IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1728 of 2008 LALLAN KUMAR & ANR Versus RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr Ambar Nath Banerji,Advocate For the University : Mr Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate with Mr Raju Giri, Advocate ------- 6. 12.08.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Rajendra Agriculture University. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Academic Council of the University dated 11.12.2007 at Agenda Item no. 21 and the consequential order issued by the Registrar dated 13.12.2007. By the impugned orders the name of the petitioners have been struck off from the roll of the University where they were attending B.V.Sc and A.H. Degree Programme for the year 2007. The petitioners are alleged not to have attended any classes in the first semester. They were therefore not allowed to go to the second semester much less sit in the first year final examination. From the rules relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties it is apparent that a minimum of 75 % attendance was required to be fulfilled by the petitioners before they could be allowed to go to second semester. While the impugned order states that the petitioners had attended no classes it is the case of the petitioners from attendance chart that petitioner no. 1 had attended 30% lectures while petitioner no. 2 had attended 50% lectures. Learned Counsel for the University however submits that from the attendance chart it is apparent that the attendance was confined to only one of the six subjects. However, the petitioners have specifically made out a case of discrimination also in their pleadings in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit inasmuch as several others with less than 75% attendance whose names have been mentioned therein have been allowe4d to attend second semester classes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the matter concerns academic career of the petitioners and their future, this Court is not persuaded to take a hyper technical view to outrightly reject the writ petition. This Court is satisfied that justice would be done if the petitioners are permitted to take fresh admission in the first semester in the next ensuing session. The Court passes this order in the fond hope that the petitioners shall realise their folly and mend their ways failing which they shall always be amenable to the discipline of the University. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)