S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. The petitioners had joined the University Visvesvaraya College of Engineering, K.R. Circle, Bangalore, ('college' for short) for the study of B.E. (Civil) Engineering Course for the academic year 2008-2009. The college is affiliated to Bangalore University. It is contended that they have passed in all the subjects of 1st semester to 5th semester. The University did not permit them to appear for the sixth semester examination scheduled to be held on 11.6.2011 in view of the circular of the University dated 10.6.2011 (Annexure 'J' in W.P. No. 22135/2011). The petitioners have called in question the legality/validity of the said circular in these writ petitions.

2. The petitioners have also filed applications-Misc. W. Nos. 7722/2011, 7723/2011 and 7724/2011 for inclusion of an additional prayer in the writ petitions. The additional prayer is for quashing of the Regulations governing the Engineering course of the second respondent-college in so far as they are inconsistent with the AICTE Regulations.

3. The respondents have filed their statement of objections contending that as per the Regulations of the University, the petitioners have not put in 75% of attendance in each of the subjects of the sixth semester of B.E. (Civil) Engineering Course. That is why they are not eligible to appear for the said examination. The petitioner in W.P. No. 22134/2011 has put in 66.16% attendance in one of the subjects. In W.P. No. 22135/2011, the petitioner has put in 40% and 45% attendance in two of the subjects and the petitioner in W.P. No. 22140/2011 has put in 55% attendance in one of the subjects. That is why they were not allowed to appear for the examination.

4. Sri B.B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that as per the AICTE Regulations, a candidate has to put in not less than 75% of the aggregate scheduled periods in each of the prescribed course of theory (lectures plus tutorials) and practical (including workshop training, seminar, project, industrial training, etc.) in order to appear for the semester examination. However, the Dean of the University in case of University/constituent college and Principal/Director in case of affiliated institutions may condone attendance shortage up-to 10% for reasons to be recorded in writing (owing to serious illness, calamity, participation in any game/sports/competitions with approval of the institution, etc.). The Regulations of the University is not in conformity with the AICTE Regulations. The Regulations of the University is void a initio to the extent it is in conflict with the Regulations of the AICTE. The absence of a student to a class room lecture whenever he participates in the game/sports/competition, etc., should be condoned as it is a part of the education. It is further contended that as per the Regulations of the AICTE, attendance shall be counted seven days prior to the date of commencement of the University theory examinations. The Dean of the University/Director/Principal as the case may be shall announce the names of all students who are not found eligible to appear in the semester end examinations atleast seven calendar days prior to the start of the semester end examinations and simultaneously intimate the same to the controller of examinations. The Regulations of the University does not contain similar provisions.

5. On the other hand, Sri Brijesh Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioners have not put in 75% of the attendance in one or two subjects of the sixth semester. That is why they were not permitted to appear for the sixth semester examination. It is argued that the Regulations of the University is not in violation of the Regulations of the AICTE. The University has fixed higher minimum qualification of attendance by prescribing 75% minimum attendance in each of the subjects for appearance of a student for the examination. It is further contended that though there is no requirement