Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The regulation governing attendance requirements for students in Classes 9 and 10 is Regulation 21 of the Orissa Education Code (!) (!) . This regulation mandates that students must attend at least 66% of the working days in each class to be eligible to appear for the High School Certificate Examination (!) .

2. The attendance percentage is calculated based on classes held up to the test examination for Class 10 (!) .

3. The regulation allows for certain relaxations in attendance for special reasons, such as health issues or extraordinary circumstances, which may be condoned up to a maximum of 6% (!) .

4. The petitioner attended only 59.2% of the classes in Class 9, which is below the minimum required 66% attendance (!) (!) .

5. There is no statutory provision explicitly requiring a minimum percentage of attendance for promotion from Class 9 to Class 10, but attendance is linked to eligibility to appear at the examination (!) (!) .

6. The petitioner argued that there is no statutory requirement for minimum attendance for promotion and that he had performed well academically, with 112 marks secured in the annual examination (!) (!) .

7. The school and authorities maintained that the petitioner’s attendance was insufficient and thus he was not eligible for promotion or to appear at the examination (!) (!) .

8. The regulation permits students who have not met attendance requirements to make up attendance by attending classes with students of Class 9, but only if they have attended sufficiently in the first place (!) (!) .

9. The court held that the attendance requirement is a statutory condition for eligibility to sit for the examination and that the petitioner’s attendance did not meet this requirement (!) .

10. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the authorities’ decision not to promote the petitioner to Class 10 due to inadequate attendance (!) .

11. The decision emphasizes that the attendance requirement is a mandatory statutory criterion, and failure to meet it cannot be overlooked even if other academic performance is satisfactory (!) .

12. The court clarified that there is no provision allowing students to compensate for attendance shortfalls in Class 10 by attending classes with students of Class 9 after the test examination, reinforcing the importance of meeting attendance requirements in the respective classes (!) .

These points collectively demonstrate that attendance requirements are statutory conditions linked to examination eligibility and promotion decisions, and failure to meet these criteria justifies the denial of promotion in this case.