THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23529 of 2008 Oral order: The petitioner is studying B.Tech. (ECE) II year in respondent No.2-College. On the ground that the petitioner is having less than 65% attendance, the respondents did not permit him to appear for 1st semester examinations of II year. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the following relief: To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination of the 1st semester of II year B.Tech., ECE, declaring that Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations of the 1st respondent insofar as it stipulates the aggregate attendance of a semester rather the aggregate of the academic year and in not giving opportunity to the petitioner to make good of attendance shortage of a particular semester in the next semester is highly, unjust, irrational, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On 29.10.2008, this Court while ordering notice before admission, gave interim directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay exam fee and appear for the 1st semester of II year B.Tech examination, but the result shall be kept in abeyance until further orders to be passed in the writ petition. To vacate the said order, 2nd respondent-college filed vacate petition denying the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and further stating that the petitioner had put in only 53.5% attendance, and that if presumptive attendance for one week is added, his attendance would go upto 57.22%, and since the petitioner is having less than 65% attendance, the shortage of attendance cannot be condoned and he cannot be permitted to appear for the 1st semester examinations of II year. This Court, by order dated 04.12.2008, while admitting the writ petition in W.P.M.P. No. 34793 of 2008, gave interim directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the classes of 2nd semester of II year, subject to the result of the writ petition. The 1st respondent-University also filed counter taking more or less similar stand as taken by respondent No.2 in the counter. Again vide orders dated 02.04.2009, passed in W.P.M.P. No. 9208 of 2009, this court gave interim directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the examination fee and appear for the 2nd semester examinations of II year, subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioner initially filed the writ petition stating that he has only 55% attendance, but after looking into the counter of the respondents, as there is discrepancy in the %age of attendance, he approached the 2nd respondent-college, and he was informed by his Professors that there is error in calculating his attendance and that he has 67% attendance, and this fact, he brought to the notice of this Court by filing an additional affidavit. Though copy of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner was served on the respondents, the respondents have not filed any counter thereto denying the stand taken by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Regulation 5 of the JNTU (Revised) Academic Regulations, a student has to put in a minimum of 75% attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the I year and/or each semester thereafter, and condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester or I year may be granted by the College Academic Committee, and since the petitioner is found to be having 67% attendance, the shortage of attendance can be condoned as per the above Regulation. He further submitted that the petitioner got 77% attendance in the 2nd semester of II year. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-college. The fact that the petitioner is said to have got 67% of attendance in 1st semester of II year, is not disputed by the respondents by filing any reply-affidavit. Pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, granted from time to time, the petitioner appeared for 1st semester examinations of II year and also pursued the 2nd semester classes of II year and also appeared for the said examinations. The petitioner having attended the 2nd semester classes, is said to have got 77% attendance, and this fact, is also not disputed by the respondents. Since it is the case of the petitioner that he secured 67% attendance in 1st semester of II year, which is not disputed by the respondents, and the shortage of attendance being only 8% attendance, which is condonable by the College Academic Committee, and since it is the specific case of the petitioner that he could not attend the classes because of ill-health, the College Academic Committee, and considering the fact that the petitioner appeared for the 1st semester examinations of II year and also attended the classes of 2nd semester of II year and also appeared for the said examinations pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, and inasmuch as, it is the case of both the petitioner as well as respondents that unless and until the results of 1st semester and 2nd semester examinations of II year are declared, the petitioner will not be allowed to pursue III year, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The College Academic Committee shall consider the condoning of shortage of 8% attendance in the light of the medical certificates. The respondents are further directed to declare the results of 1st semester and 2nd semester examinations of II year forthwith, to enable him to pursues III year. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 11th August, 2009 KSR