Mandatory attendance regulations must be uniformly enforced, and compassion cannot override statutory requirements. Claims of discriminatory treatment require substantial evidence to succeed.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The Appellants in the present writ application have prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. For issuance of an appropriate order, direction, or observation, preferably in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct a re-examination of the second semester for the academic year 2021–22, of the Appellants, who are students of the Computer Science and Engineering branch of Darbhanga College of Engineering, Darbhanga, Session 2022–2026.

2. For issuance of a further direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the application of the Appellants sympathetically, with understanding and compatibility, by condoning the shortage of 75% attendance required for appearance in the examination, in view of the fact that they were facing unfortunate and special circumstances during their academic period.

3. For issuance of an additional order directing the respondents to permit the Appellants to appear in the examinations to be conducted by the respondents.

4. For issuance of an appropriate writ or direction to declare Annexure-D as arbitrary and discriminatory, as students with attendance less than that of the Appellants in the said college but of the junior batch (Session 2022–26) were allowed to fill up the forms and appear in the end semester examination, and their results have also been published.

5. For issuance of an appropriate writ or direction declaring that not arranging a special examination for the Appellants, despite the actions of the respondents, is unjust, particularly when students who had failed were allowed to face special examinations, though there exist no rules, regulations, or guidelines in this respect.

6. For issuance of an appropriate writ or direction declaring that under the jurisdiction of the same University, different colleges cannot adopt different yardsticks for debarring a student from appearing in the examination on the basis of lesser percentage of attendance.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant, Shubham Kumar, is a student of B.Tech (Computer Science), Session 2021-2025, at Rastrakavi Ramdhari Singh College of Engineering, Begusarai, and appellant, Shashikesh Kumar, is a student of B.Tech (Civil Engineering), Session 2022- 2026, at Darbhanga College of Engineering, Darbhanga, both of which are affiliated to Bihar Engineering University, Patna. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they were debarred from filling up their examination forms on account of shortage of attendance. It is contended that appellant no. 1 was debarred pursuant to Notification dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-D), bearing letter no. RRSDCE/EC/2024/001, whereas appellant no. 2 was debarred under Notification dated 19.09.2023(Annexure F), bearing letter no. 1325, issued vide administrative order.

4. It is urged that appellant, Shashikesh Kumar had been suffering from jaundice between 25.07.2023 and 16.09.2023, for which he underwent treatment, as supported by certain medical documents placed on record as Annexure-I series. On account of this illness, he could not attend classes regularly, and his absence, being involuntary, should have been condoned by the authorities.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that appellant, Shashikesh Kumar was duly allowed to submit his examination form along with the prescribed fee of Rs. 3,700/-, which was accepted by the University on 20.09.2023, vide Exam Form No. 111/943(Annexure H). It is contended that once the University had accepted the examination form and requisite fee, debarring appellant from appearing in the end-semester examination solely on the ground of at