THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11226 of 2010 Between: C. Tejavardhan PETITIONER And 1. Sri Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology & Science, rep. by its Principal, Chowdarpally (V), Mahabubnagar (D), 509204, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri R.R. Durga Prasad Counsel for the respondents: Sri Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner has approached this Court to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing hall ticket to him and consequently to permit him to appear in the 2nd year II Semester examination scheduled to be held in 10.05.2010 and to permit him to attend the classes for 3rd year I Semester course during the academic year 2010- 2011. Indisputably the petitioner was not issued the hall ticket on the ground that he did not have the requisite attendance. The 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has put up only 8% of attendance during the II Semester of 2nd year course. As per regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations a student should have a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the 1st year and / or each Semester 3rd year, permitting condonation of shortage of attendance up to 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each Semester or 1st year. It also says that a student will not be permitted to the next Semester unless she satisfies the attendance requirement of the present Semester / 1st year and shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate in no case be condoned. The impact of this regulation was examined by a learned Division Bench of this Court in B. Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College[1] wherein this Curt considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh[2] and on a judgment of this Court in M.S. Chakravarthi v. Principal, Sri Kalahasteeswara Institute of Technology[3], held that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the respondents to admit the student therein in 1st Semester examination of the 4th year and thereby violate the mandate of Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations. In the instant case, the petitioner, who has put only 8% of attendance, has not satisfied the said mandatory requirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the college has already collected the fees towards condonation of attendance. By merely collecting the condonation fees the petitioner is not entitled for condonation unless he falls within the margin of 10% of shortage of attendance. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 11.03.2011 passed in W.P.M.P.No.7846 of 2011 stands vacated. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th August, 2011. Js. [1] 2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.) [2] (1973) 2 SCC 298 [3] 2005 (2) ALT 184 (D.B.)