THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.508 of 2010 July 16, 2010 Between: Vanka Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o.Vanka Rajulu … Petitioner AND The Principal, Gokul PG College for MCA & MBA, Piridi, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.508 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appellant is student of M.B.A. She was admitted to first year course in the first respondent College on 17.9.2008. She appeared for the first semester and secured 76% attendance. She was promoted to second semester of first year. On the ground that she did not put up required 75% attendance she was not permitted to appear for the final examination of second semester. She therefore filed writ petition being W.P.No.15246 of 2009 seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent College in not calculating attendance properly. A consequential direction to permit her to appear for second semester examinations is also sought. By order dated 12.3.2010, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, present writ appeal is filed. Appellant contended that second semester classes commenced from 02.2.2009. On 21.2.2009, she attended classes but she was shown as absent and from 07th to 11th, 23rd, 24th and 25th of July 2009 also she was shown as absent. She therefore asserts that the first respondent committed mistake in calculating the attendance and on the day of the commencement of second semester examinations, she was informed about shortage of attendance and she was not allowed to second semester examinations. The writ petition was opposed by the first respondent. It was alleged that list of students who got less attendance was displayed on the notice board every month, that appellant’s name was also displayed and appellant had only 56.39% attendance, by reason of which she is not eligible for condonation of attendance. Considering the rival pleas, learned Single Judge concluded that the appellant is not entitled to appear for the second semester examinations and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The counsel for appellant submits that petitioner produced medical certificate which was not considered, that she was not put on notice and on the date of examination, she was informed about shortage of attendance and that calculation of attendance is not proper. Regulation 5 of JNTU Regulations reads as under. “5. Attendance:- (i) A student has to put in a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the 1st year and/or each semester thereafter. (ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester of 1st year may be granted by the college academic committee. (iii) A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/1st year. Note: (a) Shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. (b) Student whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/1st year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. They may seek readmission for that semester/1st year when offered next. (c) Condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 5(ii) above shall be granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence. (d) A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance”. A student requires minimum of 75% attendance in aggregate of all subjects for acquiring credits in the 1st year and each semester thereafter. However this has an exception. If a student puts in 65% and above and below 75% of attendance, the College Committee can condone the shortage of attendance. If a student does not satisfy the required attendance, he/she will not be promoted to next semester and shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. It is well settled that any Course Regulations have to be strictly interpreted. In Prasanth Kumar v JNTU[1], one of us (Justice V.V.S.Rao) referring to Maharshi Dayanand University v Dr.Anto Joseph[2] and K.Pradeep v Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad[3] made the following observations. It is well settled that the Regulations for a course have to be strictly interpreted. This is especially in relation to attendance. Regulation 5 requires 75% attendance and empowers condonation of shortage of attendance by the College Academic Committee in aggregate up to 10%. In other words, a student who has put in minimum of 65% of attendance on a proper application being made and paying the necessary fee can be allowed for sitting the examinations. If the attendance falls below 65%, no such indulgence can be shown. When the statutory power does not empower condonation, any writ of mandamus directing the authorities to permit the petitioner to appear for examination not withstanding the fact that he did not put in minimum 65% would amount to issuance of mandamus contrary to law. It also amounts to directing the authorities to act contrary to law. Such a writ cannot be issued. The counsel for appellant does not dispute legal position. He however submits that the appellant was not put on notice about the shortage of attendance. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission. Attendance Rule does not cast any obligation on the College but warns about shortage of attendance. When a student joins the Course, it is expected of him/her to know the Course Regulations and be prompt in fulfilling the requirements for completion of the Course. Further in Paragraph 5 of counter affidavit, the College categorically averred that every month the list of students who fell short of attendance was being displaced. Though in reply affidavit, the same is denied, we do not find strong reason to disagree with the contention of the College. When appellant fell short of attendance far below 65%, the question of condonation of attendance does not arise. The medical certificate produced before the Court pending writ petition would suggest that appellant underwent treatment for some time and from this an inference can be drawn that she did not have required attendance. In that view of the matter, the order of learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) __________________________________ (VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J) July 16, 2010 YS [1] 2003 (4) ALD553 = 2005 (1) ALT302 [2] (1998) 6 SCC 215 [3] 2002 (3) ALD 667 (DB)