IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 25272 of 2005 BETWEEN: Dr. Sartaj Shaik, W/o. Dr. Shaik Abdul Wahab, R/o.13-4-85/28, Pannipura, Sabze Mandi, Karvan, Hyderabad-67. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Rep by its Registrar, Vijayawada, A.P. 2 The Government Nizamia Tibbi College, Rep by its Principal, Charminar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings No.1010/EA3/2005, dt.1-7-2005 in rejecting the petitioner's case for extension of period of course of M.D (Unani) pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent In Lr.No.1245-B/NTC/2004, dt.11- 10-2004, even though petitioner is entitled for extension of period of course, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19,21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above stated impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent with a direction to grant extension of time to the petitioner for completion of course and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings No.1010/EA3/2005, dated 01.07.2005 in rejecting her case for extension of period of course of M.D (Unani) pursuant to the proceedings issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.1245-B/NTC/2004, dated 11.10.2004, even though she is entitled for extension of period of course, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured 67th rank with Hall Ticket No.098094 in the entrance test for admission of candidates into MD (Unani) course for the academic year 1999 – 2000 conducted on 03.12.2000 and in the counseling held on 23.12.2000, the petitioner was allotted a seat in Moalijat Speciality and the classes commenced on 30.12.2000 and the course would be completed by 29.12.2003. The petitioner passed all the subjects in the first year and as per the Regulations there would be no examination for the second year and a candidate has to attend only the final examination at the end of the third year. While the petitioner was studying in the second year, she suffered from Infective Hepatitis Jaundice due to which she developed a fatty liver and ascetics (fluid collection in the abdomen) and in spite of such suffering she attended the classes as much as possible while undergoing prolonged treatment as is evident from the certificate issued by the Assistant Professor, Government Nizamia Unani Medical College & General Hospital dated 31.01.2005 with effect from 15.01.2002. As a result there was shortage of attendance for writing the third year examination and therefore, she was not eligible to write the third year examination, as the Post Graduate student shall have 85% attendance in all subjects separately, however, the Vice-Chancellor has got power only to relax 10% of the attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent vide Lr.No.1245-B/NTC/2004 dated 11.10.2004 requested the Deputy Registrar of Examinations/first respondent to permit the petitioner to complete the shortage of 275 days by extending the period of course. The said letter of the second respondent was not at all considered, therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.07.2005 and the second respondent forwarded the same to the first respondent for taking necessary action. Ultimately the first respondent responded to the letter of the second respondent vide impugned order No.1010/EA3/2005 dated 01.07.2005 stating that as per the Regulation 16 (c) the request of the petitioner, who belong to 1999-2000 MD (Unani) batch, for re-admission into course with Moalijat specialty is not considered as her period of absence is more than one year (3 years approximately). He further submits that the first respondent misquoted the rule by extracting the last sentence alone but as per Regulation 16 (c) the petitioner is entitled for re-admission. 4. In view of the above it is just and proper to extract Regulation No.16 of the Regulations For Admissions Into M.D. (UNANI) Courses – 1998-99. 16. ATTENDANCE a) Candidates selected to various courses shall be whole time students. Service candidates may apply for study leave and are required to produce the orders where in such leave has been sanctioned to them, from the competent authority within three months after joining the course. b) The posts graduate students shall complete eighty five percent of attendance in all subjects separately before they appear for final examination. However, ten percent of attendance may be relaxed by the Vice-Chancellor on production of medical certificate in deserving cases. c) Sanction of Leave of absence beyond 3 months and termination of studentship: Every student shall attend his/her classes (theory, Practicals and Clinicals) on all working days unless he/she is granted leave of absence by the Principal. If a student absent continuously for a period of 91 days or more and seeks permission to attend the course before one year after discontinuation his/her application shall be forwarded to the Registrar with the recommendations of the Principal. If the Vice- Chancellor is satisfied with the reasons, he may grant leave of absence attaching such conditions, as he may deem necessary. Candidates who are absent for a continuous period of one year or more without permission shall be deemed to have forfeited the admission into the course and his/her studentship shall stand cancelled without any further notice. 5. As per Regulation 16(b) the posts graduate students shall complete eighty five percent of attendance in all subjects separately before they appear for final examination. However, ten percent of attendance may be relaxed by the Vice-Chancellor on production of medical certificate. A reading of Regulation 16(c) makes it clear that the admission of a student stands cancelled if he/she is continuously absent for a period of one year but if the student is absent continuously for a period of 91 days or more and seeks permission to attend the course before one year after discontinuation his or her application shall be forwarded to the Registrar with the recommendations of the Principal. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that she was not absent continuously for a period of 91 days but she was absent from second year onwards i.e. from 01.01.2000. In fact, the petitioner was present on all working days in the first four months i.e. January to April 2002 and from June 2002 onwards she was irregular in attending the classes but in every month she attended to classes on some days, therefore, she was not continuously absent for a period of 91 days for seeking permission to attend the course. However, it is stated that pursuant to the application of the petitioner, the Principal forwarded the same to the first respondent recommending permitting the petitioner to complete the course relating to shortage of attendance. In other words the petitioner can be permitted to continue to attend the classes from second year onwards so as to enable the petitioner to complete 85% of the attendance for writing the third year examination. 6. In the counter it is stated that as per Regulation 16(c) the request of the petitioner was not considered for readmission as she discontinued attending the classes for a period of one year. But the attendance register produced by the respondents goes to show that the petitioner attended to the classes in every month and she never absented herself for a period of one year, but she was having shortage of required attendance only; therefore, I am of the opinion that non-consideration of the representation of the second respondent college dated 11.10.2004 appears to be illegal and without any justification. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the letter of the second respondent vide Lr.No.1245-B/NTC/2004 dated 11.10.2004 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid observations. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 15, 2008 DSK