IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.50 OF 2010 Dt.01.2.2010 Between: Andhra University, Rep. by its Registrar Andhra University, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District … Appellant And Ayyagari Sreekanth and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.V. Raja Ram Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Srinivas Rao Velivela THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.50 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed against order dt.11.11.2009 in Writ Petition No.9196 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1. We have heard Sri M.V. Raja Raam, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 joined LL.B. course in the appellant university campus at Etcherla, Srikakulam District. After studying for two years in the said college, the appellant was transferred to M.R.V.R.G.R. College, respondent No.2 herein. He appeared in all the examinations and cleared all the subjects. When respondent No.1 applied for issuance of the provisional certificate, a communication was received by the Principal of respondent No.2 College from the Special Registrar & Controller of Examinations that as respondent No.1 fell short of the required attendance in the second and third semesters of LL.B. course, he is not qualified in the said semesters’ examinations and he has to repeat the said two semesters once again. Questioning the said communication, respondent No.1 filed the above mentioned Writ Petition, which, as noted above, was allowed by the learned Single Judge. At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that as respondent No.1 failed to fulfil the minimum attendance in second and third semesters’ examinations of LL. B. course, the appellant refused to issue the provisional certificate. The learned Single Judge in his order stated that the appellant having permitted respondent No.1 to appear for the examinations, is not justified in refusing to issue the provisional certificate on the purported ground of shortage of attendance. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that except stating that the candidates must have not less than 66% of attendance, it is not specifically averred in the counter affidavit as to the exact extent of shortage of attendance by respondent No.1. Having carefully gone through the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, we are entirely in agreement with him. Even assuming that respondent No.1 did not have the required attendance in the second and third semesters, he should not have been permitted to appear for the examinations or his result should not have been declared. Having declared the result of respondent No.1, it is not permissible for the appellant to withhold issue of the provisional certificate. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.135 of 2010, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01.02.2010 bnr