THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.10117 of 2011 Between: T. Divya PETITIONER And 1. The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Jalli Kanakaiah Counsel for the respondents: Sri K. Rathangapanireddy Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in not permitting her to appear B. Tech. (C.S.) 3rd year II Semester examination for the academic year 2010-2011 contending that she could not attend the classes on account of pregnancy. Admittedly, the petitioner put up 50% attendance in the II Semester of the 3rd 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner however seek to rely on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Nithya v. University of Madras and others[4] to contend that a female student, who was constrained to remain absent due to the pregnancy could be a valid reason for condoning the attendance. With great respect, I am unable to agree with the view expressed in the said judgment. As stated earlier the learned Division Bench has categorically held that in the light of the provisions of the regulations the students are not liable for condonation of delay falling below 65%. In the instant case, no doubt this Court by orders dated 18.04.2011 permitted the petitioner to appear for the II Semester examination of the 3rd year. Even if the petitioner has been permitted for the said examination, the same cannot be a ground to condone the shortage of attendance. The Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment has considered this aspect of the matter also. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 18.04.2011 stands vacated. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 24th August, 2011. Js. [1] 2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.) [2] (1973) 2 SCC 298 [3] 2005 (2) ALT 184 (D.B.) [4] AIR 1995 MADRAS 164