will not be eligible for condonation of shortage of attendance in future), the application preferred in respect of the third year was considered and rejected, informing to the position to the Principal as per letter dated 22.02.2011. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved of the same, had approached the 'Pro-Vice Chancellor', but the request was rejected as per the order dated 26.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 'Vice Chancellor' by filing a mercy petition, which was not maintainable and was rejected, as per the order dated 22.03.2011, and the decision was conveyed to the Principal of the College vide letter dated 30.03.2011. It is stated that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived and that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court without revealing the full facts. In the said circumstance no interference is warranted, either on facts or in law, submits the learned Counsel.