HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2011 Dt: 30-12-2011. Between: SMT.MALLADI HARSHA .. APPELLANT AND JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, KAKINADA REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, KAKINADA, E.G.DISTRICT AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.29484 of 2011. 2. The appellant was studying in the first semester of 4th year B.Tech. course in Sri Mittapalli Institute of Technology for Women, Guntur under Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada. For convenience Sri Mittapalli Institute of Technology for Women, Guntur is referred as the ‘Institute’ while Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada is referred as the ‘University’. 3. During the third year of the course the appellant got married and conceived. She gave birth to a child on 28.6.2011. Thereafter, she stopped attending classes for some time and as a result thereof she fell short of the minimum attendance of 75% required for enabling her to sit for the semester examinations. 4. According to the appellant, she attended the Institute for 60 days out of 180 days and therefore she had 60% attendance, but according to the Institute she attended only some classes on the days mentioned by her and in fact her attendance was 37.4%. 5. Notwithstanding this controversy, the learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the attendance of the appellant was 60% and dismissed the writ petition. 6. The learned single Judge referred to Regulation No.5 of the Academic Regulations, 2008 of the University for B.Tech (Regular) course. This Regulation reads as follows: “ 5. Attendance Requirements: i. A student shall be eligible to appear for University examinations if acquires a minimum of 75 % of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects. ii. Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65 % and above and below 75%) in each semester or 1st year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. iii. A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement for that present semester / 1st year, as applicable. They may seek re-admission for that semester/ 1st year when offered next. iv. Shortage of Attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in NO case be condoned. v. Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/ 1st year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. vi. A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance.” 7. It is clear from a reading of the aforesaid Regulation that the authorities cannot waive the attendance requirement of 75% except to the extent of 10 %. Therefore, a student must get atleast 65 % attendance in the aggregate and it is made clear by Regulation 5 (iv) that shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. 8. The appellant had 60% attendance and therefore the respondents were fully justified in declining permission to the appellant to sit for the semester examination. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that his client was absent on maternity grounds and therefore there should be some sympathetic consideration in this regard. He also submitted that it is a case of married women who wants to continue her studies and therefore the respondents should look into the matter with greater sympathy. 10. This argument was placed before the learned single Judge and rejected after relying upon a decision of Supreme Court in A.K.THAKUR v. UNIVERSITY OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[1] and the decisions of this court in B.YUGANDHAR v. PRINCIPAL, KUPPAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DIST.[2] , M.SUNIL CHAKRAVARTHY v. PRINCIPAL, SREEKALAHASTEESWARA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR[3] and K.PRADEEP v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD[4]. 11. We see no reason to take a view different from what as consistently been expressed by this court. As far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court is concerned we are, of course, bound to follow it. 12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any error with the view taken by the learned single Judge that it is not possible to condone the absence of the appellant in attending classes and that the shortfall of attendance cannot be condoned under the Academic Regulations. 13. There is no merit in this writ appeal, it is dismissed. 14. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) Dt: 30-12-2011. ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) TNB [1] (1973) 2 SCC 298 [2] 2008(2) ALT 529 [3] 2005(1) ALD 253 [4] 2002(3) ALD 667