1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4370 OF 2008 (Sufiyan Ahamad s/o Mohd. Irfan vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2009 Heard Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. The petition is directed against the communication dated 8/8/2008 issued by the respondent no.4 whereby result of the petitioner of the first year D.Pharm Examination of Summer Examination 2008 is not declared on the ground that the petitioner failed to attend requisite number of classes as required by the provisions of Examination Regulations framed by the respondent no.2. 2 Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4, states that attendance of the petitioner was less than 60% and, therefore, petitioner was not eligible to appear for the examination itself, consequently question of declaration of result of the petitioner does not arise. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused relevant Clauses RG-4 (D) and (E) of the Examination Regulations. As per relevant Clauses, the student, who is eligible to appear for the examination must have attendance of at least 75% of the total lectures/periods in each Theory/Practical/ Term work/Tutorials/Project work, etc. Clause (E) contemplates that in case attendance of a candidate falls short by not more than 10% due to his own illness (duly certified by a registered medical practitioner), the Head of the Institute may condone such deficiency at his discretion and permit the candidate to appear for examination, if he is otherwise eligible. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner on earlier occasion had made a representation to the competent Authority and the competent Authority after taking into consideration all these aspects rejected the 3 representation. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj