1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5559 OF 2009 Anupama d/o Manual Abbasi ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Commissioner, Mah. State Exam. Council, Pune & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr H.A. Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr Hemant Surve for the petitioner; Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 25th August 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 to forward the proposal for condonation of absence of the petitioner from tutorials and to sponsor the examination form of the petitioner to respondent no.1 for first year D.Ed. examination scheduled to commence from 7.9.2009. 2. It appears that the petitioner came to be admitted to D.Ed. course in the respondent no.2 college for the academic year 2009-2010. The tutorials of the said course commenced in November, 2009. According to the petitioner, the petitioner attended the tutorials regularly till April, 2009. According to the petitioner the petitioner came to be arrested for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had applied for her release on bail, which came to be rejected 2 by the Sessions Court by order dated 3.6.2009. However, since the charge-sheet was not filed within the stipulated period as is contemplated under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner came to be released on account of the summary submitted by the respondents. The petitioner thereafter on 10.8.2009 requested the college authorities to forward her examination form. However, the respondents refused to issue examination form to her on the ground that the petitioner had failed to fulfill the requisite attendance. The petitioner also approached respondent no.1 but her request was not acceded to by the respondents. 3. Mr Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of the Rules relating to condonation of the attendance. The aforesaid Rules are applicable only to two cases, i.e. where there is late admission on account of the Government policy or when the requisite attendance is not met on account of medical grounds. The petitioner does not fulfill the aforesaid reasons as the petitioner had been arrested in respect of a crime. Since the requisite Rules do not permit relaxation of the attendance in case of the petitioner, according to us no case for interference is made out. In any event, the petitioner is not completely debarred from prosecuting her studies as the petitioner has an opportunity of appearing for the examination scheduled for the next year. In the light of that there is no merit in the petition and the same is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp5559.09