IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23924 of 2009 Between: B. Rakesh Reddy … Petitioner And Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Srikanth Kaveti for Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23924 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioner is an engineering student of respondent No.1 College. He was not permitted to appear for the examinations of first semester of fourth year of the engineering course scheduled in October, 2009 on the ground that he has shortage of attendance. By proceedings dated 03.11.2009, the Principal of respondent No.1 College informed the petitioner that he is detained in the first semester of fourth year during the academic year 2009-10 due to shortage of attendance. The petitioner filed this writ petition in which this Court granted interim order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination by issuing hall-ticket with the direction to withhold the result. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the examination. The result is, however, not declared in view of the direction given by this Court. In response to the notice, the Registrar of respondent No.2 University filed a counter affidavit, wherein he inter alia stated that the petitioner was detained due to shortage of attendance and that he has put in only 52.4% attendance as against the requisite attendance of 75%. It is further stated that a student is required to put in a minimum attendance of 75% and the University has power to condone the shortage only up to 10%. At the hearing, Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned communication does not indicate the actual shortage of attendance. According to him, the petitioner has registered around 65% of attendance. The learned Standing counsel placed before the Court a statement signed by the Principal of respondent No.1 College, wherein it is shown that as against 402 classes held, the petitioner has attended 223 classes and that his overall percentage of attendance is 55.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out and in my view rightly the discrepancy between the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the statement of the Principal regarding the percentage of the attendance. In view of this discrepancy, respondent No.2 is directed to verify the actual percentage of attendance put in by the petitioner with reference to the registers maintained by respondent No.1 College. If it is found that the petitioner has put in minimum of 65% of attendance in the first semester of fourth year, his result shall be declared and he shall be promoted to the second semester. If, on the other hand, the records show that the petitioner has put in less than 65% of attendance, order dated 03.011.2009 of the Principal of respondent No.1 will stand confirmed notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has appeared in the first semester examinations on the strength of the permission granted by this Court. The above exercise shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by respondent No.1. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.31084 of 2009 and 4042 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.03.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC by 22.03.2010. ES