Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This petition has been preferred by 64 students of the respondent School of Planning & Architecture. The petitioners are either the 1st or the 2nd or the 3rd year students of the Bachelor of Architecture course, an approximately five year course. They were all prevented from appearing in the examinations commencing from 17th May, 2010 for the reason of not meeting the requisite attendance criteria. The petitioners claim that prior to 17th May, 2010 they did not know that they did not have the requisite attendance or that they will be so prevented from taking the exams. The writ petition came up before this Court first on 18th May, 2010 when while issuing notice thereof, by interim orders the petitioners were permitted to take the exams subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. It was however provided that merely because the petitioners had been permitted to take the exam, would not create any special equities in their favour. However by then - one or two examinations were already over. The counsel for the petitioners during the hearing has informed that the respondent Institute had prevented a total of 105 students from taking the examination for similar reason and of which only 64 students are before the Court. It is further informed that the respondent Institute however gave the benefit of the interim order in the present petition to the others also and hence the fate of total of 105 students of the respondent Institute including the 64 petitioners before this Court hangs on the outcome of the present petition.

2. The petition, of course filed in a hurry, pleads:-

(i) that the respondent Institute for the last several years has never insisted adherence to any specific format of an attendance schedule; the students have been instructed and led to believe that the respondent Institute does not follow a conformist attendance schedule and is only keen on the students pursuing their courses. In consonance with the said practice, no attendance list is published at any time and no warnings qua attendance is given;

(ii) that the examination in the Institute comprises of practical and theoretical papers; that in further consonance of the above each of the petitioners was permitted to take the practical exam for the current year. However they were prevented from appearing in the theory examinations only commencing from 17th May, 2010;

(iii) that the practical exam is of 1200 marks while the theory exams are only of 200,400 & 600 marks for the 1st, 2nd & 3rd year respectively;

(iv) It is contended that the petitioners having been allowed to take the exam of 1200 marks ought not to be prevented from taking the exam for the balance 200/400/600 marks;

(v) that the respondent Institute by permitting the petitioners to take the practical exams waived their objection even if any qua attendance.

3. The case made out in the petition is certainly very attractive and led to the interim order in favour of the petitioners. It defies logic as to why the respondent Institute should detain the students mid-way during the exams.

4. However the respondent Institute in its counter affidavit (and which part is not controverted in the rejoinder) informs that the practical exam of 1200 marks comprises of assessment of the works/projects submitted by the students; the students do not even need admit card for the same. It is thus contended that merely because the petitioners submitted their projects, would not mean that the respondent Institute has waived observance of the Rule regarding attendance.

5. The case made out in the petition is thus false. It is not as if the respondent Institute by allowing the petitioners to submit the project or by assessing the performance of the petitioners during the course of the year, permitted the petitioners to appear in the examination. The records of attendance are generally computed only at the time of issuing the admit cards to the examination hall and it is not as if the students are prevent