IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6803 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ZUBIN CHERIAN ,S/O.ABRAHAM CHERIAN POLACKAL HOUSE, PALLAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA POST, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 6803 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 13, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a law student. He wants to register for the first semester examination. According to him there was shortage of attendance and he approached the 1st respondent with Ext.P1 for countersigning the application to be submitted to the University for condoning the absence. Petitioner's complaint is that the 1st respondent refused to countersign the application and therefore this writ petition has been filed praying for directing the 1st respondent to countersign Ext.P1 so as to enable the petitioner to complete the procedure and eventually appear for the first semester examination. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the last date for submitting the application was 8.2.2008 and as on that date, though there were 52 working days, the petitioner's attendance was only 21%. It is submitted that including the subsequent working days, there were classes on 77 days and the total attendance of the petitioner is 15.75%. Learned standing WP(C) 6803/08 Page numbers counsel for the University submits that the maximum that the University could condone is only 10% and even if such condonation was given, petitioner would not have secured the minimum requirement of 75%. According to the Government Pleader it is for this reason that the 1st respondent refused to countersign the application. 3. The above figures disclose a very sad situation where the petitioner has only 15.75% of attendance. I am satisfied that even if the principal had countersigned Ext.P1, petitioner would not have got sufficient attendance for appearing in the examination. In such a situation, the principal cannot be faulted for refusing to countersign Ext.P1. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-