IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.79 of 2009 Between: Arem Tejaswini D/o. A. Venkata Konda Reddy …. Appellant AND Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, A.P., Rep. by its Registrar and another …. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 79 OF 2010 JUDGEMNT: The unsuccessful petitioner filed this writ appeal against the order dated 01-12-2009 passed in WP.No. 24584 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge declined to condone the absence of the writ petitioner on the ground that she had put in 62% of attendance, therefore, imperatively instructions of the institution remains to be followed. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to attend the examinations by condoning the absence of the petitioner on medical grounds and to further declare that the action of the respondents in not permitting her for attending the examinations is ultra vires, violative of the fundamental principles, natural justice enshrined in the Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to permit her for I-semester of III-Year of B.Pharmacy examinations in the second respondent college both practical, theory, internal and external. 3. The case of the petitioner before the learned single Judge is that as per the allotment made by the Convener and Council of Higher Education of Andhra Pradesh, she joined First Year Pharmacy Course in the second respondent institution during the year 2007 in the faculty of B.Pharmacy and she was assigned Roll No.O7Y81R0059 by the first respondent-University. She had completed her first and second year Pharmacy course and emerged as a first class student and thereafter she was promoted to third year Pharmacy course, which is being taken place right now. It is further stated by the petitioner that from the beginning she had been continuously attending the college but due to affliction of Heritocus piles and jaundice, she could not attend the college for three weeks and thereby her regular attendance in the third year first semester had not attended the pre-requisite of minimum 65% of attendance. It is further stated that on 04-11-2009, the second respondent issued a detention order informing her and some other students that the minimum attendance required in aggregate has not been satisfied to take the examinations to be held in the month of November 2009 and her name was figured at serial No.7 of the detention order. It is further stated that the deficiency of attendance is only meager 3%, therefore she informed the second respondent about her inability to attend the classes and also appraised of the reasons of her abstinence, which is mere providential and not due to willful acts or due to negligence. On 20-10-20009 she had requested the second respondent to condone her absence and permit her to take III-year I-semester examinations both internal, external, practical and theory, which were slated in the month of November 2009. But the second respondent pleaded his inability to condone her absence on the ground that Rule 6 (2) of the Academic Regulations Course and Structures and detailed syllabus promulgated by the first respondent, therefore, second respondent is not empowered to condone his absence and his powers to condone have been fettered by the first respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner paid the entire academic fee but in spite of her representation to the second respondent on 29-10- 2009, the second respondent did not issue hall ticket to her. On the other hand, her grievance is that the second respondent collected the fee for attending the III year I-semester examination and is not issuing her hall ticket and also not allowing her to attend the said examinations. Therefore, if she is not permitted to write the internal, external, theory and practical examinations, she will loose her one academic year and herself and her father will suffer great hardship and mental agony. 4. The learned single Judge after hearing both sides observed that the minimum percentage stipulated by the University to enable a student to appear in the examination is 75%. The learned single Judge also observed that the University Vice-Chancellor is conferred with the discretion to condone the shortage of attendance by 10%. In the present case, the appellant has put in 62% of attendance. Even, if there exist valid reasons or justification for the petitioner in not having the requisite attendance, what becomes material is the undergoing of instructions in the institution. 5. With the above observations, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved of the said order, this appeal is filed. 6. On careful examination of the entire matter, Rule 6 (1) of the Academic Regulations Course Structure and details syllabus of the first respondent makes it clear that a student shall be eligible to appear for the University examinations, should require a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate in all subjects. Rule 6 (2) stipulates condonation of attendance can be made upto 10% for every one year. Rule 6 (4) enunciates that the students who are having below 65% of attendance are not permitted to take their examinations. In the instant case, the appellant has put in 62% of attendance. Even if Rule 6 (2) is applied, then also the appellant will have shortfall of attendance. Thus, the learned single Judge has rightly observed that even if there exist valid reasons or justification for the appellant in not having the requisite attendance, what becomes material is the undergoing of instructions in the institution and did not grant the relief, as sought for, by the appellant. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we express our disinclination to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. 7. Hence, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI _________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR February 10, 2010. KTL