75 per cent, which is required, they should not have been permitted by the 3rd respondent to appear for the examination. 3rd respondent has made a mistake and, respondent No. 1-Board would not be bound by the same. It is further stated that for not having fulfilled the statutory requirement of minimum attendance for the academic year 1996-97, the petitioners were not entitled to take the examination and they cannot allege that without their fault, they may loose one year for the fault of the respondents. It is further alleged that doctrine of Promissory Estoppel does not apply to the facts of this case. It is further stated that the petitioners have not challenged the Rule pertaining to the minimum requirement of attendance and in such academic matters, normally the High Court would be slow in interfering. The 2nd respondent in his counter stated that the petitione