( 1 ) IN all these petitions, the petitioners are students of National College, Jayanagar, Bangalore (Second Respondent), who have not been permitted to take the examinations for want of required attendance. They seek a direction to respondents to permit them to take their annual examination to be held in April/may, 1994.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS contend that the college notified a list of about 230 students of B. Sc. , B. A. and B. Com. courses, who were not eligible to take the annual examination to be held in April-May, 1994, for w want of minimum attendance; that thereafter the Attendance Committee constituted by the College considered the cases of such students and excused the shortage in attendance of about 180 students and that only about 50 students including the petitioners were still found to be ineligible for want of attendance. The grievance of the petitioners is that while in the case of several students, similarly placed, shortage in attendance was excused, it was not done so in their cases. The petitioners do not say that they have the required attendance as per the regulations and that the college has committed some mistake in calculating the attendance. The contention of the petitioners is that the college having permitted some students who do not have the required attendance to take the examination and thereby favoured them, ought to similarly "favour" the petitioners by also condoning their shortage in attendance; and that the action of the college, condoning the shortage in some cases and not condoning the shortage in other cases, including the petitioners, is arbitrary and discriminatory; and therefore they are entitled to a mandamus directing the respondents to condone the shortage in attendance of petitioners. Petitioners next contend that they will be losing one valuable year of their career if they are prevented from taking the examination and therefore the court should on grounds of sympathy and hardship, permit them to take the ensuing examinations.

( 3 ) THE college has filed a common counter resisting the claim of petitioners. It has produced the abstracts of attendance relating to each of the four petitioners disclosing the following position regarding their attendance :3. 1) The petitioner in W. P. 6172/94, a student of III B. Sc. , has an attendance of 52. 5% in Physics, 31. 1% in Chemistry and 11. 45% in Mathematics. 3. 2) The petitioner in W. P. 7043/94, a student of II B. A. , has an attendance of 25. 3% in Language, 14. 5% in English 32. 58% in History, 34. 72% in Economics and 39. 6% in Sociology. 3. 3) The petitioner in W. P. 7044/94, a student of III B. Sc. , has an attendance of 0% in Physics, 4. 3% in Chemistry and 4. 5% in Mathematics. 3. 4) The petitioner in W. P. 5702/92, a student of II B. A. , has an attendance of 0% in English, History and Economics and Sociology, as he did not attend any classes at all. There can be no dispute that all the petitioners have obtained far less than the minimum attendance prescribed under the Regulations (75% attedance in each subject, subject to condonation of 15% by Vice-Chancellor, minimum 60% ).

( 4 ) IN regard to the grievance of the petitioner in W. P. No. 5702/94, that weight-age has not been given for participation in several sports activities, the college explained that no weightage could be given as he did not take the prior permission of the College for such participation or absence. In regard to his another grievance that there were no lecturer at all for French, the College explained that it had not considered petitioner or any one else as being short in attendance in regard to the subject "french". In regard to the main grievance of the petitioners that other students, who had been notified as being short in attendance, were permitted to take the examination, the College contended that each case-was considered by the Attendance Committee (consisting of nine members, that is, the Principal, Vice Principal, three Professors,