Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who is a student of B.Tech. in Babu Banarasi Das Institute of Technology, Duhai, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institute’) which is affiliated to the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondents to declare his result of the 8th Semester of Fourth Year Examination for the Session 2007-08.

2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had appeared at the said examination but marks of sessional/internal have not been displayed in the mark-sheet which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition after downloading it from the internet. The petitioner contacted the University authorities but was informed that the same have not been mentioned in the mark-sheet since the University had not received the sessional/internal marks from the College.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University as well as the Institute. It has been stated that the petitioner had been detained from appearing at the 8th Semester Examination of the Academic Session 2007-08 since his attendance was short and for this reason even the admit card was not issued to the petitioner and the original admit card is still with the Institute. It has also been stated that in the absence of the admit card, the petitioner could not have appeared at the examination from the Centre K.I.E.T., Ghaziabad allotted to the students of the Institute by the University. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the attendance of the petitioner in the 8th Semester is only 16% as against the requirement of 75% though in certain circumstances, this requirement of 75% could be further condoned by 15%. The attendance sheets have also been enclosed along with the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it has also been stated that the Institute had sent a list of candidates who had been detained from appearing in the examination and the name of the petitioner also appeared in the said list. The petitioner has, therefore, been declared failed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been permitted to appear at the 8th Semester Examination and, therefore, the respondents cannot withhold the declaration of result on account of shortage of attendance. He has further submitted that the petitioner had been regularly attending the classes and the Institute is not justified in stating that the attendance of the petitioner is only 16%.

5. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University and Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the Institute have placed before the Court the Ordinances of the University relating to the Bachelor of Technology Programmes and have submitted that no student can be permitted to appear at the end semester examination if he does not satisfy the overall average attendance requirements contained in Clauses Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 and shall be treated as having failed. According to them, under Clause 3.1 every student is required to attend all the lectures, tutorials, practicals and other prescribed curricular and co-curricular activities. The attendance can be condoned upto 25% on medical grounds or for other genuine reasons beyond the control of students but under Clause 3.2, a further relaxation of attendance upto 15% can be given by the Head of the Institution provided the student was absent with prior permission of the Head of the Institution for the reasons acceptable to the Head of the Institution. They have, therefore, contended that under no circumstances a student having less than 60% attendance can be permitted to appear in the examination and since in the present case, the petitioner had only 16% attendance, he was rightly detained.

6. Learned counsel for the Institute has further submitted that the Institution had not issued any admit-card to the petitioner for appearing