THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11483 of 2010 Dated 31st August, 2010 Between: C.T. Venkatesh …Petitioner And The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.R. Machavaram Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri G. Venkat Reddy for Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, standing counsel for JNTU The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not issuing hall ticket for appearing in B.Tech first year theory examinations commencing from 31.05.2010 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue hall ticket to enable him to appear for the examinations. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing respondent No.1 university. The petitioner is a student of B.Tech (E.E.E. branch) of respondent No.2 college affiliated to respondent No.1 university. During his first year B.Tech course pertaining to the academic year 2009-2010, he suffered huge shortage of attendance. Though he pleaded that the prescribed attendance is 70%, under Regulation No.6(2) of the Regulations framed by respondent No.1 university every candidate should possess a minimum of 75% attendance. On the petitioner’s own showing he has put in 52.80% of attendance. Regulation 6 envisages that the university can condone shortage of attendance to the extent of 10%, if it is satisfied that reasonable grounds existed for such shortage. From the admitted facts, the shortage of attendance was too high, which would be beyond the purview of respondent No.1 university to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner to condone the shortage of attendance. The only reason shown by the petitioner for the shortage is that on account of frequent bands and other impediments created on account of agitation for a separate Telangana State, he could not attend the college. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was physically prevented from attending the classes by the so-called agitators nor it is the case of the petitioner that all other students of the petitioner’s class also suffered similar shortage of attendance. So this is an obvious case where the petitioner sought to search for an excuse to cover up his default in attending the classes. A Division bench of this Court, to which I was a party, in B. Yugandhar vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College[1], while considering the extant regulation (The number of regulation is shown in the judgment as 5 instead of 6 by an obvious mistake) held that no one has the power to condone the shortage of attendance beyond 10% and therefore, this Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to permit a candidate to appear for examinations by condoning the shortage of attendance beyond 10%. In view of this settled legal position, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Even though the petitioner is stated to have appeared for the final examinations of first year, his results have not been declared on account of a direction contained in the interim order of this Court dated 19.05.2010. As the petitioner was not entitled to appear for the examinations, his results cannot be declared. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 19.05.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.14578 and 26698 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are dismissed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st August, 2010 GHN [1] 2008(2) ALT 529 (D.B.)