THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9414 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No.29026 OF 2008 DATED; 08.09.2009 In W.P.No.9414 of 2008: Between: R. Snigdha Chandrika … Petitioner And 1. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. By its Controller of Examinations, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500 028., and two others. … Respondents In W.P.No.29026 of 2008: Between: R. Snigdha Chandrika … Petitioner And 1. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. By its Controller of Examinations, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500 028., and two others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9414 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No.29026 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER : A student of B.Arch. (Landscape) in C.S.I. Institute of Technology, Secunderabad, affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) is the petitioner in these two writ petitions. W.P.No.9414 of 2008 has been filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not permitting her to appear for the VIII Semester Examinations of B.Arch. scheduled from 28.4.2008. This Court while issuing notice, by order dated 25.04.2008 directed the University to permit the petitioner to attend her VIII semester end examinations and her performance be evaluated and her result also be declared subject to the result in the writ petition. Thereafter, by order dated 12.6.2008 in WPMP.No.15212 of 2008 the petitioner was permitted to make an application seeking transfer form the 2nd respondent institution and the competent authority was directed to consider such application in accordance with rules and regulations in force. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to appear for the VIII semester examinations and thereafter the petitioner’s representation for transfer to a different institution was considered by the 1st respondent University (JNTU) and by letter dated 2.8.2008 the petitioner was given the following two options: (1) Clearing 2nd year subjects and register for 5th year in CSIIT College by opting guide from out side the college. She will be examined directly by the University Examination Branch without involving CSIIT college. (2) She may join any other JNTU affiliated Architecture in 3rd year B.Arch. (Planning) and continue her studies. For this, as a special case the University will permit her to change the branch from B.Arch. (Landscape) to B.Arch. (Planning). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner opted for the first option and accordingly the Commissioner of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, by letter date 7.8.2008 directed the 2nd respondent institution to give an opportunity to the petitioner to choose her guide from out side the college. Accordingly, the petitioner completed the course and submitted the Thesis. However, she was not allowed to appear for the fifth year (final year) examinations as well as the backlog subjects of the 2nd year. Aggrieved by the same, WP.No.29026 of 2008 has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. It is to be noticed that alleging sexual harassment by the Principal of the 2nd respondent institution by name Dharmaraj the petitioner had initially approached A.P. State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad. After hearing the Principal of the 2nd respondent institution against whom the allegations were made, the A.P. State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad passed an order dated 23.04.2008 in HRC.No.1242 of 2008 directing the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the Women Protection Cell and if any such complaint is made, the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, shall investigate into the matter expeditiously and take consequential action basing upon the outcome of the investigation. In terms of the said order, the petitioner had lodged a complaint and the same has been registered as Cr.No.105/2008 dated 26.4.2008 on the file of the P.S. Ramgopal Pet for the offences punishable under Sections 509 & 506 of I.P.C. Since the investigation is pending, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the said controversy and express any opinion with regard to the allegations made in this writ petition against the Principal of the 2nd respondent. So far as the relief sought in the writ petitions to allow the petitioner to appear for the examinations is concerned, the Principal of the 2nd respondent institution filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has not cleared the following subjects of the 2nd year (i.e., III & IV semesters). (a) Building Material & Construction - 2 (3rd semester) (b) Arch. Designs - 2 (4th semester) (c) Building Material & construction – 2 (4th semester) It is stated that in view of the said backlogs, the petitioner is not eligible for getting promoted to final year. That apart, she has no attendance in VII & VIII semesters and she has not even applied for writing the VIII semester examinations. In the circumstances, she was not allowed to appear for the examinations of the VIII semester. However, pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 25.04.2008 in W.P.No.9414 of 2008, the petitioner was allowed to appear for the VIII semester examinations. It is stated that even thereafter she did not apply for clearing the 2nd year subjects. Since she has not yet cleared the 2nd year subjects as well as the subjects in the remaining semesters and she did not even possess the required attendance, she is not eligible to appear for the examinations and the writ petition is devoid of any merit. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Architecture and Fine Arts University stating that the said University has been created under the Act 31 of 2008 carving out of the erstwhile JNTU and that it has come into existence w.e.f. 18.8.2008. It is further explained that according to Rule 4 of the Academic Regulations it is essential for a student to put in a minimum of 75% attendance in aggregate of all the subjects and since the petitioner had no attendance whatsoever from VI semester onwards she was not permitted to continue VII semester. It is further explained that the petitioner has 3 backlog subjects in the 2nd year due to which she cannot be promoted to the 5th year (IX) semester as per Rule 5-c of the Academic Regulations. The allegations that the petitioner was not allowed to appear for the examinations with a mala fide intention and in collusion with the principal of the 2nd respondent institution have been categorically denied and it is stated that as per the Academic Regulations, the petitioner is not eligible to appear for the examinations. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Rule 4 of the Academic Regulations runs as under: “(i) A student has to put in a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects to become eligible to register for the end examinations and for acquiring credits in the first year and / or each semester. (ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate of attendance upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester of 1st year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. (iii) A student will not be permitted to the next semester unless he/she satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/1st year.” Similarly Rule 5-c of the Academic Regulations which provides for minimum academic requirement runs as under : “A student shall be promoted from 4th to 5th year only if he fulfils the academic requirement of all the subjects of the 2nd year from two regular and two supplementary examinations of 3rd and 4th semester, whether the candidate takes the examinations or not, having fulfilled the academic requirement of all the subjects of the 1st year.” From the above provisions, it is clear that minimum attendance of 75% in aggregate of all the subjects is mandatory to register for the end examinations and that a student is not eligible for promotion to the next semester unless the attendance requirement of present semester is satisfied. It is also clear that for the purpose of promotion to the 5th year, it is mandatory for the student to fulfill the academic requirement of all the subjects of the 2nd year. In the instant case, the specific stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavits is that the petitioner could not clear 3 subjects of the 2nd year. It is also alleged that she does not have the minimum percentage of attendance as prescribed under Rule 4 of the Academic Regulations. Neither a Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner nor any other material is produced before this Court disputing the stand taken by the respondents. Having regard to the uncontroverted averment in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirements of Rule 4 and Rule 5-c of the Academic Regulations, it is clear that the petitioner is not eligible to appear for the 5th year examinations of B.Arch. course. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal and consequently no Mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to act contrary to law. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to appear for the baklog subjects of the 2nd year in regular or supplementary examinations and thereafter to complete the B.Arch. course duly complying the provisions of Rules and Academic Regulations. In case the petitioner intends to appear for the examinations to clear the backlog subjects of the 2nd year, the respondents shall permit her to do so if she is otherwise eligible. With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. DT. 08.09.2009 gbs