SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a student of St. Pauls Senior Higher Secondary School, Ajmer in Class-12th in the year 1992-93. He was not permitted for appearing in the examination on account of shortfall in the attendance by 99 meetings. His case is that he sustained a fracture on 9. 08. 1992 and on account of this, he was unable to attend the school up to 18. 11. 1992 and for this reason his attendance has fallen short. He has challenged the validity of Regulation 4 (3) Chapter 22 of the handbook of the Board of Secondary School Examination Rajasthan which reads as under: ***
(2.) THIS regulation has been challenged on the ground that there is no provision for meeting with the extra ordinary circumstances of illness and other circumstances beyond the control of the student. It is also said to be discriminatory because there is no provision for compulsory attendance for the private students. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. This case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court (the same Bench) in Sunil Sharma vs. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer and Anr. decided on 19. 04. 1993 (1) in which it has been held as under : " The intention behind the regulation providing minimum attendance is not to deprive the students] from taking examination but it has been provided with a view to encourage students from taking examination but it has been provided with a view to encourage students from studying in the class for the maximum number of days. A provision, in order to become discriminatory should treat persons similarly situated in a different manner. If equal or similarly placed persons are treated similarly then the statute would not be discriminatory. Private candidates appearing in the examination and the students who are regular students of the school appearing in the examination cannot be said to be on the same flouting. The regular students have some advantages which are not available to the private candidates. If different regulations and rules are made for the regular candidates then it would not be discriminatory merely because the similar condition has not been provided for the private candidates. We are unable to hold that clause (3) and 4 of Chapter XXIV of the Regulations of 1957 are ultra vires or unconstitutional. " The validity of regulation 4 (3) was under challenge in that writ petition and after considering all the arguments, the validity has been upheld. Following the same view we hold that there is no force in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The order passed on the stay application shall stand vacated as it has become infructuous in view of the decision passed in the writ petition. .;