HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 11084 OF 2011. DATED 19th April, 2011 BETWEEN Salagala Ratnakar …Petitioner and The Registrar, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 11084 OF 2011. ORDER: The petitioner is a student of engineering course (Computer Science) in the third respondent-college. At present, the petitioner is studying II year II semester of B.Tech., course. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has participated in the Football tournaments representing the college in JNTU ‘D’ Zone and secured second position in ADRIOT ‘II’. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from sinusitis problems and hence could not attend few of the classes. It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to short fall of attendance, the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to appear for the examinations of II year II semester of B.Tech course. The learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents submits that as per the academic regulations framed by the University, requirement of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects is necessary and there is power to condone up to 10% by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the sub committee of the academic senate on valid and genuine grounds. Even if the said lenience is shown on the petitioner, the petitioner does not fulfill the required attendance. As per the academic regulations, a minimum attendance of 75% is required to acquire the eligibility to write examinations. However, the Academic Committee can condone the shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10%. Therefore, even to seek condonation of shortage in attendance, one must have put in the attendance of not below 65%. Though, the petitioner participated in the Football tournaments and is suffering with sinusitis ailment, but in view of the academic regulations framed by the University itself, this Court cannot issue directions which run contrary to the academic regulations. In a similar matter, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Sunil Chakravarthy Vs. Principal Sreekalahasteeswara {2005 (1) ALD 253} has clearly held that what is prohibited by regulations of the University cannot be the subject matter of mandamus. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to write examinations.. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19th April, 2011. Msnro