THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.9777 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioner has filed this writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting him to appear for the second semester 3rd year B.Tech examination as illegal and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent-college to permit him to appear for the said examination by condoning the shortage of attendance. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner put in 62.53 % attendance in the 3rd year course. It is his case that though he participated in mechanical fest on 25th and 26th February, 2011, he did not sign the attendance register and that from 1st March to 10th March, 2011, he could not attend the classes as he was allegedly unwell, as a result of the same, he could not put in 65% attendance, which is the minimum as required under the Regulations. He, therefore, pleads that he is entitled for condonation of shortage. I am unable to accept the said contention. 3. Regulation-6, which is relevant, is as follows : “6. Attendance :- i) A student has to put in a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the 1st year and/or each semester thereafter. ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate up to 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester or 1st year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. iii) A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/1year. iv) Shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. v) Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/1year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. They may seek re-admission for that semester/1 year when offered next. vi) Condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 6(ii) above shall be granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence. vii) A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance.” 4. From a reading of the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that a student should put in 75% or at least 65% attendance with 10% condonation and that shortage below the said percentage shall in no case be condoned. Indisputably, the petitioner put in only 62.53% attendance, therefore the petitioner is not entitled for condonation of attendance. 5. In the identical fact situation a learned Division Bench of this Court in B.Yugandhar Vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College, Kuppam, Chittoor District [1] following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. University of Himachal Pradesh [2] and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.S.Chakravarthi Vs. Principal, Sri Kalahasteeswara Institute of Technology [3] held that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the respondents to admit a student and thereby violate mandate of the Regulations. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though there is shortage of attendance, this Court by interim order dated 11-04-2011 permitted him to write the examination and accordingly, he appeared for the examination. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents are estopped from objecting for promoting the petitioner to the next semester announcing the results of the examinations. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in Shri Krishan Vs. Kurukshetra University[4]. 7. It may be mentioned that in the case cited, the Apex Court was dealing with the case in which the appellant therein was permitted by the university to appear for the examination and accordingly appeared for part-I and part-II of the examinations. However, in the instant case, the petitioner appeared for the examination only under the interim orders of this Court, therefore I am of the view that the judgment cited is not relevant to the facts of the case. In the instant case even while granting the interim orders, this Court specifically directed that the results should not be announced. Therefore, by granting the said order, no right has been created in favour of the petitioner to insist for condonation of the shortage of attendance. 8. Considering the matter as above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner, since did not satisfy the requirements of the mandate of Regulation-6 of the academic Regulations by putting the minimum attendance, is not entitled for the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. 9. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 11-04-2011 passed in the Writ Petition shall stand annulled. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 20th September, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.9777 of 2011 Date : 20-09-2011 Mr.Mandhane Piyush Rajesh .. Petitioner And The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad and 2 Others .. Respondents [1] 2008 (2) ALT 529 [2] AIR 1973 SC 221 [3] 2005 (1) ALD 253 [4] AIR 1976 SC 376